RationalWiki:Community Standards/Revamp, June 2010

'''The following discussions for revamping the Community Standards are effectively over. Please do not add to any of the discussions here, or on the other pages involved in the rewrite. Any further comments or suggestions regarding the standards should be raised on the Community Standards talk page.'''

Revamp, June 2010
Following the mess of conversation here, I have decided to try an forge some kind of consensus on the major issues by doing a mini-revamp of the sections in contention.

The discussion is divided by subject, to allow for individual issues to be addressed one at a time.

Because the revamped version on the right is being constantly revised, to avoid confusion please make a note that you have changed the text in the relevant discussion section.

Happy fighting. 10:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Vandal bin discussion
The main point of contention with the vandal bin seems to be the fact that we are indefinitely binning people, including non-vandals, and they still shit all over the place twice an hour. Are we better off just blocking for short times like before? Is the bin working? Or is this system all good? 08:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The vandal bin is for vandals. People damaging my wiki - not your ego. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 13:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the vandal bin is only useful with accounts. With IPs, as the troll said, we end up imposing an odd limit on the poor random guy who may be picking up the IP address in six months time. 1-9 hours block for trolls/spammers, vandal bin only for accounts? ConcernedResident  omg ponies!!! 09:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That seems fairly reasonable. 10:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So the bin will be used if and only if the vandal has an account? Seems pointless. Just make a new account or don't log in. Vandalism should be responded to with IP bans of increasing lengths. Fuck the bin. Maybe keep it around as an historical artifact, but never use it. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 14:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Bin is good. It gives supposed vandals a way to appeal against being called vandals without letting them wreck the place. Only the most determined people will bother to keep making new accounts, and there's probably no way to get rid of them anyway except waiting for them to grow up. Don't indefinitely bin IPs though - a short block might be better.-- 15:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Or maybe binned IPs could see a message saying 'if you're binned and don't know why, someone else might have vandalised from your IP. Please post in such and such a place to get this sorted out'.-- 15:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * How often does that happen? How hard is it to make a case that you're just a noob and not a vandals whether or not you're blocked or in the bin? I think the bin is pointless and infuriating. It fails to address the 2x per hour shits that persistent people take on the wiki, which are enough to send some of us into hysterics, and I'm otherwise unaware of a single good faith editor contesting being binned (I'm not saying it doesn't happen). IP blocks are fine as long as email isn't disabled and the blockees can edit their IP talk pages. ÑR /Señor Admin/Hablar 18:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The bin seems like a way of saying "see we don't block", but achieving a similar effect. The problem it is less effective way of dealing with persistent trouble makers. 01:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say that it's more or less effective, it's about the same. If someone is keen to piss us about, they'll find ways around it. If it's a spam bot, there's thousands more that will replace them. Therefore both methods kind of suck, and are at best damage limitation. I don't think either solution is particularly effective long-term.  01:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I vote "damage limitation" become our motto. Seems the best way to sum up a system that can never work perfectly without losing its meaning yet can't be allowed to fall apart.  ConcernedResident  omg ponies!!! 02:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't remember, is there a time limit on the vandal bin? 02:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is. I checked someone I know has been in there a while, and it's at least four months based on them. ConcernedResident  omg ponies!!! 02:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That is the problem, we might as well be handing out indefinite blocks for all the difference it makes. Once in, unless paroled, there they remain. At least blocks expire. 02:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Would it be possible to reconfigure the bandal vin so that you can pick a timeframe like with blocking? E.g. bandal vinning a BoN for a month would negate the problem of leaving of that IP - which might later be somebody else's - permanently in the bin.   12:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be the obvious thing to do ... but Nx has no interest in extending the vandal bin extension to do this. (I'd like to see it too, I think a timed vandal bin is a great idea and I'd like to see it used on Wikipedia instead of blanket blocks of e.g. schools and universities.) - David Gerard (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like to see two things added to the vandal bin, the time out and a variable edit rate. I don't know how keen Nx is to do this; I think it would require widespread support first. 04:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * These are great ideas, and I thoroughly approve of both. What do we have to do to get Nx to care?  What sacrifice or offerings does he require?  04:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * He is usually fairly good about doing these things, if he thinks the consensus is there. 05:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Then let us petition the to ask him to make it so?  05:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Or we could just suggest it in the Saloon bar, find out what people think and email him about it if he does not respond. 05:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That might work. 05:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * SB would be best. The Lion Jugglers should only come in to this if there's a stalemate. ConcernedResident  omg ponies!!! 08:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The vandal bin works! Keep using it. Although maybe randomize it to make it more annoying to the binned user. E.g., cause it to allow his next edit at some random period between 0 minutes and 60 minutes after the last edit, and don't tell him how much time is left. That way, he'll have to stay at the computer continuing to hit "Edit" every few moments to test it out (or else running a bot to do it, if he's technically inclined), which will waste his time and cause frustration. Tisane (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the "protest their block bit", since it is no longer true, and added the recommendation that IPs should not be binned. See Forum:Range_blocks for my detailed reasoning. -- Nx  / talk 08:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocking discussion
There is no mention of the new talk page block feature. Also do we still support the blocking of your own IP address as that seems to get reverted these days? 08:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The trouble with blocking one's own IP is that when it changes now someone else is blocked. So perhaps it would be ok if people note when it is a static IP (say, editing from workplace).  00:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ceiling Cat is a pretty effective reminder to log in.  10:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just as an instance: I was just blocked elsewhere for being AssaSom even though I'm not. IP addresses shouldn't be blocked. 11:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC) TerrySmall.png [[Image:Toast s.png|alt=Toast|text-bottom|20px|link=User talk:SusanG]]
 * I'd say leave the IP able to edit it's own talk page except in highly exceptional cases. E.g. TK and people who persist in posting spam or stuff that we would never allow on the site (abusive or illegal things). Blocking IPs as a remnder to log in seems iffy. I agree the ceiling cat is hard to miss. ConcernedResident  omg ponies!!! 11:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sidenote: What is the risk an IP will be reused? I wonder if ISP's ever look at activity to decide what IP address to get someone. Lumenos (talk) 08:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * For instance, I'm using a library computer. Here's its Wikipedia Talk page, and 500 most recent edits. ;-)205.189.194.208 (talk) 18:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the bit about blocking your own IP, and updated the standards to account for the "allow user to edit talk page" feature. -- Nx  / talk 08:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

