RationalWiki talk:Community Standards/Archive21

Proposed changes to community standards
See RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive100 for the situation that led to this proposal.

Block Policy
By the way I added something about vandal bins and indef bans; many times I had vandal binned someone only for another user to impose an indefinite ban, which defeats the point of a vandal bin.

Goat
Any other proposed changes? Agree with them? Disagree? Let me know. 19:47, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The original decision-making force on RationalWiki was the mob, or mobocracy. This was largely the rule of majority, or at least the rule of the wiki's more active individuals (a majority might not care about a particular issue, leaving louder and more persistent individuals freedom to do as they please in certain areas).
 * Longer term users were made into bureaucrats (crats), a rank above sysop. This was done on an arbitrary basis.
 * Eventually it was decided that this system did not work. Too much conflict (or HCM if we want to stick to RW slang).  So, one crat unilaterally removed everybody's crat rights. And shortly after, moderators were born.
 * Now there are two powers on RationalWiki. Moderators and the mob.  Moderators are meant to be the final arbiters of conflict on the wiki.  This great power is intended to be checked by elections, which are conducted by the mob.  This is known as "checks and balances." If Oxyaena disagrees with Ace McWicked's handling of the role of moderator, then they should simply vote against them.  AFAIK, Ace hasn't done anything as bad as the time he took away all the other moderator's powers, so I don't see the need for any sort of special election.  Just give it a rest until the next election, and then do your best to get people to vote against him if you don't like him or what he does- "Shut up, Brx." 20:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This has little to do with Oxy, and more with the specific way of rules lawyering that Ace has been using to defend his unblocking of a user that LGM blocked (and by extension a number of other currently active sysops, who generally use the same standard that got the user blocked to begin with) over the blocking policy. These changes, as they would be implemented now would make the written policy match our effective block policy when it comes to vandalism. BTW, this looks good to me at a first glance. Perhaps a mention may also be made somewhere of editors who don't blank the page, but replace the entirety of it's contents with one-word slurs, but otherwise no opposition to making this the new text (should probably still get a formal vote once we can do that though).  20:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree. If you don't like Ace's rules lawyering, vote him out.- "Shut up, Brx." 20:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So... we can't update our policy to make sure that our rules match the way we act on them? For the record, I don't want Ace gone, I'd rather deal with the underlying issues that make it hard to cooperate with Ace, in the hopes that it makes it easier to cooperate with Ace in the future, which in this case means updating our rules to match the effective policies used by active sysops and moderators.  20:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What's easier, updating policy or voting in the elections?- "Shut up, Brx." 20:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Changing policy to address the fact that this situation could even come up in the way it did to begin with would in my opinion be the more comprehensive, long-term solution to the issue. When our actions are x but our rules say y, we should probably work to make our rules say x, if making them say x is the right thing to do, which I am of the opinion of that it is the right thing to do in this situation. Voting against Ace is a separate matter that has to do with his specific conduct which has no effect on these changes beyond being the ground on which these changes are now being formally proposed. The issue at hand here goes beyond Ace, he's merely a good example of how our current written blocking policy needs to be modified to match our effective one. 21:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It sounds like a subset of page blanking, but will cover that. I will hold a vote on it, but not before any discussion. 20:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * He did what? Was that during this shit? Gunther8787 (talk) 20:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What's past is past, Gunther8787. 20:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No, that happened aftewards I believe. Although looking through that archive did remind me how frustratingly futile RationalWiki could be (probably still is).  People got short blocks for being trolls all the damn time, but if the blocker wasn't popular enough it could be easily undone.- "Shut up, Brx." 20:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. — Oxyaena Harass  20:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't there be a sentence or two about the purpose of block - to modify behavior to conform to Community Standards and not out of spite, vengeance, or an attempt to silence minority views? nobsFree Roger Stone!'' 21:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That is implicit in "Blocking should never occur if somebody is attempting to discuss an issue in a reasonable manner including civil, good-faith, constructive, detailed, specific dialogue." Bongolian (talk) 21:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Is it worth including an alternative procedure to vandal binning should the removal of that capability come to pass with the forthcoming system upgrade? Is it worth mentioning whitewashing as a form of disruption? The change looks acceptable to me. Bongolian (talk) 21:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Whitewashing falls under bad faith vandalism though some cases aren't as clear-cut. I should probably include it. Also if vandal binning is excluded from a system upgrade, then short term blocks with talk page access are proposed as an alternative. 22:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Changes are applied. 22:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I would like to take issue with an omission to the current updated standards. In my opinion, blocking immediately when someone disputes a page or when a drive by vandal tries to whitewash a page is too harsh, as there are other methods of dealing with such problems. 23:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ^Agree with GC. Also  but also leaving behind nonconstructive comments on a talk page. is so vague as to be pointless. If people want to waste their time talking BS on talkpages, who cares? Just ignore them. AceModerator 23:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah but again, it depends on how the whitewashing is done. It says when in doubt, just revert and see what happens after.
