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>, <25>, (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.

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.. [1] 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. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / 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. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / 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. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.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. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.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. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.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. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / 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. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.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). Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / 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. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / 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. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / 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. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / 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. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / 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. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / 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. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / 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. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / 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. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.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)
Gotta get in a hardy opposition. Billions of people speak languages that do not use alphanumerics as their primary symbols. We are a predominantly English speaking wiki, but prohibiting Asian names just seems racist, especially since the abuse isn't inherent to the username. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
That is true, but as an English-language wiki, we do expect some minimal level of English language comprehension (e.g. basic understanding of the community guidelines). We have had some contributors who were a bit less than fluent in English, and they have made reasonable contributions (particularly on authoritarianism in East Asia). That being said, since there hasn't been any significant usage of non-Roman script usernames, I don't see much need to fix something that isn't broken. Bongolian (talk) 19:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I feel little bit like Abraham defending Sodom and Gammora, but I found a few legitimate users who contributed positively with unicode-initial names. User:√2, User:Σigma, User:∆JP二千二∆, User:Π, and User:䯂. It's not ten righteous individuals but it's something. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:33, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't see that as a problem. If there were a bunch of users complex mono-character Chinese it could be. The main reason that I had objected to ".." as a user name previously, by the way, was that in the Recent changes log the user name ".." would appear before the separator "..". Bongolian (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
This is a dumb fucking idea. A troll can use any name they want so how is only allowing alphanumeric characters going solve anything. It's just more fucking bureaucracy. Acefuck the bozos 21:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I think restricting the usernames to alphanumeric only is a case of "Mama get your hammer, there's a fly on baby's head" (or, as Bugs Bunny said, "Go get the axe, there's a flea in Lizzy's ear.") As Ace says, it will not stop dumbass trolls. It will potentially inconvenience international users. And implementing a filter to mask out specific sets of unicode would be extraordinarily complicated. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 21:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose, agree with others above! Kauri0.o (talk) 02:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
As I said before, the troll will just find a workaround, thus defeating the point of the restriction. It should go without saying that I remain in the "opposed" camp. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I am dropping this proposal. I don't think we'll get the community backing for it. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 10:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed 2/3 rule for overturning previous votes[edit]

I would propose that any vote that in some way overturns a previous vote should require a 2/3 majority.

Overturning a previous vote (especially where the number of participants in the new vote is likely fewer) should be highly suspect, and should meet a more stringent requirement. It is likely that some of the original voters would not have a say in the latter vote, and thus it is arguably undemocratic to overturn a vote so easily. It is for this reason I imagine impeachment in the US requires a 2/3 Senate majority.

The inspiration for this comes from the chicken coop with respect to discussion of impeachment. This might also apply to unbanning of users, for example. Not too sure where else this might apply.Kauri0.o (talk) 00:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Hypothetical Situation:

Vote for X.
Yay: 10
Nay: 9
Yay passes.

New information comes to light. Three of the possible outcomes are shown below.

Scenario 1: Vote for X, in light of new information
Yay: 18
Nay: 19
Yay vote overturned.

Scenario 2: Vote for X, in light of new information
Yay: 3
Nay: 4
Yay vote overturned.

Scenario 3:Vote for X, in light of new information
Yay: 6
Nay: 12
Yay vote overturned.