"Blocking is generally only used on known vandals." Oh raaalley?
This statement is false: "Blocking is generally only used on known vandals." (see the log of Truth). The first half is easy to change: "Blocking should only be used on spambots, vandals...". That shouldn't be controversial so I'll go ahead and make that change. But what do we say about the trolls (in order to distinguish the proper RatWiki way from the authoritarian wrongtiousness of TK et al)? What I have so far, "Blocking should only be used on spambots, vandals, and trolls who are incorrect or at least excessively insulting to the innocent." But that sounds soo.. I dunno... when you say it out loud. Help me, Obeywong Kanobe. You're my only hope. ~ Lumenaid (talk) 03:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keyword: generally. TK is an instance in which blocking was appropriate for a non-vandal. 03:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * We were just discussing TK's calling of things "vandalism" which were not vandalism. But we abide a higher standard than these Schaflervapedians. Now we only need to discribe this moral code, as it regards the censoring of trolls or other say "boring" editors. Here is the Log of Truth, once again. ~ Lumenaid (talk) 03:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * We are also slowly getting over being the "anti-CP" site, aren't we? Comparing our ideas to CP is a useless meme, who cares what Andy would do, this is up to "us". Captain obvious (talk) 04:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * CP becomes a strawman when other Intelligent Design advocates or "conservatives" have better ideas. That is an entirely different issue. TK's behaviour is only an example of what we aren't supposed to do, that is, to call something vandalism, when it isn't. Nx's just unilaterally changed the Community Standards page to read "Blocking should only be used on spambots and vandals." That is more like a policy suggestion rather than a "Community Standard". The "community" does not believe that; many seem to be for blocking those deemed trolls for "insulting" comments made on talk pages (or they are for blocking "known troll" for prior "offenses"). WP has a well developed block policy. There are some differences with WP, for example, here proxies are not automatically blocked, but it would be much easier to use WP block policy as a basis rather than trying to reinvent the wheel. ~ Lumenos (talk) 18:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