 * Ignoring is an option already mentioned. 00:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Non-constructive talkpage edits are a matter of opinion. Someone might be in a debate with another user only to come back to see that person has been blocked for leaving behind nonconstructive comments on a talk page. It's too vague and open to interpretation. AceModerator 00:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think we have a general good idea what a constructive comment is. Note "repeated" and "sysop discretion". You're looking way too deep into this. 00:47, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think I am looking to deep into this at all. It has edit warring all over it between users who disagree on whether or not a comment is non-constructive. I just don't understand why people freak out so much about talkpage comments when the can be easily ignored. Like adults do - like scrolling past youtube comments. AceModerator 01:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ace raises a good point. Two people are in a conversation. A third party thinks one user is being nonconstructive and blocks him. Can that 3rd party then be blocked for disruption? This sounds very CP'esque. Countless times I've been in the midst of good faith, constructive conversations only find the other editor blocked and oversighted. nobsFree Roger Stone!'' 04:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Why block vandals, Ace? You can just ignore them. 01:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So you equate someone blanking an entire page with scrolling past comments you don't wish to respond to? That's a weird comparison. AceModerator 01:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The intentions are the same. Yes. And also, I can undo their comments too, it's another way to tell people to fuck off. Undoing the reversion of that tells me you care more than you actually claim to care. 19:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I personally don't care what happens. Should a comment on how we're biased and paid by Soros be left there or not? Is someone wrong for removing it? Who cares. 01:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 2 things - people shouldn't be blocked for making a comment like your example and secondly you need to change the RW guide regarding talkpages and what constitutes removing comments. AceModerator 01:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, why are you using YouTube comments as an example of how RationalWiki talk pages should be like? 01:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If you are able to scroll past youtube comments (or any other comment section of a page or new story or the like) then you can use those same practices to scroll past comments you don't like on RW. AceModerator 01:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Literally the same applies to vandals. You literally can click an edit and undo that and be on your way. Why is bad faith trolling any different? And why do you want our talk pages to be like YouTube comment sections, those are documented cesspools. 19:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If you really can't see the difference in blanking a mainpage article and making annoying talkpage comments then I can't help you.
 * why do you want our talk pages to be like YouTube comment sections Yeah but I didn't say that did I. AceModerator 22:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I’d agree that ban evasion and serious harassment are grounds for an infinite block (providing there's good evidence). I’ll acknowledge that I probably use the block feature less than most mods (and most sysops for that matter) but I do have consistency when I do use it. Normally if it’s a new user or IP who hasn’t been blocked before I would impose the 9 hour block (especially in the case of IPs) then only give them longer-length blocks (days or weeks) if the problems continue after blocking. As for silly talk page messages I’d say probably just leave them, maybe collapse them or whatever. But I can’t see why it would be necessary to block someone just for screwing around on a talk page. --RWRW (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * But I can’t see why it would be necessary to block someone just for screwing around on a talk page. This happens a lot. AceModerator 22:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * My measurement for whether talk page fuckery is worth blocking is whether the owner of the talk page has asked the perpetrator to stop. If it's just harmless fun between two people, then no problem. If it's intentional annoyance or harassment, then that could be more serious. 16:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I was thinking more of article talkpages and project pages. But yeah if it's a user's talkpage and they've asked the poster to stop, then the poster should stop. --RWRW (talk) 16:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have a suggestion- if there is a major violation of the rules, have a court of law in a private chat section. Again, only a suggestion. --Racia zombio94 (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You mean like a channel in one of the two Discord servers? 22:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, no, no, no. Pushing dispute resolution to a private system off-wiki is an absolutely terrible idea. It goes against everything that this wiki stands for. If you want to make people abandon the project, a great way to do it is by advocating private off-wiki conversations dealing with community matters. Cosmikdebris (talk) 23:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ^100% agree. AceModerator 23:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm also completely opposed to formal RW dispute resolution on Discord or other non-RW platforms. If two sysops want to work out their differences elsewhere, that's their own business. Bongolian (talk) 00:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Some conflicts do get discussed on the official Discords though, just an fyi. 00:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If any of the conflicts are due to moderation/moderators then they should 100% not be in a secondary location. Or of the conflict is between two people - one of whom is not aware there has been discussion about it off-site then that is also shitty way to deal with things. AceModerator 00:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The discord channels are fine for discussing things but they are not officially sanctioned by the RationalMedia Foundation and should never be considered as an official source for anything that happens within this community. Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We usually go on there to discuss content disputes but grievances are vented there, I will admit. 01:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Bitching is one thing but any type of community decision, moderator grievances or policy discussions should be handled on site. AceModerator 01:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I gauge opinion and suggestions there but I do try my best to relay my opinion on there to here. 01:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well it'd be totally antithetical to RW's ethos to have policy discussions elsewhere, away from the mob. Not to mention really fucking shady. AceModerator 02:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * IMO the community standards are fine. The issue is who's enforcing and interpreting them.  You can change the standards but you can't change RationalWikians-- "Shut up, Brx." 07:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with you here Ace. You can't stop people from talking wherever they want to talk. Furthermore, Discord is open to anyone who cares to join. As long as decisions are made on RW based on discussions held on RW, I don't see how Discord matters. Bongolian (talk) 04:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought I made it pretty clear that I was addressing RW policy, moderator complaints and community decisions taken offsite. I don't give a fuck if people are bitching about users or RW in general offsite. AceModerator 04:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought you were arguing against what LGM said she does, which did not seem to imply going beyond discussion. Bongolian (talk) 05:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No no, I don't give a fuck if people spend their whole day complaining what a drunken, morbid, misanthropic jackass I am on their own time - I was suggesting that policy and community discussions should be done in full view of the mob - not offiste. AceModerator 05:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * IMO any and all moderative actions taken by sysops/mods should be justifiable by citable on-site policy and discussion on site policies should also take place on the site. The discord communities are completely separated from that (hell, last I checked several regular sysops here are banned from ratcord so like, doing that would be really weird since you'd be excluding editors who might have valuable input). 08:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Assume good faith, however, so when in doubt, leave them or respond
Now this is something I have been trying remedy. People are far to quick to block over things that could be resolved via a user talkpage comment. Just today someone removed a bunch of categories which I reverted before going to the new user to advise they take it to the talkpage when making changes like that. The user didn't do it again, there was no block or vandal binning. Just a quick word was all the was needed. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind if Oxy or someone similar saw the edit it would have been an immediate block. I have been saying the same thing for awhile now - block now, talk later has been far too common. AceModerator 07:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think a revert or an edit summary should tell people enough that their edit is bad, I dunno. If they continue, they're not listening. 1-9 hours block is absolute minimum and even 9 is pushing it. 07:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Not at all because some people have very poor wiki skills and may not even see the edit summary. Take it to their talkpage. Why wouldn't you? Afraid of actually talking so take the lazy way out? AceModerator 07:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "Assume good faith" is always a good idea. Be it in RW or elsewhere.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I would somewhat disagree and say that depends on how someone reverts an edit. If they use the one-click "Undo" or "Rollback" functions, the last edit reason is right next to the link and hard to miss outside of an occasional quirk of formatting. If they go back and manually type/paste in their edits, then I could see where you're coming from. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 17:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Notes to vandals
I know this is in the original, but I think it's a mistake. Part of the text reads: "we'd be more inclined to treat you nicely if, after insulting RationalWiki and everything it stands for, you gave a little praise to the Sky Goat."

