Information icon.svg Our Community Standards are under review. Your comments and inputs are welcome on the relevant project talkpage.

RationalWiki talk:Community Standards

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, (new)

For the discussion and voting on the accountability rules for techs, see this archive.
For the discussion and voting on changes proposed in May 2020, see this archive.
For the rewrites and their discussions during January 2009, see the revamp and its talk page and archive, an early draft here, and further discussions here, plus the voting discussion.

Draftspace and categories/navpages[edit]

Recently @Magic Master reverted my edit of Draft:Julie Bindel, wherein I had removed the categories and navbar. Magic Master requested that I explain the deletion. My rationale is this generally: it's lazy and potentially dangerous to put them in at that stage. Specifically:

  • Currently we have over 300 articles in draftspace. Very few of these ever become good enough to enter mainspace.
  • It was recently decided to insert the "{{draft}}" template on all draftspace pages, so as to prevent them from being indexed by search engines, and in part to prevent anything potentially libelous from being indexed.
  • In mainspace, it is bad form (and in some cases potentially libelous) to add categories to pages that are not substantiated by the content of the pages (in particular by a citation), and consequently should be removed in such cases. Similarly, categories have the same potential problem in draftspace, but additionally fewer eyeballs are upon these pages.
  • Categories on draftspace pages allows the existence of these pages to leak out into search engines because the categories are indexed even though the draft pages are not.

Since, navbars only list mainspace pages, it should be fine to have them in draftspace pages. Bongolian (talk) 03:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment. Category tags on draft pages should be avoided and wrapped in comment blocks to prevent them from leaking into and polluting the main space. Since the navigation bars don't include draft pages, it doesn't matter if they're included in drafts. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 03:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 09:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. Spud (talk) 10:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
If they leak into search engine results, they should be avoided. After all, the point of Draftspace is to work on projects without them being official articles yet. Also, I apologize for adding categories in previous instances, I didn't know. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 10:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Voting for or against oneself in the coop[edit]

It is generally understood that a person may not sit in judgement of him/herself, and that an accused criminal may not sit on his/her own jury (natural law, rule of law).[1] As such, it should not be the case that a person should be allowed to vote in a coop case regarding the adjudication of his/her own punishment. Bongolian (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Seems fair. After all, the coop is like a court but for edit-warring, harassment, and abuses of sysop, mod, or as we were all reminded quite recently, tech powers. --Goatspeed. How's my editingCircularREmail2.gifasoningSteal my ideas 20:43, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
So long as they can speak in their own defense. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 20:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Again, we are trying to change the community standards in order to pursue grudges/editors we dislike. Voting for or against yourself in the coop has always been allowed. I've voted on my own behalf a number of times. It's never been an issue. The fact of the matter is, LiberalTears is a member of this community. A tragically hilarious and often annoying member, granted, but he does get a say in votes so long as he meets the activity thresholds. Comparing this to a jury or a court of law is rather silly, if you ask me. We don't have judges, prosecutors or defense attorneys. That's because RationalWiki's justice system is democratic. Or mobocratic, if you prefer. We issue penalty votes on a 2/3 majority, of the entire community. That is how we do things. And Liberaltears is a member of the community, and thus is allowed to vote for themselves. This has always been the case and has never been an issue--Hastur! (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Regarding DuceMoosolini's point: Yes, they should be able to represent themselves in the coop. The policy to unblock users to represent themselves in the coop would still stand. Bongolian (talk) 21:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
RationalWiki is a good example of anarchy in practice. It's based off of free association and ran without any actual hierarchies, while still maintaining rules for allowance into a group. Anarchism doesn't mean rules are off-limits per se, only that such rules should be voluntary and people should be allowed to leave if they disagree with said rules. Oxyaena Harass 21:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
You know, for someone who spouts off about power and control and anarchy you nonetheless display a hunger for power and authority. Between claiming you were a "de facto mod", your constant calls to be a sysop again and how aggrieved you get when challenged. It's an interesting irony. AceModerator 21:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Sure thing, champ. Oxyaena Harass 23:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I disagree, but you are free to disagree with me back. CoryUsar (talk) 21:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