It's funny how you accuse me of unilaterally changing the standards, when you're the one who unilaterally added spambots and etc. Anyway, my additiond are in line with current practice and sensible imho. And we're not taking over WP's blocking policy, yes, sometimes it makes sense to emulate wikipedia, but to blindly copy it is just as wrong as to be different for the sake of being different. WP's policy wouldn't really work here for a number of reasons, including our different mission and different style of community interacton. -- Nx  / talk 20:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "It's funny how you accuse me of unilaterally changing the standards, when you're the one who unilaterally added spambots and etc." When in Rome... :) I've discovered that that appears true of the the vandal log. The block log is cluttered with joke blocks, but insiders know that MC has been blocked without vandalism and probably would be if they returned. Calling these "Community Standards" is misleading along with the block log obfuscationary techniques. "We don't block trolls so long as they leave after they have been blocked." ~ Lumenos (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Loya Jirga discussion
What is the deal with this institution, there are no rules for it, it is unused. Should we just sweep it under the carpet and pretend this fascist organisation never existed? 08:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It worked out okay last time it was used, and the rules behind it seem fairly clear. It takes some of the drama and makes it something that a small number of people have to deal with - as opposed to a larger group fighting over what should be done. It's just never going to be everything to everyone. It shouldn't become a shadow government, and it shouldn't be used to solve every little dispute that comes up. I see it as being more an arbiter used to avoid HCM, and I think that's how it's been operating so far. ConcernedResident  omg ponies!!! 09:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There are still no community standards regarding it. 10:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * We have it written up in various places, but yeah, it's missing from here. I can collect it all together this weekend and post it here. ConcernedResident  omg ponies!!! 13:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * We have the basics written up at RationalWiki:Role of the Loya Jirga. I've started a discussion there to finalise things, but we could move that discussion here if it makes more sense. ConcernedResident  omg ponies!!! 09:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Advice discussion
The main point of contention here is the fact that Forum:Should we link to hate sites? seems to be against final dot point. 07:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That point was only added on 31st May 2010, by a user who did not discuss its inclusion beforehand, who was wrong about the reasons for such a policy, who may well have been wrong about how widely supported such a standard is, based on subsequent discussion, & might even have changed his/her own mind about it since, based on comments here. Hence I'm removing it for now. If there's enough support for such a statement, it can be added back in later.  Discuss first, then make changes, is how it should work with the CS, not add things on the fly & then discuss whether or not they're supported.   12:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Do we need to put something in the revamp since it is already removed? ~ That blind moron (talk) 16:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I think a lot of these things should be in the manual of style rather than CS. & I vehemently disagree that linking to redirects is always bad. A lot of redirects are placeholders for articles that haven't been written yet, redirecting to another article or location that's related. E.g. see Special:WhatLinksHere/Category:Elements - most element names are redirected straight to the category. But somebody might one day want to write an article about, say, silicon, replacing the redirect. So if you mention silicon in an article, it's better to link to silicon, which is currently a redirect but might sometime become a relevant article, rather than link straight to the elements category, since this link would then become the long way round to the relevant article if a silicon article ever got written. 12:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * True but if it's just say Grauniad &rarr; The Guardian, it's rather pointless, specially if the redirect is specifically created to take the link. 13:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC) TerrySmall.png [[Image:Toast s.png|alt=Toast|text-bottom|20px|link=User talk:SusanG]]
 * Indeed. But there are plenty of cases where linking to a redirect is justified, so a blunt "don't link to redirects" message is inadequate.  There should be an explanation on what to consider when linking to a redirect, but it should be in the manual of style &/or the linking guide, not CS, as it's more to do with editing conventions than community conduct.   14:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Please author new version. Lumenos (talk) 12:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I propose moving to manual of style and leaving a link. 11:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk discussion
Also I have noticed that everyone is reverting talkpage comments. Has the community standards changed regarding this? 10:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The LJ decision allowed, in the case of trolls, reversion of talk pages for articles and our own talk pages, but not talk pages belonging to other people except in cases where existing guidelines allowed it. I'm not able to write this up now, but I can suggest some text here tomorrow. ConcernedResident  omg ponies!!! 13:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The only real decision they've made and it was a horrible one. Trolling is so subjective. Apparently, harsh criticism is also trolling. User you don't like? Trolling. Things you don't feel like responding to - trolling. The LJ gave you fascists a hammer and, surprise, everything is starting to look like a nail. This moved us more closer to CP-style censorship than ever before. You should all be ashamed. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 13:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * When did this happen? 14:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * RationalWiki:Loya_Jirga TerrySmall.png [[Image:Toast s.png|alt=Toast|text-bottom|20px|link=User talk:SusanG]] 14:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC) TerrySmall.png [[Image:Toast s.png|alt=Toast|text-bottom|20px|link=User talk:SusanG]]
 * Trolling is only subjective when you're an idiot. It's well defined as being 1) repetitive 2) needless and 3) direct. If I was to call, right now, Neveruse an idiotic moron (you forgot to proxy up and sign in as MC there), that wouldn't be trolling. If I did it repeatedly on this discussion and multiple pages, it would be trolling. If I directly called someone a "fat-fuck-cunt-of-a-cock-whore" on their userpage, unprovoked, it would be trolling. 14:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a non-issue. If you're taking offence at having one of your precious comments deleted, your priorities have gone mental. It just means that that person doesn't want to talk to you. It's still there in the logs for anyone who looks for it, so it hasn't been censored.-- 15:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * But in practice this new ruling has meant recent changes being flooded with endless reversion loops on multiple occasions. This isn't a good thing.  If trolling is repetitive and needless, then how much more so is revert-warring against a troll for an hour or two?  Also, if we really are adopting this, we need to decide whether users get their own choice of whether or not to revert troll comments on their user talk page (as some editors have suggested they should) or whether anybody can revert trolls on anybody else's talk page.  If we leave this up to the editor whose page it is, then we need to rethink or rephrase the clause about user talk pages being community property, since we'd be giving users extra jurisdiction over their own talk page.  But if we don't, it could get very annoying for an editor who is trying to get on with something elsewhere on site but bothered by constant "new messages" flash-ups because their user talk page is being used as a troll/revert battleground by other users.   17:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * CR's summary of the LJ decision seems pretty functional as such: troll spam can be reverted everywhere except other people's talk pages, where you can leave it to them to revert (or condone reversion, so people can help them avoid the hassle). If it's spam, i.e. posting crap on various talk pages for attention or as a loophole, it's probably fine to revert it all (though I don't know whether sny rules agree). As for revert wars with trolls, there really isn't a way to stop this other than range-banning 86.40.0.0/16 them. 20:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * But it takes (at least) two to revert war. If you can ignore a troll's comment, it will soon get forgotten among other edits.  But if you get into a revert war, it will swamp the rc & generate more attention, which exactly what the troll wants.  Despite the good intentions, it's just another form of feeding the troll.   20:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * True, but letting them sit around and insult people seems roughly as annoying. (Granted, I haven't been around for most of the troll fights, so maybe I'm misreading things.) (Edit for clarity: Some people seem genuinely offended by some of the stuff, i.e. personal info/insults, so ignoring it is unlikely. As for the little things, I agree it's best not to start a war.) 21:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In reply to Weaseloid: "But if you get into a revert war, it will swamp the rc & generate more attention, which exactly what the troll wants." Nx wrote, "Then I got wikilawyered by a concern troll whose only joy in life seems to be arguing the exact opposite of everything I say". I think that is in reference to me, since Proxima didn't do much arguing from what I could see. Nx seems to be pretty important here since s/he has magical powers. So I just wanted to say that if I am a "troll", "trolls" don't always want to generate negative attention. If it happens, I might think it funny (at first) but that doesn't mean that is the reaction I expected or desired. Lumenos (talk) 04:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure what your reply has to do with my comment, but intentionally generating negative attention is pretty much the core definition of a troll, so your argument fails, whatever it is. Stop trying to derail community policy discussions into petty personal feuds.   17:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Is that the core definition of a troll? I posted some evidence there that I am called a "troll" and so is one of your high ranking community members, and I know that I am not trying to generate negative attention. One of your other high ranking community members mentioned the problems with attempting to judge someone's intentions. This is why I am against labeling people as "troll" and favor instead policies that define what is good or bad behaviour. Lumenos (talk) 22:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "If I directly called someone a "fat-fuck-cunt-of-a-cock-whore" on their userpage, unprovoked, it would be trolling." Well it actually depends on who's giving and whose the recipient. These vulgarities are much appreciated, whenever and whereevar you do them. ;-) Lumenos (talk) 18:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Weasel, yeah, it pretty much came down to us responding in the natural way, which was to reply to correct or respond, but it was a bit messed up. It's feeding the troll to even talk about this kind of stuff but it's better than what we did before. Trolls will never be clearly defined but there are enough eyes here to hopefully avoid it being used in a way that stifles legitimate speech. Neveruse confuses me, since the wish to show good faith is strained by what what appears to be a choice between breathtaking inanity and innocence that would make the virgin Mary jealous, or perhaps a pot stirrer. We're kind of lucky to not be the target of many serious and sustained trolls. The current reverting thing is not ideal but it works and I've enough faith in the people here that they'll have the sense and self-respect to fuck off elsewhere if it becomes anything near what its painted to be. It's only worth being here while it works.  ConcernedResident  omg ponies!!! 22:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The Recent Changes issue: (1) It is possible to not display talk page comments in RC if they are clogging it up and (2) You should NEVER get into a revert war with a troll as that is as clear a case of feeding them as you can get. Any instant reaction to troll behaviour is exactly what they want and will encourage them. Just put up with the comment for an hour or two and then revert it later if you want to.-- 13:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sysops can mark their rollbacks as a bot edit, hiding both the original post and the rollback from normal view (unless you set the RC menu to view bots that is). 02:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * We can? How?  03:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * By putting  into the address bar when you are doing the rollback. Nx also wrote a javascript function that adds it to the history menu next to the normal rollback. I'll add it to the gadget list.  03:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thank you! 03:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