I would suggest only in Scenario 3 should the Nay vote pass. Kauri0.o (talk) 00:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Unless there's a specific problem that this would solve, I'm inclined to vote against. Bongolian (talk) 00:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Improving democracy, and ensuring previous votes are not overturned without good reason. Kauri0.o (talk) 00:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
If the vote was that close in the first place, it being overturned by another close vote in light of new information isn't an actual problem. That system wouldn't be any more democratic than the current one, it would just give preference to early voters. Plutocow (talk) 00:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
The two thirds guideline is moronic in every other instance it is deployed. I will vote against any attempt to force that threshold on something else.-Flandres (talk) 00:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Noted. The 2/3 rule is absolutely not moronic in the US, for example. Without that rule, Clinton would have survived his impeachment by one vote. Other countries have supermajorities for all sorts of applications that are not moronic. Do consider other supermajorities too; two-thirds may be too strict. Kauri0.o (talk) 01:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
I would like to bring up the filibuster as a counterexample. The 2/3rds threshold can be abused by a shrinking minority to thwart change a still hefty majority of folks want, just because said minority feels threatened by it.-Flandres (talk) 01:05, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
It makes no sense that a 65% majority wouldn't be able to overturn a 51% majority. Lowering the threshold to 60% etc. wouldn't fully solve this problem. Plutocow (talk) 01:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
I think the difference between the US Senate and RW is that in the US senate, an equal set of representatives votes every single time. On RW, the original voters, and subsequently their rationales, may be lost, and may or may not be replaced by similar or different rationales. Which in my mind is even moreso reason that a supermajority should be required.
What does not make sense is that currently, and under all sorts of circumstances, a 51% majority may overturn a previous 51% majority.Kauri0.o (talk) 01:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
How does that not make sense? Majority rule is majority rule. Why is something bad if the "mere" majority supports it?-Flandres (talk) 01:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Who is suggesting we implement a filibuster on RW? That seems to be a separate issue.Kauri0.o (talk) 01:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
(EC)It makes perfect sense, if something was passed with a 51% majority then there wasn't really a strong consensus for it in the first place. If you want a higher threshold, it should apply to all votes, not just votes to overturn. Plutocow (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
(EC)You are suggesting a similar two-thirds threshold. The comparison is quite topical. You think a "mere" majority of users wanting to recall a mod is bad, much the way a "mere" majority of legislators is not be able to pass laws.-Flandres (talk) 01:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
The difference regarding filibuster is that it actually block a vote, which only requires majority, from even occurring.
I'll agree to disagree with you fellows, I do understand your POV, and maybe mine is not shared by most.
Just to clarify though, do you think it should be applicable at least in the case of impeachment on RW? Kauri0.o (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Depends on how it is framed. Recall elections don't require 2/3. Plutocow (talk) 01:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
That is what I was basing it off of. Impeachment implies a representative body is voting-recall elections mean you just go back to the voting populace, which seems like what we are trying to do here. Also, bear in mind none of this applies to our current coop case anyway, owing to deadlines for voting and such.-Flandres (talk) 01:54, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Better way of handling blocks at RW:CS if there are 2 options with super majorities?[edit]

This discussion is inspired from Special:Permalink/2330494#Goat_3 in a discussion to ban Unclescoorage from RationalWiki and there seems to be a place where the longer ban gets it, but I don't think that that is a good idea. Here are 4 options.

  1. Maintain status quo (longer ban wins)
  2. Shorter ban wins
  3. Whichever one has more support wins
  4. Extra week to two week runoff vote (one vote for which one you prefer)