The proposal Bongolian made is eminently reasonable. Can't wait to see people whine about how it will "turn this site into radicalwiki" or whatever.-Flandres (talk) 21:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

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

I have no real objections to the community standards being amended to prohibit voting on one's own coop. But as said above, users should always be allowed to defend themselves when going through coops (I was the one who unblocked LT so he could comment on the current discussion). --RWRW (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

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


if people lancb the site for a period of time, say a month or two, should it be that they have wait to get sysop status, like a new user? AMassiveGay (talk) 22:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

they certainly shouldnt get to vote on anything. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Not sure about the second proposal...but I am always okay with waiting to give user rights. Not being a sysop for a few test days does little harm for anyone.-Flandres (talk) 22:10, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
it should act like a reset. so edit count for the purpose of voter eligibility would be set to zero. say a month after retired template appearing on someones user page. plenty of time for people to reconsider if done in a fit of pique AMassiveGay (talk) 22:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I just realized we might want to take this to the community standards...though I also think they are discussing another proposal so attention might be slow.-Flandres (talk) 22:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Re-upping this eminently sensible proposal from @Bob M back in June:

"Any user who posts a LANCB notice on their user page will be promoted to Normal User for the time that the notice remains on their user page and for one month after it is removed. Once the month has passed they will not necessary be demoted to any previous status they may have held."

I'd incorporate AMG's proposal as follows:

"Any user who posts a LANCB notice on their user page will be promoted to Normal User and lose their voting franchise for the time that the notice remains on their user page and for one month after it is removed. Once the month has passed, they will regain their voting franchise, but will not necessarily be demoted to any previous status they may have held.

Requests to be indefinitely blocked will be treated as equivalent to posting a LANCB notice, and will incur the same restrictions. A subsequent unblock request will be treated as equivalent to removal of the LANCB notice."

I think the drama reduction potential is obvious. If nothing else, it incentivises people to fuck off quietly. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 23:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I was not too big on this last time, but in light of the last few months it seems significantly more reasonable.-Flandres (talk) 23:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
I'll drink to that. Your good health, sir. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 23:47, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
i feel there should a period of grace for people to cool off before anything to kick in. things can get heated and rash decisions can be made. hence i am suggesting one month after the lancb notice is posted before anything to take effect. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Would you look at that, a serious and eminently sane proposal for change to community standards from HBC. I'll drink to that. I'll also support the proposal. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 23:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Likewise.Spud (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more with AMG's proposal. I also agree with his proposal that a user when they come back from LANCB or a request for "permanently blocked" have their account reset in terms of voting and have to wait the appropriate amount of months as a user and edits before they can vote. A 24 hour (or perhaps 48 hours) "cooling off" period also makes a lot of sense before their demotion and reset kicks in. ShabiDOO 00:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

That "cooling off" grace period would rather defeat most of the drama reduction potential, though, wouldn't it? Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 00:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree with HBC. Like, if a overwhelming majority of the community demands a waiting period I won't vote against the finished bill...but some things should be prompt and ruthless.-Flandres (talk) 00:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Honestly people who cares--Hastur! (talk) 07:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)


is this the fourth time you are trying to modify the community standards to get me banned or disenfranchise me? this is pathetic. but be careful what you wish for, this could affect your unstable mascot, who tends to lancb. — Godless Raven SDAPOe logo.svg talkstalkwalkbalk 🌹 Flag of Europe.svg 07:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Lol: banned anyway. The proposal was irrelevant. Bongolian (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Vote: Should we change the 48-hour Coop rule?[edit]


I think we should hold a vote to see what we and the mob think. --Goatspeed. How's my editingCircularREmail2.gifasoningSteal my ideas 19:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

This vote has been closed. Please do not add, remove or change votes.
The result of this vote was: Coop cases can now have a vote after 24 hours on a 12-3 overall and a 12-3 for 24 hours specifically. Sirius (dog star / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 12:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Leave the 48-hour rule as-is[edit]