But the CS's are an an instruction to mods, not to Vandals - who in any event are not going to read it. So if anything I should read "Be more forgiving to vandals who mention the goat". But I think that the goat joke may have passed its time and the passage should probably be removed.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah. It should go the same way as the "unfunny vandalism" block reason, which was based on the idea that there's such a thing as funny vandalism. Something I have not seen once in my seven years here. Spud (talk) 11:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The rules, however, should not be strictly adhered ro ...
I think this section at the end is a little too vague. I understand why it has been suggested but I am not sure that it will not simply add to the conflict it wishes to eliminate. It reads:

"The rules, however, should not be strictly adhered to, and contesting otherwise uncontroversial bans only because they are not outlined in the rules is not recommended, as they sow unnecessary discord and can be a source of attention given to the troll."

I am not sure what would or could be included in "otherwise uncontroversial bans" and, presumably, if they were reverted they would become controversial. As I said, I understand the objective - but I can't think of a less ambiguous alternative wording at the moment.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:47, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * But look, Bob, this started because I reverted a vandal-binning of a non-vandal and that user was then infinitely blocked for block evasion which was clearly not the case and obviously made-up on the spot to justify the ban. I don't know why people have completely ignored the fact that neither the ban nor the binning was valid. Even under LGM's new proposal it wouldn't have been valid so it absolutely isn't contesting otherwise uncontroversial bans because the reasoning behind it was controversial. Why is no attention being made to the people who block for ban evasion so frequently and used it in cases as a justification - not based on fact. It is controversial and should be questioned. AceModerator 08:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Ace. I really don't want to get into individual past instances, but it would probably be a good idea for all our CS's to be reviewed from time to time to ensure that they good fit for whatever direction the wiki is going.
 * What I'm asking is that any such revisions (if they occur) should be as unambiguous as possible. For that matter I am not suggesting that they are ambiguous now - I am just suggesting that adding ambiguity in any new proposals would not be a good idea.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I respect you Bob, you've always had the best intentions for RW and I got to summer holiday at your place all those years ago. AceModerator 09:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That place still exists - though it's no longer under my management.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Human judgement exists, you know. — Oxyaena Harass  09:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Yes I do know. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not re-litigating this with you Oxy. In this instance you clearly lied about it being a block evasion to justify the ban. AceModerator 09:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll just put it out here at least then: From my perspective, the suggest changes would cover the current situation. The user in question was inserting links to Conservapedia in mainspace and engaging in trolling on the talk for WIGO CP, the latter of whom would constitute a short term block under our proposed guidelines, but not under our existing ones. This in fact, should also benefit you since as is, your change of the block into a short term one wouldn't match our existing blocking policy anyway. I also am not opposed to at least wanting some form of more solid proof for ban evading users (perhaps a different proposal to cover this would be useful), since I do think that "ban evasion" as is, is rather ambiguous, unless it's clear that it's an evading user. Perhaps requiring some form of evidence in the block reason (ie. link to the diff in which they admit it or a log of evasions with proof) would be useful there, but that would have to be a different proposal. 09:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ban evasion is used with the justification Human judgement exists. That's not really enough except in really obvious cases. It is used far far too often. AceModerator 09:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Then create a proposal to our guidelines that assists in making sure that the reason gets applied correctly. I for one do agree with you that our current application of the "Ban evasion" reason is excessive, and if we are going to have to use that reason for less obvious cases (which since well, it's ban evasion, that's going to occur), a proposal to take that into account would be more useful rather than complaining that people overuse the reason. Basically, try to fix the root of the issue (ban evasion is as is our most ambiguously applicable block reason) rather than the effect (sysops use ban evasion to justify arbitrary blocks). 09:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * My proposal would be it is only applied when it can be justified with diff links or the like if asked for evidence. Otherwise use another reason and if you can't find another reason then are you really making a valid block?. AceModerator 09:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Not bad in and of itself, but it would mean that we still only have the evidence after the fact, which places an additional burden on an auditing sysop/moderator to possibly have to end up reversing a block on a user. My proposal on this, if it would ever be suggested would be that unless it's extremely clear that it's the same user (ie. a series of alts that were created shortly after each other and are the same handle with slightly different unicode characters like I saw two weeks ago I think?), that we keep a page of difflinks/evidence that a user is a ban evader (possible ideas: an RW page or a subpage on their original account). That places the burden of using ban evasion as a reason on the sysop and to provide proof as it occurs, rather than after the fact. 09:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes the burden must be on the blocker. Sorry I am not being as helpful as I could be - I'm unwell and on a lot of oxycodone and whisky so mind moving slow. AceModerator 10:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps more of a "these guidelines are not conclusive, and when contesting a block purely because the rules do not cover them, take a moment to consider whether you're righting a wrong or if you're only causing drama for the sake of it. Doing the latter might be feeding the trolls instead." That does need a better wording, but as a general basis it does make sense and is perhaps more clear in the matter. Maybe also make mention somewhere that not every change from a permanent block into a temporary one needs the sysop/moderator that issued a permanent block to be yelled at. Sometimes it's easier to just clean up a mess without notifying anyone. Only if the sysop/moderator has a pattern of excessive permanent blocks that should have been temporary/should not have been blocked to begin with would demand a situation where you yell at the issuing sysop/moderator. Basically, don't yell for every incorrectly arranged stone if it's just easier to just rearrange the stone. 09:17, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd say that's better but I'm not sure about " ... if you're only causing drama for the sake of it". Maybe "consider your motivations" or something like that.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * How about: "These guidelines are not conclusive, and when contesting a block purely because the rules do not cover them, take a moment to consider whether you're righting a wrong and consider your motivations for doing so. You might be feeding the trolls more than you actually end up righting a wrong." 09:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Though now I think about it, if we are talking about motivations, then we should probably put something up front for the original blocker suggesting that they consider their motivations too.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I forgot to mention that wording would be good for me.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Assume good faith is currently a mention in the list of short term block reasons, and I agree that it could be forefronted a bit more in both the mention on CS and the Blocking Policy itself. The big bold warning to not block people just because they disagree with you is I think adequate as is, which would cover the desire to assume good faith on the original blocker's end. 09:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thinking some more - if we have "assume good faith" front and center for the blocking reasons - and also for block reversals that would be a good way to frame it.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 12:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

One of the problems we have here is that, when these were set up initially (from memory), we had various proposals of each paragraph which were analysed, re-written various times and voted on various times. Here we have a relatively large block of text taken as a single item.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I have never been concerned about blocking users. I really don't care about how that practice is regulated except in this sense: is useful opinion being kept out? Are the prejudices of certain editors creating a biased user group? Well I am not claiming that is the case. But it could easily be so. Therefore, reducing the period of a block should be a sanctioned procedure. If a sysops disagrees with a reduced block they should appeal to a moderator. I want moderators to moderate, not appoint subalterns to do the work they should do themselves, that is, keep the interaction between regular and irregular users ongoing and coherent. There should be a rule against raising a block time after it has been reduced, unless a discussion has been had or a moderator has made a determination. It is unclear to me if this set of rules solves anything beyond establishing that the rules need not be followed. Ariel31459 (talk) 16:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should very rarely be in the position of blocking people for opinions, but blocking people whose only interest is messing up pages should not require much debate.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The more detailed and longer the standards are, the more it opens up possibilities for 'lawyering', i.e., dickering over interpretation over what it means for the the circumstances at hand. It's better to keep to what's important and to keep it concise. Bongolian (talk) 18:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Good point. How about this: block for any reason you think is applicable. If your block is reduced, see moderator. That'll do it.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The answer to "the rules shouldn't be too complicated" shouldn't mean "the rules should be 'fuck you I'm right, and if you think I'm wrong talk to my manager'". That's the kinda moderation policy a site like CP effectively has. 19:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. It really doesn't matter, unless two people disagree over the length of a block. Ace might have been any sysops doing the same thing to Oxyaena. You can pass these rules, and unless you take away his mop Ace is within his rights to do the same thing if he disagrees with the evidence given for the severity of the block, unless a moderator tells him to back off. You then have the system I have suggested.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't get worked up about contesting blocks for non-Sysops. If someone wants to complain about 1-hour vs. 3-day block, or 3-week vs. 3-month block, they should go to a different wiki and edit. Complaining to a moderator about such nitpickery should not in my view get the complainer very far. Bongolian (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * How many times am I going to have to repeat, these proposed suggestions are unrelated to either Ace or Oxy (nevermind the fact that Oxy is unrelated to this beyond cooping Ace). They're to bring our written policy in line with our effective one. It's not to accomodate for Ace specifically, nor is it to accomodate for Oxy specifically. It's to make it clear to new sysops (and existing ones who aren't super active) what our policies with blocking are. Ace can do what he wants to do, it's just that as the blocking policy currently is written, neither Ace's position nor LGMs position held much water because according to our current policy, the user shouldn't have received a block to begin with, which is an issue given how the user in question was being a malicious disruptive editor by uh... basic sanity? The current proposal would expand/clarify this issue so there's no confusion for it (and also fix some real weird eyerollers like how an offensive username is merely a shortterm block instead of an indef one). It might have come from a specific incident between Ace and LGM that was dragged into the coop, but the proposal as is should be seen as separate from that incident. 20:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Correct, this discussion was specifically moved here to try to disentangle it from the coop case. Bongolian (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Is that what you said when Oxy complained then? "Go to another wiki?" Ariel31459 (talk) 20:17, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

This statement does not pertain to anyone specifically: As a moderator, I try to be deferential. As a sysop, arguing over block length is not the hill that I want to die on. If it's the hill that someone else wants to die on, then perhaps this is the wrong wiki for them. Bongolian (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I cannot disagree. Ariel31459 (talk) 21:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

What?
I have no idea what this means:

CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 21:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it revokes the second law of thermodynamics.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In other words, if someone blocks a troll for like 1 week, you probably shouldn't unblock and say "the rules didn't say block for a week". 01:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It is fairly odd wording, and is itself likely to cause dispute.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * It looks like something right out of the Chinese Communist Party playbook. nobsFree Roger Stone!'' 05:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You're funny Rob - you know that CP has been stamping out dissent in complete violation of the rules/"commandments" for over a decade now, right? It looks like something right out of the Chinese Communist Party playbook. AceModerator 05:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * CP doesn't have rule that social order is more important than a global pandemic or a pleasant editing environment. nobsFree Roger Stone!'' 06:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What the fuck are you talking about? No social order? Are you fucking freebasing? People have to pay fealty to the great Andy and his minions - CP has a distinct social order - agree with us or fuck off and rules be damned. AceModerator 06:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In fact CP is much like the Chinese Communist Party - the leader is all knowing and beyond question, the party line must be adhered to at all times, users are tracked and dissenters thrown out. Amazing Rob, you have no sense of irony. AceModerator 06:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That may true, but is that a reason for RW to adopt CCP and CPesque rules as well, embalming "preventing social disorder is more important than following rules" into Community Standards? nobsFree Roger Stone!'' 12:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Ah thanks. May I suggest instead something like:


 * CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 14:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem is that there is still enormous scope for interpretation. In principle blocks should be a last resort - not a first.  For example how should the others react to a sysop blocking for minor errors which they interpreted as vandalism?  The block might well have been placed in good faith, but in such a case would have been in error.  I'm also not sure I like the "punitive actions" idea.  In theory we should be reaching out to people who make mistakes - nor, in the hypothetical  example I have given - punishing them.  As I mentioned previously - both those issuing blocks and those reviewing them should be starting from "assume good faith".Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a separate discussion going on in other topics. I'm only concerned about the basic ability to understand the text. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've reworded the part. See if you can understand better. 23:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Much better, thanks! CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 03:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The problem I am finding with this thus far...
...There has been very little input by other members of the RW community. It's a pretty large wholesale change on suggestion here but it is the same voices. So I feel uncomfortable with it as it stands because of this. Does anyone else feel the same way or is it just me with this shit clanging around in my head? AceModerator 10:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There's an announcement above every page right now. People can come in with their suggestions/views if they want to. The silence is probably indicative of either people being okay with it, not having an opinion on it or feeling that their opinion as is, is better being represented by someone else. Unless you have better ways to get people to show up here, I don't really know what else we could do to get more people engaged with it. 10:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't have any better ideas unfortunately - it just seems like apathy which is something I haven't seen on RW. Jesus - people used to weight in on everything but that was during a growth phase/growing pain phase I suppose. AceModerator 10:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * When we come to vote it is possible that the result will be "change nothing". If people are really unmotivated then the default would obviously be "no change".  But I would also like to see more community input and - given the heat generated by recent debates over blocking and unblocking - I am surprised by this apparent lack of engagement.  Nevertheless, if the result is "no change" the argument that the Community Policies are out of date will no longer be valid as they will ahve been validated by this process.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 11:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't really take much issue with the process or policy changes themselves to be honest, I'll still revert blocks I think are totally out of line (mostly block evasion or the shoot first, questions later that some like to use) I just hope that when this process is over the people voting aren't just the same 8 - 10 people who have conversed on it here. AceModerator 11:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * When you have vandals with clear, repeat editing patterns those blocks aren't out of line. — Oxyaena Harass  11:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Have you still not learned after all this gibberish to perhaps just stay the fuck away from me? I'm more than happy to leave you alone - as I said above, and I quote - I'm not re-litigating this with you. Run along and find someone else to bother. AceModerator 11:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess we should do two things. First of all put up a vote to simply answer the question "Would you like to see some changes in the blocking policies?" And only if that vote is "yes" then go through line by line votes on the individual changes.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 11:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I suppose the danger there is that people might have a completely different idea and vote to loosen block policies they think are being over done (again with the heavy blocks for small transgressions as an example) then we'd have to start over however I don't see any better way to do it. I still believe most blocks could be avoided by simply talking to a new user first. If they ignore you then fine but we should all be a bit more welcoming and a little less block heavy in my opinion. But perhaps that is a different conversation. AceModerator 11:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The blocks being discussed in this case are not one new users. They are on repeat trolls and counter-missional actors such as Morris and Ken. 15:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually no. We are talking about blocking policy in general. Perhaps we need a special line in respect of the cases you mention.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow Summa, you are giving Ken waaaaay to much credit. He was here for a day and I’m pretty sure most of us are adult enough to deal with his idiocy without freaking out about it. AceModerator 18:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * He's not the problem; you are by preventing action being taken against him. He might have only been there for a day last time, but he's obviously been a damaging influence in the past. 19:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have been part of RationalWiki for 12 years and Ken has never been a problem. AceModerator|
 * You have a very narrow definition of "problem" that notably excludes serial harassers such as Morris. If you had your way, they would be enfranchised here, and have the opportunity to scheme together to undermine us. 22:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Why are you talking about Morris? You told me Ken had obviously been a problem in the past hence blocking him was valid. Ken has had an account on RW since the very beginning and has never been an problem. AceModerator 22:49, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

It's very clear to me that the policy still needs to change over having ban evasion and impersonation listed as short term block reasons while we went a long time having "interfering with a conversation" as a short-term block reason, which is even more vague and less seemingly reasonable. If you're a nonselective rules-lawyer, that's bound to cause more headache than it's supposed to. 21:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I’m pretty fine with LGM’s proposed changes. I think I’ve already said that, so I haven’t said much else. 23:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So am I. Spud (talk) 00:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with the proposed changes and think it's time for a simple yes/no vote. Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * interfering with a conversation should never be a reason for a block. AceModerator 01:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That was in the original guidelines, so I removed that one all together. 01:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Somewhat on topic, may I ask what happens if the actual vote is judged as not attracting enough interest to represent the community consensus? Does this just get tabled?-Flandres (talk) 01:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * How many votes do you think it'll be to indicate not enough interest? 01:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Since concerns have been expressed that you do not have a lot of people participating here for such a critical hot-button topic, we probably need more people than the regulars in this specific conservation(not that this helps you that much, sorry). I imagine a lot of users are tuning this out because it had its origins in one of those "petty political disagreements that turn into personal rivalries" conversations that people on the saloon have been complaining about so much lately, and that just kills interest because a important reform goal becomes "Oh, NOT ANOTHER ONE!" If Bob noted this is getting a small amount of traffic for a much debated issue it is because "Blocking Reform" is really just a proxy for other quarrels.-Flandres (talk) 01:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Meh, the mob has been notified with the system-wide notice. If the mob does not care, so be it. If the mobe decides at some point in time that they should have cared, they can get out the pitchforks and torches and demand another vote. Bongolian (talk) 01:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, another vote can be demanded later if something goes wrong? I didn't know that, so that solves my question.-Flandres (talk) 01:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the mob of sysops always rules here. Moderators are more like occasional referees. Bongolian (talk) 01:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So what this new policy says is, if editor B has an emotional reaction to editor A's posting, editor A can be accused of sowing disorder. nobsFree Roger Stone!'' 15:43, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I think I speak for multiple users here when I say...
...double goat. Shabi DOO  21:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Is the conversation too long and cumbersome? I need the comment. 22:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Bleat bleaaaaaaat bleat bleat bleeeeeeeeeeeeat Shabi  DOO  11:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Time to hold a vote
Okay here goes nothing. 01:11, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Remember if you don't like the vote and the changes after the vote is done and assuming the proposal passes you can always complain to the front desk. :O}) 02:08, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Change the guidelines