Please choose Option 1, Option 2, Option 3 or Option 4. Thanks. --Gale5050 (talk) 22:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I must support Option 4. I know it's inefficent, and it can even change the trajectory (2021 Senate runoff in Georgia), but it is the best as it narrows it just to 2 options and will allow the 2 most popular options to go head-to-head. In addition, it may allow for additional participation in that people who don't meet the 3 week and 75 day requirement can participate in the runoff (though a rule may be in place to deny it), and ultimately I think is best. I am fine with Option 3 as well, but I strongly oppose Options 1 and 2, both are horrible and don't really get down to democracy. --Gale5050 (talk) 22:30, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
The status quo is fine, it’s not at all undemocratic, and the other options are all terrible. Gale5050, you’ve never actually seen a ban vote on RW; have a look at some coop archives and you’ll see that in practice the voting works (even if a lot of other things don’t). The 12:0 vs 4:2 hypothetical doesn’t often happen, and if it looked like it was going to people would be free to vote against it. Christopher (talk) 22:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
I read RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive118 and it is actually all votes put together. But I still don't like it just because, and I think a 5th option, of taking the average, might work. But that requires too much math though. --Gale5050 (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Wasn’t there for that coop and don’t want to read the whole thing, how exactly did that work?
I still don’t see an issue with how it’s usually done, which is to take the longest option that gets a supermajority. What’s the case against it? Christopher (talk) 22:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I think our status quo is fine.Flandres (talk) 23:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Personally I support options 3 and 4 just because a 12:0 for pi weeks and a 4:2 for pi months should represent a pi week scenario or at the very least a vote for pi weeks or pi months. IMO, it feels unfair to everyone who voted for the pi weeks and not for the pi months or even voted against it. It’s just what I prefer I guess. -Gale5050 (talk) 23:50, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Status quo. Kevs Ping! 06:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to maintain the status quo (option 1) from my usual reluctance to fix what isn't broken, though I can see the logic behind supporting option 3. But I will say that I'm very strongly opposed to option 4. Coops are usually tiring and unpleasant for all involved, I can't think of anything worse than dragging it on for an extra 1-2 weeks. --RWRW (talk) 06:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
I struck Option 4, Option 3 kind of seems like the best IMO.--Gale5050 (talk) 13:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
No one has explained the issue with the status quo yet. Christopher (talk) 14:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
It ain't broke. Don't fix it. Spud (talk) 14:24, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Here is the problem. Let's say there is a scenario in which an option, pi weeks, is clearly favored, 20:1. But pi months, after rough and brutal discussion, eeks out 14:7, also a supermajority. That shouldn't be the option as it had way less support, was more contreversal, and pi weeks was far more agreeable. Therefore it is broke.--Gale5050 (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
No, it is not. If all the former group really cared about saving this user so much why didn't a majority of them also vote nay for permabanning him?-Flandres (talk) 14:32, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Correct, yes, but sometimes people vote and have to step away from their computer. --Gale5050 (talk) 14:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
That doesn’t make any sense. Christopher (talk) 15:08, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
I mean, if someone votes, that afternoon flies to Colorado, and is on vacation by the time the vote ends.Gale5050 (talk) 17:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
I honestly don't understand the problem which this is meant to resolve. So I'd say stay with the status quo.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
If this hypothetical person didn’t want the longer block length, they should’ve voted against it when they had the chance. Weird argument to make. Christopher (talk) 17:36, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I see nothing wrong with the current status quo? If you dont want a certain option to apply, vote against it. If you don't care if it gets enacted or not, don't vote for it. If you wan an option to apply, then vote in favor of it. Longest one with a relevant majority (for bans a supermajority) will win. Supermajorities are really hard to achieve here, it's suprisingly easy to get people to not vote enough on something when it comes to having to achieve a supermajority. Techpriest (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Why do yea and nay for multiple options? Why not option 1, 2, 3, and oppose (do nothing)? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 18:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
because voting for oppose means opposing all options when you you are in favour of one option but not another. you could have an initial vote to decide if any action is warranted then if yea a second vote with the list of options. like in court where a guilty verdict i first reached then sentencing can be decided.
however we wanna do it, if there than one option on the table, we'll always need more than one separate vote - either each option separately or the guilty/sentence scenario. the latter is less confusing and doesnt need constant reminders of what it is we are actually voting for - one vote on whether to take action, tea or nay, then if yea vote on the options available. arguments on whether to take action or not are all then more or less in one place and separate from arguments about which actions to take which are also in one place rather than spread over several different votes. makes everything a little bit easier to follow. imho. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
So this should be seperate votes?Gale5050 (talk) 21:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
first phase is arguments on whether action needs to be taken ending with one vote, yea or nay, on should action be taken. second phase to decide what that action is with however many options is needed. one vote most popular option wins. job done and no further explanation is required to clarify what you are voting for. as opposed to now with separate votes for each possible action.
every vote i have witnessed has had some degree of confusion on how it all works and multiple votes spread over the page along with argument all the over place creates its own confusion. grouping all options together limits the confusing sprawl mess that is a coop case. voting no action in the first phase limits it even further. they are contentious enough as it is, making things little bit easier to read and a little less confusing couldnt hurt AMassiveGay (talk) 00:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
kinda think this is has been suggested before not to long ago. we might have even voted for something like that. i cant remember. we go over this every coop case AMassiveGay (talk) 00:45, 1 June 2021 (UTC)