  1. A decent amount of time given the multiple timezones involved, as well as the occasional surge in passions. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  2. Ban everyone immediately and shut this embarrassment down. Nutty Roux (talk) 19:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
  3. What GC said. Oxyaena Harass 19:51, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
  1. It makes Coop cases run on for too long; methinks 48 hours is a bit excessive. It should instead be 24 hours IMO. --Goatspeed. How's my editingCircularREmail2.gifasoningSteal my ideas 20:09, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
  2. Like, I get the whole "we need 48 hours for everyone to explain themselves" thing sounds good...but most coop cases have descended into bitter flame wars with no constructive arguments long before two days have passed. Besides, penalty votes at minimum last a week. Why do we NEED this extra 48 hour period?--Flandres (talk) 20:15, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
  3. Has proven excessive in my experience. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄Ask about our holiday specials! 21:07, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Change the rule to 24 hours[edit]


  1. --Goatspeed. How's my editingCircularREmail2.gifasoningSteal my ideas 19:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  2. ShabiDOO 19:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  3. A period of time to discus and debate before voting seems sensible. But 48 hours seems excessive, especially when certain votes can remain open for 14 days. --RWRW (talk) 19:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  4. -Flandres (talk) 19:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  5. Sure. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 10:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  6. Definitely. Spud (talk) 10:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  7. Low objections to this, although I'd obv have preferred a better writing more in-line with the intent rather than lowering the guideline to something arbitrary again. Sirius (dog star / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 12:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  8. 48 hours seems a tad too long, and a coop with a vote going out from the start is pretty kangaroo-ish. This looks like an acceptable compromise. ElectrosPardon? 20:53, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  9. Yep... AceModerator 21:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  10. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄Ask about our holiday specials! 23:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  11. The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 talk stalk 06:01, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
  12. Bongolian (talk) 18:45, 5 December 2020 (UTC)


  1. Nutty Roux (talk) 01:20, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
  2. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
  3. 𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 20:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


Agree. AceModerator 19:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Alright. Moving now. --Goatspeed. How's my editingCircularREmail2.gifasoningSteal my ideas 19:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
@Ace McWicked@GrammarCommie@Flandres I've just moved this to the community standards talkpage, as requested. --Goatspeed. How's my editingCircularREmail2.gifasoningSteal my ideas 19:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't see the need for this. Oxyaena Harass 19:50, 5 December 2020 (UTC)


  1. I'm a BoN lurker and I'm reading Our Community Standards are under review. Your comments and inputs are welcome on the relevant project talkpage. at the top of every page. If you're going to say that on unregistered users' screens, I'm going to voice my opinion, and that is no, leave the rules the fuck alone and stop being a bunch of fucking drama queens. Fuck this shit with people trying to make it easier to put permabans in place; you want to feel important getting people banned go to Wikipedia and be an RC patrol. (talk) 18:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
    You are not eligible to vote, I'm afraid.-Flandres (talk) 18:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
    So you ask for me to vote only to tell me I can't? Brilliant! Looks like something else you people need to fix. (talk) 18:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)'s in the community standards-you are not eligible. If you feel that strongly about it, make an account, start contributing, and wait three months. Also, actually reading the document you so prize might help(just a thought).-Flandres (talk) 18:52, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Since it looks like "Aye" is winning by a landslide[edit]

@Bongolian@Spud@Ace McWicked@Sirius Should I close this vote and change the rule? --Goatspeed. How's my editingCircularREmail2.gifasoningSteal my ideas 23:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Policy votes have the same week-minimum guideline as penalty votes, I believe.-Flandres (talk) 23:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Correct. 1 week is the minimum rule. Sirius (dog star / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 13:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
No more votes are coming in, and it's been a week. Motion to close the vote and change the policy. ElectrosPardon? 11:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Motion seconded. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 11:21, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Policy enacted, vote closed. The new rule is 24 hours. I'll instate this in the CS and update the coop accordingly. Sirius (dog star / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 12:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Changes made. On the CS it also applies to ATIM, given ATIM is somewhat of a bonafide coop sometimes and occasionally deals with penalty votes. Sirius (dog star / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 12:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Revisiting the Sysoping rules[edit]