 * 1) Well, I did propose this.
 * Yes, this should clarify blocking procedure, and hopefully reduce blocking disputes. I would further like to add that blocking non-sysops for any length of time is barely a punishment as they can always come back under a different name with different (hopefully better) behavior. Bongolian (talk) 01:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, and thank you for the time and effort spent herding the cats in the mob doing this. Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Please. 01:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Worthy changes. Communist China, here we come! 02:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Seems worthy. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 03:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) They've been brainstormed pretty thoroughly and bring our written policy in-line with our effective one. I say go ahead. 05:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 5) Yes. Spud (talk) 07:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 6) — Oxyaena  Harass  08:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 7) Gunther8787 (talk) 08:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 8) OK. Let's see how it flies.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 9) Sure--Delibirda the Annoying Grammar Nazi (talk) 10:34, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 10) I'm torn between yes and goat, leaning slightly towards yes  Shabi  DOO  11:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 11) A welcome change. Full support. 14:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 12) As long as we don't start shooting on sight I'm fine with it.  16:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This isn't the US Police Department we're talking about. Gunther8787 (talk) 16:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You've got a point. — Oxyaena Harass  18:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Hmm? Yeah, looks good. RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:34, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Everything looks good to me. StrangerCoug (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Seems decent ^.^ (dunno if i have enough edits to count because a lot of my edits are userboxes and discussion, feel free to delete this if I can't vote nya) ⏣sapient_cogbag⏣ [all-lowercase name pls]  talk  05:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Do not change

 * 1) RationalWiki's law is the mob-- "Shut up, Brx." 04:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) spambots and advertising accounts should not be indef blocked. Solid evidence is rarely available for blocking new registrations of banned users. Trolling talk pages is extremely subjective and should be better defined. In principle yes but I'm unhappy with the details. EK (talk) 00:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) This policy proposal is, charitably, not very well drafted. Your blocking policy should be clear and promote consistent outcomes and expectations that match them, not subjective determinations and the fantasy that a few bullies agreeing on a block ought to make it ok. As a drafting exercise, you might consider picking a dozen clearly undesirable blocks and contemplate what specific changes to policy or enforcement could have prevented them. Also pick clearly appropriate blocks and see if your proposed policy would make the path toward achieving them shorter or longer. I realize it's an attractive fallback, but it's just not true that any idea is better than no idea. This proposal should have been discussed more before someone slapped up a voting section. The headings aren't even accurate. The negative option shouldn't be "don't change", but rather "do not adopt this proposal", because you do need a blocking policy revamp. Desperately. Just not this one. It wouldn't even prevent the patently dishonest ban that prompted the proposal. If you really want to cut down on bogus blocks, block stats reflect that there is a very short list of people who shouldn't have escalated user rights in the first place. Nutty Roux (talk) 23:14, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The issue of accused ban evasion is a really hairy one especially given that we have so little of what we have to even support it. I disagree that the changes will not prevent that particular bad ban: the policy addresses the problem of questionable "ban evasion" accusations. "Ban evasion" wasn't specified earlier so there was an attempt to address this. On the other hand "a few bullies agreeing on a block" contradicts the whole mob mentality we're supposed to be promoting, and I'd argue that trying to achieve consistent outcomes will be difficult with any set of rules proposed. I don't see this criticism as being useful when we have to rely on consensus from the community to agree with, which the proposed rules do reflect. There's a caveat to rules trying to cover everything and be precise; context changes from case to case (i.e. whitewashing Hitler's page would be far less acceptable than whitewashing on Dave Rubin's page; whitewashing alternative medicine to remove the POV out of a possible misunderstanding to the policy while whitewashing of a known racialist pseudoscientist grants far less benefit of doubt) and so I've thought about hypothetical cases myself where whitewashing can entail in short-term, white-washing can be longer-term, depends on the subject BUT on most cases it shouldn't be. The undesirable blocks I've seen inappropriate blocking for whitewashing (the proposal clearly prioritizes reverting and leaving a message on the talk page but there is a case-by-case extent to these things). I've seen inappropriate reverts for disruptive talk page comments but they're another subject. I believe the framework is there and likely incomplete but I rather we adopt this one rather than leave the current one, and I don't believe the framework is horrendously flawed. It might need clarifications and rewording and additions to specify which cases but I see no need to overhaul and I don't want to go too deep into specifics because that'll make guidelines too long and overwhelming. 00:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Why is it that so many absentee old-timers come out of the woodwork whenever something they don't like comes up. — Oxyaena Harass  01:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The "old timers," active or not, still obviously care about RationalWiki and its mission, and we should welcome their input. Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I will have to admit the timing always seems off to me, but that's just me. 01:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * These "old Timers" as you put it (including myself) have just as much right to give input regardless of status. Don't forget old timers like myself, BobM, Nutty etc created much of this site and built it from the ground up. AceModerator 02:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I really think we need more than 10 or 12 votes for this