So I shouldn't be reverting things like this? 17:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * We need to fix the conflict we have in the standards. Right now the standards would say that you were wrong to do it, but it's reasonable to expect that few people want to visit their talk page to find it obviously vandalised.The rules should be there to protect free speech and transparency - not the fun of spammers and vandals. ConcernedResident  omg ponies!!! 23:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought there was something there about spam, but there appears not be anymore. As for trolling, I would say common sense exception, but that is hard to define. I wouldn't say that you can rollback comments based on consensus, because that would indicate group think. The problem was as Neveruse said, that people often call harsh criticism trolling. He that will not be named leaving a few hundred word comment with 100 fucks in it is trolling. Saying "that was a fucking shit idea of yours" is harsh criticism. It would be more easy to define trolling if people were more respectful to each other in normal wiki interactions. 23:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Nobody's saying we shouldn't revert vandalism to talk pages, so I don't know how y'all are coming to the conclusion that CS says Crundy was wrong to revert a page-blanking/fuck-bomb. That's a completely different situation to somebody posting a talk page comment, somebody else reverting because they dislike the comment or the comment-poster, and then both parties doing repeat rollbacks for the next hour.   12:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have made a tweak. 12:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Is the stuff about indenting and signing necessary? It is going to be redundant if we ever go to liquid threads. 12:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk page comments
Clearly the rule that talk page comments should not be removed is no longer valid. The standards should be updated to reflect the new rule that if you don't like a comment, you can just call the editor a troll and revert them. 89.132.239.149 (talk) 15:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's the way to do it: make a comment on the talk page; don't run rampant on the RW page. Well done, you're learning. We'll have you up to primary school level soon. 15:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC) TerrySmall.png [[Image:Toast s.png|alt=Toast|text-bottom|20px|link=User talk:SusanG]]
 * I am 86..., NX is 89... Nx is right on the ball on this one. You allow the likes of David Gerard to completely ruin this site and then don't have the balls to do anything about it. Bigots like Jeeves and Susan enforce the new order. Absolutely disgusting what has happened this site. 86.40.219.238 (talk) 15:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know why, but David Gerard deleted the above comment. 16:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You do know why. Because you let him get away with it. Time and time and time again. Its sickening. 86.40.99.162 (talk) 17:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's fair to let people manage their own talk pages, since we have a paper trail in the form of history. Deletion is one thing, but changing the actual words of a person who posts on your talk page is a bit iffy, even if at times funny. Talk pages that belong to everyone are a different matter, and perhaps best left alone unless it breaks one of the existing rules (illegal, personal info, highly abusive). Eddy had a good point earlier in mentioning that trolling does push some people away from RW. Maybe we should first understand exactly what annoys people? i.e. is it the trolling, or the varied responses we have to it? Concernedresident  omg!!! ponies!!! 22:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you want to allow RobS to remove comments from his talk page as he pleases? Memory holing MC is one thing, but please let's not extend this to anyone we don't like, and let's especially not make it into a universal rule. -- Nx  / talk 22:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't think of something. Is it possible to destroy the edit history by deleting and recreating pages? If so, then yep that could be iffy. Concernedresident  omg!!! ponies!!! 22:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, so deleting and recreating would be a no-no then - David Gerard (talk) 22:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Poll: Editors get more control of their own talk pages
Note 1: Lumenous originally started this section as a "Pole", so it's not really a vote of any kind, except in eir tiny mind.

Note 2: Lunenous has renamed sections here just often enough that, chances are, if "you" voted, your vote is in a different section by now.

Note 3: This is a totally non-binding, and rather boring section. Just because Lumenous calls it a "pole", doesn't mean RW cares. 09:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The only section changes I made were to change the "Yea" and "Nay" from bullets to subsections. Is that a problem?
 * Plees forgiv I spill wong pole on Community Standard. Me Engrish not so gud.
 * The project page claims to document "Community Standards". The results of the poll reveal some community standards (at least for those who voted). Who is RW anyway? ~ Lumenos (talk) 04:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1. No, not really.
 * 2. Yeah, I fixed it after a while. After someone made a joke about it, I think.
 * 3. RW is the whole mob. RW is you, and me, and everyone else here.  You started a poll, which is always fun, but there is no binding aspect to its results.  We love a big pole here at RW.  05:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) You are "correct". Here are two diffs: . The second diff I don't understand. It may appear that I "renamed" a section when I only changed the level heading or moved it. Maybe that wasn't a good idea but I did so because it seems we need to make one revamp for the section on "talk pages" or we would have to merge them if they both "pass".
 * 3) Shouldn't the results of the poll be used as a basis for the rewrite of the Community Standard? ~ Lumenos (talk) 07:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1, as I said, it's no big deal, you're edit was helpful.
 * 3, The mob has no rules for what is and what isn't a binding proposition. It takes more than a pole to rewrite the CS, it takes lots of discussion and anguish.  07:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

 The poll question: Editors should be "allowed" to have more control of their talk pages than other talk pages:

Yea:

 * 19:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 23:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC) Canceled 20:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Secret Squirrel (talk) 12:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC) - talk pages are for communication with the user; deleting something when you're done with it or no longer want to look at it is no different than deleting something in your email inbox.
 * No, they are not. Unlike your talk page, others can't see your inbox and join a conversation. -- Nx  / talk 23:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Antivote subpoll (copysate Lumenos): Disqualify Secret Squirrel's vote unless better reason is presented:
 * Yea:
 * ~ Lumenos (talk) 01:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Nay
 * You can't just disqualify a vote because you don't like the reasoning behind it! -- 01:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This isn't about likes and dislikes, it is about reasoning in politics. This is why I make antivote subpoll. If the community finds the reasoning to be invalid, good chance it is. I notice you have nothing to say about the evaluation of the vote reason. I think your vote should be disqualified, unless you intend to stake your reputation on the claim that SS made good analogy. ~ Lumenos (talk) 02:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Antivote subsubpoll (copygoat Nx): Disqualify Lumenos's subpoll unless he demonstrates that he is not a complete moron:
 * Yea:
 * -- Nx  / talk 01:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Set forth yar criteria and I shall demonstrateth all this and more. I shall stake my poll upon it! ~ Lumenos (talk) 02:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Antivote. Morons may have good ideas. ~ Lumenos (talk) 05:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yea. I see no difference between Onion's and Lyra's votes.  Anyway, this poll carries no weight at all, when Lumpy started it ey didn't even spell "poll" correctly.  02:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Come on, Human, I see no reason for a casual disqualification of an honest discussion just because Lumenos began it. I have the greatest respect for you, and you have considerable prestige on this wiki, but you don't have to go throwing your weight around like that. 05:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I only meant that Onion said "Nay", and Lyra said "Nay", so why did lumpy pick out Onion to dispute? 09:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Antivote [that is, I am wishing to disqualify Human's vote]. Onion's vote didn't have bad reason. Lyra's reason is too long to easily analyze. Shall we disregard Nx's unopposed rebuttal of SS?
 * Polls become more valid/meaningful if editors participate. If certain editor wish to disregard the will of the community, Trent has offered us the opportunity to elect Trustees who will appoint Technical Directors or bureaucrats who will uphold the communal will. ~ Lumenos (talk) 05:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[Update in bold 06:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)]
 * Comments become more valid/meaningful when they make sense in an Earth language. 09:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this was the confusing part, for those new to RW. The antivote is a expression of desire to disqualify a vote which seemed to have bad reason. The antivote is indented and placed under the vote, similar to other comments on votes. ~ Lumenos (talk) 06:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Censorship policy should be uniform throughout wiki except that on a person's talk page they may choose to have less censorship than elsewhere except for illegitimate copyright violations or privacy invasions, that is, if default censorship policy is agreeable. ~ Lumenos (talk) 05:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Moron.  I like you, but you are such a moron.  09:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yea. RationalWiki is not mirror-universe-Conservapedia-with-a-goatee - David Gerard (talk) 22:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Antivote: Thank you for making right choice but the "reasoning" there was just gertarded. ~ Lumenos (talk) 06:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Nay:

 * FUCK NO -- Nx  / talk 23:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I for one don't care about what that guy does, and don't think he should affect RW policy. Just my two cents. -- 23:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Antivote-- While I agree that similar censorship should not be allowed on RW, Nx apparently fails to consider the case where Editor1 wishes to forbid other editors from deleting things on Editor1's talkpage. ~ Lumenos (talk) 06:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not considering that case because that case is not an issue. -- Nx  / talk 06:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * One, that's not an argument - it's linking to some person unrelated to this wiki on Wikipedia. Two, even if that was an argument, it'd be a shit one - TK being a fuckwit on Wikipedia only has the slightest relevance to RationalWiki if RationalWiki really is nothing more than a rest home for Conservapedia casualties and actively resisting becoming anything else. Three, even if that were a good thing it'd still be a shit argument, because the main problem is his lies in edit summaries; and given your own valiant defence of abuse and trolling here in the name of free speach, you're making no goddamn sense at all on three levels simultaneously. Four, this is something happening on Wikipedia, where removing stuff from your talk page is 100% acceptable, even if it's Hitler TK doing it; and just as RationalWiki points out this isn't Wikipedia, so too Wikipedia isn't here. Perhaps you could explain in rational and coherent sentences just what point you thought you were trying to make here - David Gerard (talk) 22:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Four, this is something happening on Wikipedia, where removing stuff from your talk page is 100% acceptable EXACTLY. And that's what this proposal wants to allow on RationalWiki. And that's why my example is perfectly relevant. -- Nx  / talk 06:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well TK did make an ad homenium attack, saying that you [Huw Powel was] from wiki that the press has labeled as bad. That is against a Wikipedia policy page. ~ Lumenos (talk) 01:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah here it is. Nx is correct about a different WP "policy" page. ~ Lumenos (talk) 01:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Then your argument is "But RationalWiki would become like Wikipedia" or "Look, gratuitous TK!" or what? All you've just said is "I don't like this BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE IT" - how the fuck does your link mean anything? Form a coherent argument, surely it's not that hard if whatever your reason is is so elegantly obvious - David Gerard (talk) 08:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I was assuming it would be obvious that censoring comments from people you don't like is a bad thing, but then I remembered that you did the same and you think it's perfectly ok, so never mind. -- Nx  / talk 12:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Certainly not. Talkpages are and should always be the property of the community. If the troll attacks, simply ignore the bastard. Simple! 23:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So the several prominent editors who have been reverting trolls (and one who explicitly endorses it) should be brought to the chicken coop for trial? 17:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Community property" could also mean the enforcement of policies that are widely supported by a "community". ~ Lumenos (talk) 01:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Occasionaluse (talk) 19:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 05:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 09:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * MarcusCicero (talk) 09:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC) This is one of these issues which if changed, would permanantly change RW for the worse.
 * Every page on a wiki is, by it's nature, community property. You can't pick and choose.  22:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * By your logic userpages, essays, and the MediaWiki space are community property as well. -- 20:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Marcus. 06:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * tmtoulouse 06:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * –SuspectedReplicant retire me 12:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with the Goonie punk. If you ignore the troll, it will go away. -- 20:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Undecided but leaning toward "nay":

 * ~ Lumenos 00:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Talk pages should really be common ground, but I think a couple of basic privileges are reasonable on users' talk pages - e.g. users can be in charge of archiving their own talk pages when needed, & can choose to reduce image size if somebody posts an unnecessarily large picture on their page. Reversion of obvious vandalism is covered by vandalism policy (& hence is anybody's responsibility) but probably shouldn't be extended to all forms of trolling.   19:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If they are to be common ground, the use of Pibot with a predetermined time setting, would seem more appropriate (as a disciplinary measure). Image sizes could be reduced on any talk page. ~ Lumenos (talk) 01:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

 * [The following comment no longer constitutes my opinion: 05:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)]
 * I think users should have the final say as to how stringently they enforce talk page trolling rules on their own pages. If a user is a member of the group that believes in the free speech of trolls, than they may have it so nobody reverts or removes anything from their page. If they are a member of the group that feels "vile" comments do not count as free speech, then they'll have to be the ones who revert, not anyone else. This is very much like the Loya Jirga ruling.
 * But what we really need is a troll litmus test. The bigger concern here seems to be how far the LJ ruling goes in allowing people to remove things from their talk page. We need a set of criteria that a "vile" comment has to meet in order to be fair game for removal. For consideration:
 * Vile comments must meet ALL of the following criteria:


 * 1) The comment is deliberately insulting.
 * 2) The comment is profane, anatomically graphic, or graphically violent, or links to similar content.
 * 3) The comment is directed at a particular user of RationalWiki or another wiki, such as Conservapedia or aSK.
 * If the comment meets all of those criteria, it is fair game for removal. Thus, the comment
 * User, your contributions to this wiki are pitiful. It's obvious you have no life and make the Star Wars kid seem like an Olympic athlete. Everyone hates you. --Troll1
 * would not be fair game for reversion. This comment would be dealt with the way trolls have been dealt with in the past: simply by not feeding them. But, the following comment would be fair game for reversion:
 * User, why don't you fuck off? Everyone hates you and your pitiful contributions. Let me tell you a story about how a bear ate my penis. --Troll2
 * But it's key that the user does not have to decide to revert and other users cannot revert it for them. 19:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So "Revert the damn trolls off my page" is not acceptable in this proposal? - David Gerard (talk) 19:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Per the Loya Jirga ruling, obviously vile comments can be deleted by anyone. It's those "gray area" comments that the proposal deals with. 20:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Gosh, it'll certainly never be a judgement call with much scope for headless chickening in practice. So who judges? - David Gerard (talk) 21:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The point is that there is a litmus test to determine what comments are fair game for deletion and which ones are not. Which is the main issue with the LJ decision. 22:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The criteria are a little arbitrary, and your interpretation of them (the first comment not fitting those criteria, the definition of trolling, or the fact that Marcus is personally banned) already conflicts with mine. 22:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The first comment does not meet the definition of trolling? I believe it does, but no matter. If you don't want to call it trolling, that's fine; it's just a name. The point that comments that meet those criteria are fair game for removal stands. The criteria themselves are open to suggestions, but they were determined based on what I consider inappropriate enough to merit immediate removal, but they are, I think, stringent enough to allow for some preservation of past policy concerning such comments (ignoring them). And I've edited my post because they were not actual comments by MC, just samples made up by me. 23:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I tend to be vague. I consider the first example both trolling and reversion-worthy, should it actually offend the person. Incidentally, I find the profanity criterion the least appropriate, in that reversion shouldn't require vulgarity and such. I also tend to support voluntary reversion of anything a troll/vandal/nemesis/etc might say on one's talk page regardless of content, which also doesn't meet these criteria...MC being an example (I'd assumed those weren't really quotes of him, at any rate).
 * Having paused to think about it while typing, though...I'd rather support not allowing reversions except when it's absolute spam. In turn, users should be allowed to say that they don't want to hear about certain topics or from certain users on their talk page, and repeatedly ignoring them should be a rule violation (to whatever end...presumably blocking or binning for a while so they stop). Seems more effective at troll prevention than reversion, should decrease the "you have new messages" spam, and doesn't mangle the talk page. 10:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I refuse to vote in any poll which is referred to as a member of a Central European nation.  DogP Marmite Patrol 11:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think having a stated reversion policy on trolling is a good idea. It's already caused too much bickering, troll-feeding & HCM.  A policy against reverting trolling would also be a bad idea & open to abuse.  If somebody reverts a troll comment & nobody cares, then no harm is done, but if we start saying "this is what we do now" then we're throwing the door wide open for revert wars, memory holing & other talkpage abuse.   19:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

So, your idea is to have no stated policy and hope everything works out for the best? We don't have a stated policy now, and that's caused an absurd amount of bickering and pedantry and HCM. With no official community standard, the line between abuse and proper behavior is blurred to invisibility, letting people with different ideas about how to deal with trolls argue incessantly. Which is, in a way, the very worst kind of troll-feeding. 02:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, having a trite vague statement by the Loya Jirga that "obviously vile comments" can be reverted has caused an absurd amount of bickering and pedantry and HCM, since it's so open to interpretation. Prior to that, when we had no stated policy on reverting comments but seldom did it, this really wasn't much of an issue.   18:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the reason for the LJ case was it rapidly becoming an issue, mostly regarding one "troll" some people had a strong distaste for. 02:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion
I would archive this section but the Loya Jirga ruling contradicts the community standards and (apparently, since it is not clear what we were voting about exactly) the poll above too. I know that now that MC is no longer bothering us no-one cares, but we should still do something about this. -- Nx  / talk 08:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the LJ ruling is no longer necessary as MC is gone, and pending community approval, should be vacated. I think we can have a civil conversation about the issue now that the immediate drama catalyst is not present. 03:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it still remains a problem. The moment another troll shows up (or MC starts trolling again), we'll have this HCM all over again. -- Nx  / talk 12:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If I recall correctly, the LJ ruling didn't do much to prevent HCM. 21:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I made a clearer proposal but I guess someone archived it. I think, "Censorship policy should be uniform throughout wiki except that on a person's talk page they may choose to have less censorship than elsewhere." But most assumed the proposal was referring only to people being allowed greater censorship privilege on their talkpages (or requesting others do the censoring for them). For example, perhaps one should be allowed to pick and choose what to archive on some talkpage, instead of using the blind justice of User:Pibot. ~ Lumenaid (talk) 03:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It was archived for a reason. Please stop bogging down this page with your nonsense. -- Nx  / talk 12:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm being so irrational aren't I? For example, I agreed with Pi's perception here, "The main point of contention with the vandal bin seems to be the fact that we are indefinitely binning people, including non-vandals[...]" and suggested changing the name of the vandal bin. ~ Lumenos (talk) 21:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC) I believe the community supports blocking of those who are not vandals. ~ Lumenos (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to gather support for something (is that what you're trying to do?) constantly crossing out & ammending your own posts isn't a great way to go about it. Try talking plainly, using specific examples, and being consistent.   09:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I made correction to mistake and one little inside joke. The rest is all so clear in my mind, but I guess nobody cares. Now we ramble off topic, as we should put this in the "Not part of revamp" section that I made and Nx aborted. ~ Lumenos (talk) 10:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Page protection
We've had a tradition of not protecting any pages at all other than temporarily when they're a vandal target, but is this still viable? I think we now get more vandal & spambot attacks than we used to, so wouldn't it be wise to protect a few basic locations like the main page, rather than having to keep reverting vandalism to them? 23:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just in case my recent attempt at following what appeared to be your example, I can tell you that it is difficult to imagine a reason I should ever want to edit that page again.
 * Mainpage was discussed in the copyright talk page. It could be protected because all the content was in unprotected templates. I suppose this would be a sort of security through obscurity; effective for the little tykes.
 * I guess I will have no compelling reason to fix your copyright anyway. I rather like it the way it is, at the moment.
 * ~ That blind moron (talk) 00:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't see how you are entitled to change our copyright at all, especially without discussion. 01:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps a vote? (A copyright discussion.) Lumenos (talk) 23:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what is wrong with the odd spammer, everyone has a rollback button and anyone who has made an edit in the last year or so has a delete button. I know we have the odd obsessive like Linuxian, who is butthurt over something nobody understands, but a revert his edit, block his IP for a few hours and it is done. We do seem to have a policy of protecting high use template, but that is because vandalism to those hurts the site in a real way; I think the community standards need to be updated to reflect that. I am generally of the opinion that we don't need hard and fast rule, but we need discussion. If the mob wants a page protected we will protect it, otherwise if there is no compelling reason leave it open. We (I think anyway) should however strive to keep as many pages unprotected as possible. 01:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we are doing fine without page protection. If it ever becomes a real issue we can go there and re-discuss. 03:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that temporary protection of pages that are targets is best practice. We have an army of sysops, if worst comes to worst, and rollback isn't too much of an inconvenience for such an army. 21:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keeping articles etc. unprotected for all to edit is laudable, but why do brand new users need to be able to edit things like our main page?  21:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Weasel. While the goal is good, there is no reason for something as vital as the main page to be left wide open for anyone who wants to vandalize.  While it's not hard to revert, it is annoying when someone is persistent.  21:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest Pending Changes for these pages instead of locking them. Pending Changes is being tested at en.Wikipedia and it seems to be reasonable useful. — Pietrow   ☏  11:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Is that part of flagged revs? 11:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's the same thing I think. — Pietrow   ☏  15:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

One thing I have never understood in why here, as well as many other wikis including wikipedia, archives of past discussion are not rouhinely protected given that their contents are not supposed to be edited. --Myrtonos@ 13:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Because the risk is minuscule and the effort is non-zero. Seriously, in my three years here at RW I've never seen any vandalism to archived discussions. If you want to promote yourself as archive protector in chief I, for one, will not object. Jack Hughes (talk) 14:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I undestand that, but I can't think of a good reason not to protect archives, I cannot think of any downside to protection archives (that outweighs this risk), I can think of no leigtimate edits prevented by this. --Myrtonos@ 07:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Maintenance work (usually done by bots), such as unlinking deleted stuff, fixing deleted redirects, substing templates etc. It has caused some minor annoyance for my bot before, since some people choose to protect their talk page archives. I can't think of any good reason to protect the archives (I don't remember any vandalism to talk page archives, and only a few times when a new editor replied to an archived talk page), and we need a good reason to protect, not a lack of a good reason to not protect. -- Nx  / talk 07:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Is userpage semiprotection permitted at user's request?--Myrtonos@ 11:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Technically yes, I believe. No-one but the owner should edit the user-space of another user without a pretty good reason (violation of a site-wide policy, or something that would cause us legal issues). It's pretty rare and only worth considering if your user page becomes the target of sustained vandalism/harassment. If locking talk pages in your userspace you'd probably want an exceptionally good reason to justify it. Locking talk pages increases the chances of Headless Chicken Mode. Is someone hassling you? Concernedresident  omg!!! ponies!!! 13:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)