The Community Standards currently allow, any Sysop to add Sysop rights to any account, at their discretion. Although this has been a long-standing rule, I have been recently picking up resistance to the concept, from multiple users. I propose that we discuss the possibility, of adding minimum requirements for new users obtaining Sysop rights. A minimum time registered, a minimum amount of edits, perhaps a rule requiring a second Sysop to approve. Or if the mob desires, rules remain as they are. This is not intended to be rushed to a vote, it is nevertheless, a discussion. Judge Dredd (talk) 12:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

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

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Cosmikdebris The current rules, which you say you wish to retain, fully allow for users with no edits to be given Sysop rights as any other Sysop wishes. Further, Sysop rights are routinely given to users with no edits, by myself and others. If the rules here are not changed, this will no doubt continue as a legitimate action. Given that your comment gives mixed messages on this, could you clarify your position on giving Sysop rights to users with no edits? Judge Dredd (talk) 15:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Judge Dredd I think it's fine for a sysop to demote another user with zero edits. We should always assume good faith when dealing with our fellow sysops. However, a reason should be given for such an action, and if another editor is puzzled by this and questions the action, they should be given an honest answer. If an honest and truthful explanation isn't forthcoming, then the issue may be addressed by the mob and/or mods. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 16:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. Judge Dredd (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I think I'm joining cosmiks opinion on this. Sirius (dog star / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 16:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
As someone who's been told off before for handing out mops prematurely, I think that we should only demote people if their account is at least 2 months old and they've made at least 25 edits that consistently indicate that they're not an obviously bad-faith editor. In fact, I once even gave this very advice to some of my own demotees on the Saloon Bar. --Goatspeed. How's my editingCircularREmail2.gifasoningSteal my ideas 17:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't think that it's unreasonable to expect that a new account show some reasonable minimum mainspace editing before being given sysop. Although the CS would seem state otherwise, my interaction with one of the old guard (User:AgingHippie and maybe others) indicated that there was some informal support for this. Bongolian (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm Okay with something approaching Cosmikdebris' suggestion. In my opinion handing sysop to anyone with very few to zero edits should be strongly justified in the edit summary. This whole thing began rather weirdly with JD creating an account (as requested at Discord, so for someone else allegedly) and handing it mop before a single edit. This is something that decidedly should in my opinion be justified, since some of us (maybe all if it's a private conversation) can't see the discord conversation.
And I think I was the one who admonished CR for handing out mops too liberally. In that case it was more than a year old account with about 10 clearly good faith edits. So I'm a cantankerous old goat clearly, but I think some standards should be set to make brigading less easy. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 19:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Cosmik has swayed me a bit. If there's a good honest reason, like it's somebody who the sysop knows off site, then I wouldn't have a problem with premature sysop (but it does need to be stated so that we all know about it). That being said, I'm also not opposed to a short waiting period of perhaps a week or so, or alternatively an edit requirement. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄Ask about our holiday specials! 19:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the Discord issue, Judge Dredd still seems to think that important RW decisions are made on Discord ("Yeah, it's where everything is talked over, planned, coordinated, decided between key users. But absolutely nothing to do with the wiki.") RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation#The 2a0b:f4c2... IPs. This is not the case, and it has been discussed before on the Mod board. People on Discord are elected on Discord. People on RW are elected on RW: they are functionally independent bodies, particularly because the full set of RW moderators are not even present on Discord. Fellow-moderator @Ace McWicked has firmly stressed this point. Bongolian (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I think the edit requirement should be at around 25 mainspace/funspace/CPspace edits that are consistently good faith, and an account age of at least two months. 100 edits seems a bit excessive, IMHO. Heck, I demoted @Twodots (who I initially didn't trust until he impressed me on a few occasions), @Quantumgeek333, and @PanGalacticGargleBlaster when their edit counts were all in the lower double-digits, and those weren't too controversial. --Goatspeed. How's my editingCircularREmail2.gifasoningSteal my ideas 19:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC) ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── It doesn't make sense to give a mop to someone with zero edits. ShabiDOO 19:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I was here for over a year before fuzzy gave me a mop and I didn't even use any of the tools for several years and I think I've used them seriously once and a couple times to make stupid joke blocks. I have no problem with people easily given the mop, I don't understand why they should be handed out to someone who hasn't contributed anything. ShabiDOO 19:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I was around for more than 4 years before I was even Autopatrolled. I don't begrudge that, because for the most of that time I'd only made one edit. It was another year and about 30-40 edits later that I made a drunken rant about Ace and he decided to give me a mop for it. I still question his judgement on that, though I've tried to behave.