 * 1) AceModerator 01:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Due diligence has been done with debate and by putting up a system-wide notice. There's no rule on minimum number of voters that I'm aware of. We can keep the notice and the vote open longer than normal if you would find that more acceptable. Bongolian (talk) 01:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Can we close this vote,, or would you like to keep it open a bit longer? Bongolian (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think RW has that many active users left anyways-- "Shut up, Brx." 04:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't tell Ken that - he'll declare atheism to be dead and defeated. AceModerator 04:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It'd be the first orgasm since he's had since he masturbated to old photos of Chuck Norris last Monday-- "Shut up, Brx." 04:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We have nothing to lose keeping the vote open for another 24 hours. The whole discussion and vote process was fairly lightning fast. Shabi  DOO  20:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I was a part of a community that keeps votes like this open for a week or two. 21:07, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no problem keeping the vote open longer to keep people satisfied. Bongolian (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I really would have liked to have seen some more participation. From past experience this was typically one of the most contentious guidelines to create and of late it has been one of the most difficult to implement. Nevertheless I guess there are fewer users now and those who are here are less invested in site governance policies. I would be inclined to leave the vote up for a few days longer in case someone comes late to the party. Though I can't see the vote being overturned.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * honestly, I don't feel the new guidelines are a massive departure. I don't tend to do any blocking myself and it seems to be the same group of people doing the blocking (has any one looked at this Edit filter fella? seems obsessed with blocks) and quite honestly, unless the chap blocked had made a some kind of effort at dialogue on a talk page or saloon bar and thus some discussion if inappropriate is right there, blocking just doesnt register. majority seem mostly 1 line insertions of nonsense, and they are blocked as soon as they appear. the everyone is morris thing I noted so maybe that's sorted? there always seems to some user who someone is claiming is some other banned user, either a particular long standing blocked user - appears to a be couple, or some recently blocked fucknut, ending a longing period of tyranny. always looks a little paranoid.
 * so yeh, blocks only really pique my interest if especially egregious, and guidelines often a bit less useful then. the mundanity of the bread and butter blocks could be hiding a terrible secret but I'm likely not looking. it all seem largely the same group doing all the blocks anyhow, some with more, lets say enthusiasm, than others, and reviewing the application of block policy seems like a mod thing. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Final comment
One thing I have noticed since I was back from a few years hiatus was that instead of people welcoming new users the attitude here is now far less welcoming. People are more given to seeing a new account created and waiting to block as oppose to inform, welcome and explain what makes RW different. When was the last time someone, aside from me, saw and new editor make a change that was unacceptable and instead of blocking actually went to their talkpage to discuss? You know the welcome template has links to all the comm standards and policies right? If you are blocking someone for 3 days on sight for making an edit you haven't even given them the opportunity to view our guidelines. And that's bullshit. AceModerator 01:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've accommodated newer users before. And I've left a simple note on someone that plagiarized for intents I don't know but I assumed good faith but the user ignored me and repeated the edit and that's when I vandal-binned. I don't think there's a need to show a welcome template for someone that plagiarizes. This one, I didn't ban but left unwelcome for sharing anti-vaxxer views. Back in January, there's an accusation where someone vandalized a page and I said no. It's unfortunate I probably wasn't around for whatever scenarios you had in mind, but just an example. 02:07, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The more I listen to LGM, the more she sounds just like Ken. nobsFree Roger Stone!'' 07:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * [[File:Mario Huh.png]] 07:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Nobsie, have you forgotten to take your pills again? You know that the nurses in your insane asylum retirement home don't like that. Gunther8787 (talk) 09:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Pills? I'm a critic of Big Pharma. I prefer the holistic approach to cure insanity. nobsFree Roger Stone!'' 15:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The best way to deal with mild insanity is to bash your head against any surface the moon is shining on, three times, and then throw a hundred expensive resonant-wands in the air raining down their costly do-goodery on your brain or mind or whatever. It's guaranteed to work or your money partially back in some states/countries Shabi  DOO  15:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Can we please not be casually ableist here. — Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  17:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm generally off my meds. And also you can be a weird jerk without having to be in an asylum. 18:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Time...
To close the vote and adopt the new rules. There is a clear consensus. Also...why did the chicken cross the road? Shabi DOO  18:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. Do you agree, ? Bongolian (talk) 18:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yup. I believe it's enough of a wait. 18:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)