Anyway, Autopatrol is supposed to be handed after you're diagnosed as "not a troll". Sysop should require a bit more I think. CR's numbers look basically good, though I might overlook the 2 months limit if they've been very productive and noncontroversial over a shorter time. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 19:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm not saying we should demote people with no edits. In fact, I openly disagreed with JD's sysopping of that lurking alt of his, remarking on how premature the demotion was- especially since JD didn't tell us that it was his alt on-wiki. --Goatspeed. How's my editingCircularREmail2.gifasoningSteal my ideas 19:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I stg, why are we still talking about discord. This problem was settled months ago. Coordination on Discord from certain users to run the site as a "backroom chat" did indeed used to happen. That said, as it currently stands, all users who were responsible for that have since been stripped of user rights that would give them meaningful sway to my understanding over them misusing their rights (and one has LANCBed). Since then, there's been an active push to do everything in public from me and several other editors to avoid that from happening again. Anyway, while I get the fears of mopping people with no track record, it's... difficult to ascertain what warrants a proper "quick mopping" (ie. "i know this guy") versus a "let's wait their competence out a bit". I'm not a fan of requiring edits or account age as a minimum requirement for mopping because it'd be hard to define. Leaving it up to "anyone can do it" has worked... reasonably well so far, barring the coop rigmarole. I also want to stress the importance of sysop as a way to avoid locking people out of talkpage discussions. Right now, blocking a sysop is like pissing in the wind, for better and for worse. By deliberately forcing a higher disparity between sysops and users, discussion and joke blocks turn from a nuisance into a case of rights abuse (because they start clogging up the relevant logs) if accidentally done against a non-sysopped user. Sirius (dog star / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 20:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I eco some of the words said by Cosmikdebris and others above. I'm opposed to any minimum requirements (x number of edits in x number of months), but those who demote brand new users should be prepared to explain themselves if asked. --RWRW (talk) 20:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Evidently a sysop on this wiki has the prerogative to give out any number of mops on the same day. Today, JD handed out nine. As far as I can tell, these are the only mops handed out by JD under their current cognomen. What is the occasion? Ariel31459 (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I think JD is trying to make a point. I also think he's being an irresponsible dick. Though there's nothing new in that. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 22:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Ditto on the trying to make a point thing, especially given his purely ideological demotions of people just for being ancoms. But to be fair though, the only one I particularly object to is Catgrrl37-0, who has tried to push her POV into articles a la ideological categorizations, despite having been told off countless times... not to mention the fact that she has openly alienated people who somewhat agree with her, as evidenced by her one-sentence userpage. --Goatspeed. How's my editingCircularREmail2.gifasoningSteal my ideas 01:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
We definitely need a standard on making people sysops, or at the very least we need to relax any pretensions about removing sysop rights. We also ought to be more careful about granting autopatrolled status--Hastur! (talk) 02:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
She hasn't alienated me. Oxyaena Harass 06:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Two quick things to add (because I am on holiday I’ve left this wiki for the time being. Back next week). @Bongolian is absolutely right. RW Discord has nothing to do with RW policy. Second - who gives a shit if someone is made sysop on day one. They can do nothing harmful whatsoever. Fuck it - stop fucking crying about shit that has no consequence. Fuckers got me out of my holiday for this shit? AceModerator 16:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Fuckers got you off your holiday; You can't have shit on RW. Twodots (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

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

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────If is decided that there is no minimum editing standard for Sysops, I propose striking this text from the RationalWiki:Sysop guide:

To patrol an edit, click the word 'diff' where it says "(diff | hist)" and click "Mark as patrolled" - CTRL + F will help you to find this - if it is a sane edit. To mark a new page as patrolled, simply view the page, and a link will be displayed at the bottom-right to mark it as patrolled, once again, if it appears halfway coherent and sane, within our definitions of "sane".

For if there is no minimum assessment of 'sanity' to become a sysop, then surely there is also no minimum requirement to judge 'sanity'. Bongolian (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Good post! Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 18:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Creating an alphanumeric username policy[edit]

This is a fairly simply proposal: As anyone who has been watching recent changes lately, there has been an influx of a certain troll using uncommon unicode characters to create a username to just spam a page and do some variation on it. To this end, I would suggest expanding the Community Standards to explicitly forbid the creation of an account with a non-alphanumeric username. Enforcement would be possible using the abuse filter. Discussion on actual policy can be had below if we want to bicker about the specific wording. Personally, I don't see the use for any non-alphanumeric username to exist on the wiki (for anyone familiar with regex, this would mean blocking every username that matches [^A-Za-z0-9. :\- \p{Cyrillic}]+), but I am open to discussion on this matter. Sirius (dog star / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 13:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I fully support this proposal. Spud (talk) 13:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
My opinion: I don't think we should prohibit all non-alphanumeric characters (for instance, we should allow hyphens), but prohibit most, especially obscure characters that take up large amounts of space (so no Akkadian cuneiform). JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 13:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
That policy is racist towards Akkadians. What of the Akkadian community members who may wish to contribute to rationalwiki in the future once we learn how to clone their remains and create a whole new generation of Akkadians (who may choose to learn their ancestors writing system). ShabiDOO 17:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Edit: I would also support the addition of an edit filter (or we could try dusting off the title blacklist) that prevents most alphanumeric characters from appearing in usernames and page titles; we should preferably also prevent usernames that repeat characters enough times to be not very good. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 13:29, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
To be clear, a large part as to why I am doing this as an open discussion is because of the amount of stuff that we need to decide to let through. Just based on these discussions and suggstions alone, I've already noted that the characters :- need to be let through (colons are used for ipv6 addresses, hyphens thanks to JJP. Title Blacklist wouldn't really help here, it's more of a generic filter that stops page name creation and creation of usernames containing specific strings. Sirius (dog star / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 13:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Angle brackets should be allowed too. Slashes, em dashes, @s, ^, &, %, etc. should be kept. [] and {} should be removed because they may cause problems with wikitext. Maybe the currency signs shouldn’t be allowed? Also, there should be a limit of characters you can have in your usernames. I have seen trolls use really long ones to fill the recent changes.The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 talk stalk 13:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
[], {} and currency symbols are removed already (the [] in the regex proposed is formatting, same for the ^ and the +). Slashes to me sound somewhat worthless to keep, all they do is cause issues with user subpages. @s are blocked internally by mediawiki (LocalSettings configuration) because they interfere with some internal handling. What are the arguments for keeping ^, & and % unfiltered? I personally don't see a lot of reason to keep them but I could be convinced otherwise. A max username length is also up for discussion. The current maximum is just 255, which is the upper limit MW stores usernames as. Sirius (dog star / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 13:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
@Sirius, iirc, you are technically prohibited from creating an account with a username larger than 85 bytes, but a specific character maximum would make sense. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 14:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I can't imagine anything we would actually lose if we insisted on alpha only user names. Although we might want to include non-English alphabets. But as a broadly English-language Wiki I don't really see that we would have to.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Crow has told me that this is to reduce the amount of modwork required to filter out "certain undesireable handles." I think anything that saves time and effort and allows us to do more constructive things is good. We should also grandfather in existing users with non alphanumeric handles. Oxyaena Harass 15:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
A clarification to that; with "Undesirable handles" I'm talking about stuff like Mike's insistence on variations on the letter N that plagued us for a bit. Furthermore, Morris did the same thing with around 20 variations of Peter Parker around the time when I first joined. The problem is that those kinda variations can't easily be filtered out and they generally are only used for spamming. Grandfathering in users with non-alphanumeric handles is perfectly fine. The filter as I currently have it in Draft (it's disabled rn) would only trigger on account creation. No existing users will be affected by it. Sirius (dog star / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 15:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
We should consider letting in other alphabets as well, or not. This is a primarily English language wiki. But would this also apply to RussionalWiki? A completely separate community using the same domain as us, with a separate language. Oxyaena Harass 15:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
You raise a really good point. RussionalWiki seems to be running on the same backend as ours. I'll see if I can add an exemption for cyrillic characters to the filter, hang on. Sirius (dog star / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 15:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Cyrillic is excluded from the character filter. Thanks for pointing it out. Sirius (dog star / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 15:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)::
I'm unsure exactly how this would affect signatures, as you probably note mine has some unusual characters in it (I think the ability to use symbols in at least signatures is pretty nice. ⏣sapient_cogbag⏣ [all-lowercase name pls] talk 17:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Sorry in advance for the reactionary response, but isn't that a little racist? If someone has an Arabic or Japanese keyboard, but do not know how to switch to a Cyrilic keyboard they won't be able to create and use an account on RW. I do support banning useless symbols like emojis assuming it's even possible to have emojis in one's own username. 2A02:418:6017:0:0:0:0:148 (talk) 18:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
We don't usually get editors in those languages and the few editors we've had in those languages have written their usernames out in romaji, so I don't think that's an issue. The current policy I'd be going for with the filter is to display an interface message and disallow the action, not block anyone for it. So your problem is duly noted, but it's not one we've ever had in practice. Also @Sapient cogbag, it wouldn't affect signatures, only usernames. Your signature can be as messy as you want it to be. Sirius (dog star / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 19:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm going to oppose this policy on the grounds that the troll will just make other usernames and then spam "nigger" elsewhere, which he's already started doing. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Not sure if this is necessary. I'd just let discretion rule over this and I do think this sort of restriction could end up catching our foreign users --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 02:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I concur with LGM. Usernames with characters within the unicode range for the Akkadian script can be inconvenienced, but we should still be allowed to create usernames in maybe Arabic characters (except perhaps the "Peace and blessings of God be upon him" glyphs that Mikey loves to use to graffiti the user creation logs), Hebrew, Russian/other former Soviet-bloc languages, Chinese, and वे भारतीय भाषाएँ the Indian languages- since we have/had editors who might write in those. And also, I'd block the accent/palatial hook/tilde/chandrabindu/umlaut/etc.-stacking trick. --Goatspeed. How's my editingCircularREmail2.gifasoningSteal my ideas 04:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Concur as well. The troll(s) will eventually get bored and go away. I'm not sure it's worth changing policy for if it's just one person/group. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 04:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) I would support limiting user names to the languages RW actually uses (so the latin and cyrillic alphabets ought to be fine). This would not hinder speech, as user names are not a particularly meaningful form of speech on our website. Indeed, the only people this would hinder would be trolls. In the future, should anybody desire to start an RW fork in Hindustani or Japanese or Sumerian, they are free to create an account using the Latin or Cyrillic alphabets and petition us to allow them to do so. Given that our website's documentation is in English (and I'm assuming Russian), I don't see this as a serious impediment. If a user is unable to create a user name with latin characters, then they clearly have no business creating an account on our website, since the account creation page, our community standards, etc are all in English (and Russian?)-Hastur! (talk) 04:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why this would be necessary or beneficial. If someone is spamming, then ban them. What does it have to do with usernames? Let people use whatever name they want. Hmmph (talk) 02:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see removing diacritics as solving much, the troll will just move on to another naming method. Reasonable standards for user names should be 1) not excessively offensive and 2) not confusing to English-language readers (e.g. most foreign character sets, or ".." as TwoDots used to be called). Bongolian (talk) 02:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC)