RationalWiki's 2019 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2020.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $2200Goal: $3000

RationalWiki talk:Community Standards/Archive11

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 19 September 2011. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, (new)(back)

Proposal[edit]

This discussion was moved here from RationalWiki:Chicken coop‎.

Since discussion here seems to have died, and nothing has been settled, I think it would behoove us to try to reach some conclusion, if only so we don't revert back into HCM right after we had a quite successful inaugural moderation last month. Human has been called on the carpet for giving Marcus a sanctuary, but while several editors have balked at this as Marcus is supposed to be blocked from the entire site, no one seems to be clamoring for punishment. Furthermore, his sanctuary still stands, and Marcus's comments remain undeleted. This much is a de facto win for Human, so we might as well certify it. However, Nx's, technical tinkering was condemned by many as an abuse of powers, but also seen by some as a clever and useful compromise: a good idea if it had not been a unilateral action. So here is my proposal, hoping to bring a quick and painless end to this. Troll sanctuaries, such as Human made allowed for Marcus, are allowed to remain, but are to be removed from recent changes. This basically adheres to the path of least resistance (ie the status quo), which is probably about all we're gonna get, given what's happened so far. This has the further act of legitimizing Nx's actions, and leaving everyone unpunished and hopefully unbutthurt (great word, there). So let's vote. DickTurpis (talk) 14:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC) [Note: this has no bearing on the proposal to further extend Marcus's ban]

When the whole section starts off with a grotesque error: "such as Human made for Marcus", nothing that follows can be valid. I did not create the page. Get your facts right before you proceed with your silly kangaroo courts. ħumanUser talk:Human 08:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
This vote actually conflates two issues into one. The first question is "should we allow troll sanctuaries". The second is "if yes, should troll sanctuaries (or rather should any page) be excluded from Recent changes". As it is now, we have three voting sections that don't make it clear what the "yea" or "nay" is actually in regards to. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 08:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
You forgot the third, which is honoring Nx' tampering with the database on the server post hoc and thinking that is a good idea. ħumanUser talk:Human 08:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I fail to see any real ambiguity. The solitary "yea" refers to accepting this proposal as is. One "nay" rejects it for being too permissive, one for nor being permissive enough; I think I spelled it out as well as I could. If your concern is vote splitting leading to a minority position winning in the end, I think you might have a point is this particular vote weren't so one sided. DickTurpis (talk) 18:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
This vote has been closed. Please do not add, remove or change votes.
The result of this vote was: Troll sanctuaries undermine the concept of a sitewide ban, and shouldn't be allowed.

Yea, allow a troll sanctuary for a banned user, but hide it from RC[edit]

DickTurpis (talk) 14:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  1. (((Zack Martin))) 13:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
  2. --ʤɱ anti-communist 00:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Nay, do not allow troll sanctuaries, as they undermine the concept of a sitewide ban[edit]

  1. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 15:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  2. -- Nx / talk 15:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  3. SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  4. Trolls don't want sanctuaries. MC isn't going to stay quietly in his sandbox by himself. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 15:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  5. I'm surprised it needs spelled out: it's an excuse for more attention by having their own special place just for them. Fuck, even writing this comment is giving them attention. Crap. There's just no winning. ADK...I'll insult your amplifier! 15:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  6. Keeping it off RC was a creative idea, but devising ad hoc responses instead of actually enforcing a sentence that had something like 90% community approval will just reinforce the notion that trolls can do whatever they want. Röstigraben (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  7. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 16:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  8. I don't normally vote in these things, but if we're going to do moderators, then sure as hell we'd better do it right. And clearly violating their decision is doing it wrong. ThunderkatzHo! 16:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  9. Isn't this obvious? --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 16:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  10. RatMaster háblame 17:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  11. -Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  12. DickTurpis (talk) 17:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC) - Changing my vote. No need to propose a compromise when basically everyone is already on one side. I misread inaction for complacency rather than laziness or whatever.
  13. --BobSpring is sprung! 18:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  14. TallMan (talk) 21:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  15. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 01:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
  16. - π Moderator 02:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
  17. Excellent set-up by Dick Turpus - thanks, man! This needed a vote to sort out the aftermath. I really think that our new system is working out.--ADtalkModerator 03:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
  18. If someone wants to usurp the community by setting up a troll sanctuary, they can do so on their own website. If our community wishes that troll content should not be hosted here, then blatant defiance of that does little more than undermine our community and, in its own right, is trolling in and of itself. Lord of Reckless Noise Hooray! I'm helping! 11:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
  19. -- Тyrannosaurs 12:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
  20. Blue Talk 22:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Nay, allow troll sanctuaries but leave them unmolested as any other page[edit]

  1. I think this is what I'm willing to vote for. Troll sanctuaries can keep trolls occupied without interfering with the greater wiki. We let cranks put up Essays on the grounds that it's not mainspace, why not let trolls have a sanctuary? As far as exempting them from recent changes? The case could be made, but who authorizes pages to be removed from Recent Changes? --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 08:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

  1. --ʤɱ secularist 16:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC) changed vote


users are permitted to delete posts containing personal attacks or trolling from their own talk pages, being responsible for any abuse of this permission.[edit]

The LJ's decision was this:

"obviously vile comments can be deleted by anyone. Others leave up to the person who's talk page it is. Article talk pages: delete the vile; ignore the trivial."

This was incorporated into the community standards by ListenerX [1]. "being responsible for any abuse of this permission" wasn't in the LJ's decision, that was added unilaterally by ListenerX. Leaving aside the problem of "abuse of this permission" not being defined, the original decision technically allows any user to delete whatever they want from their talk page, which is incompatible with the community standards, since they state that

"Talk pages (including user talk as well as article talk pages) and other discussion pages, such as debates or the Saloon bar, are community property. They must not be deleted, nor protected, although they can be archived periodically."

Ironically, the LJ's decision only caused more drama and disagreements over what "obvious trolling" is and what comments can be deleted, it didn't really stop MC's trolling, which was the reason for the whole thing.

I propose that the LJ's decision be repealed and ListenerX's edits be reverted. Deleting comments from talk pages, including user talk pages, should be done in exceptional cases only, such as in the recent MC case where the community voted to enforce his ban by removing his IP comments. A good replacement would be that only comments made by banned users (either through sockpuppets or IPs) can be deleted. And in case of a dispute, we have moderators to help settle it. -- Nx / talk 07:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. It's impossible to establish a standard for what is or isn't "obviously vile", so it's better to simply issue sanctions to individual editors. Röstigraben (talk) 08:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I think the "obviously vile" or "patently offensive" matter should be a matter for the user who's talk page it is. If we declare that user talk pages are community property and we cannot delete other people's messages, then what's to stop me from plopping down onto Nx's, Röstigraben's, or human's user talk page and laying a big steaming shit of "you're a fucking idiot", and the declaring it protected by the community standards? There should be some reasonable leeway for users to manage their own talk pages, and to remove material that they feel is unacceptable, or abusive speech towards them. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 08:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if you've followed the back-and-forth on Occasionaluse's talk page from a few days back. The problem is that there is no idiot-proof way of defining "vile", "offensive" or even just "reasonable leeway", at least not when you've got people actively looking for loopholes. Since there's really just one editor whose comments this policy was supposed to target, and said editor is also the only one who's under a side-wide ban, it's better to do away with a guideline that can be interpreted to be either unenforcable or censorship at will. And you're welcome to call me whatever you wish on my talk page, you're not banned and I personally ignore insults. I'd just like to see a sentence with overwhelming community support enforced for once. Röstigraben (talk) 08:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Right, tyranny of the majority and all that. Anyways, I don't see why we can't allow for people to police their own user talk pages according to their own sensibilities. We don't have to make an objective standard for the rule, and that's the point I'm trying to make. Let each user manage their user talk page to their own sensibilities. "Censorship at will", what happened to the argument that "some censorship is ok" when we were arguing about banning MC for 2 years? If you offend a user's personal sensitivities on their own talk page, then they should have the right to remove that content. I don't see what the big problem is here, because crying "it's censorship" is totally obliterated by the wide support for banning MC forever (I know; it's hyperbole). --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 15:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
It's not tyranny when there's a long discussion, a vote, and a result. It's childish to pretend otherwise, and it's childish to keep stamping one's foot and refuse to go along with it. The community decided that MC wasn't welcome to post for 2 years because of his own actions. That's not censorship - it's enforcing the rules. Just as it's not "tyranny" to arrest people who rioted in London recently, it's not "tyranny" to stop someone posting when they've shown absolutely no interest in being a useful member of the site. Please stop with the hyperbole. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
The problem is the definition of "trolling" or "vile" etc. As Eira said, calling somebody a fucking idiot would count, but what if somebody takes offence to being told "don't do that again, idiot"? Are user talk pages really that important that users can't have final say over what appears on them? Article talk pages I can understand, but 99% of stuff on our talk pages is frivolous crap anyway, so why the "don't touch rule"? --PsyGremlinFale! 16:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Says the person who cooped me for deleting his BoN comment on my user talk page calling me stupid... --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 16:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
(EC)I have to agree with SuspectedReplicant. We've had two votes apropos to this: The first decided 20 to 14 to ban MarcusCicero from the site. He's crying foul, saying this isn't a consensus, but when I asked if votes would be decided by majority or consensus, the only reply I got (from a moderator, if that matters) was that it would be by majority. No one demurred, so there is no reason to think a Wikiepdia-style consensus was necessary. Nor has anyone called into question any of the votes; they all appear to be from established community members to me. The vote was closed by a sysop, when it probably should have been done by a mod, but that's a technicality if anything (it's not even firmly established that such things lie in the moderator's jurisdiction, though it seems like the sort of thing we have them for). It's hardly anyone else's fault if moderators aren't doing these things. So unless someone can find a real problem with that vote, Marcus is banned from Rationalwiki. The second vote (right above us) was much more one-sided. By 19 to 3 it was decided that banned users are not to be given a place to post freely here. That includes user talk pages. If they want to communicate with people here, they can use email or facebook or friendster or send a telegram. This shouldn't be controversial. DickTurpis (talk) 16:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
(EC) I believe it is generally because the declarations of fascism swing back and forth in two ways: #1. People have their comments reverted or see someone else's comments reverted, and they cry, "Fascism! You're censoring my views on your talk page!" #2. People's attempt to delete someone else's perceived abusive or unwanted comments is reverted, and they cry, "Fascism! You're oppressing my right to control my own talk page!" So next week we'd be having the other argument.--ADtalkModerator 16:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
We're simultaneously arguing two different things here. One argument is whether people can delete comments on their own talk pages, the other is whether banned users' comment can be deleted from other people's talk pages. I think it would make sense to separate discussions on these two related, but different, issues. DickTurpis (talk) 16:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
"It's not tyranny when there's a long discussion, a vote, and a result." The Defense of Marriage Act was passed in the same way. Is DOMA not tyranny of the majority? This idea that just because something was enacted through democratic process that makes it non-tyrannical is lunacy. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 16:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
That comparison would hold weight if gays and other minority groups had relentlessly called other people foul names and then attempted to pass off the insults as the work of a retarded brother. Don't try to draw broader comparisons here: this is about MC. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 19:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the language should be removed, it now having been replaced with the much more objective rule that posts from blocked users are to be reverted, pursuant to the vote above.
The "being responsible for any abuse of this permission" part was implicit in the ruling, since the Loya Jirga made clear that "trolling" was to be defined by the community, while the wording of their ruling would obviously have been read as allowing each individual user to define it. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 22:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Was it? They said: "obviously vile comments can be deleted by anyone. Others leave up to the person who's talk page it is". Maybe I'm misreading it, but doesn't others refer to comments that are not obviously vile? So it's up to the user who's talk page it is to decide whether a comment is obviously vile or not. -- Nx / talk 06:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I think you are misreading it. The ruling banned users from deleting non-obvious trolling on another user's talk-page, but did not give them carte blanche to delete material from their own talk-pages. This is not clear in the way the final ruling is worded, but it is clear from the debate leading up to it, because Kels said, "a user should be able to delete comments on their own talk page if they can back up that they're trolling comments." The rest of the Loya Jirga agreed with her. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 06:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
But that wasn't reflected in the ruling. So what does others refer to? -- Nx / talk 06:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Non-obvious trolling. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 06:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Ok, so it's up to the user who's talk page it is to decide what is and what isn't trolling. Which is the problem. -- Nx / talk 06:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
No, non-obvious trolling is left at the discretion of the user whose page it is, but non-trolling comments are not. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 07:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
But who decides what's trolling and what's not? -- Nx / talk 07:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
The community — although they were not very specific about how this would be done. All the more reason to evacuate the ruling. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 07:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
No, it does not. Ok, let's take a better but hypothetical situation. A group of people keep blowing shit up in our country, and causing thousands and thousands of deaths. (Terrorists, greatest trolls ever?) So, now we decide as a community that we don't like them, and we should keep them out of our country, and so we take a vote and ban all the Mooslims. Everyone democratically decides that this discrimination is ok, and it passes as a US Constitutional Amendment. Voila, the majority democratically decides to do some fucked up shit, and they justify it all with "there was a vote". That's the whole point, is that saying that just because there was a vote, it was justified does not make logical sense, because there is nothing historically or metaphysically that ensures that votes cannot be used to commit heinous acts. Let's take 3 people starving in a crashed plane. Two of them vote that they should kill Bob and eat him. Bob votes that they shouldn't be killing and eating anyone. Sorry Bob, we had a vote... The fact that this is a "trivial" or "worthless" example of the justification of voting to commit wrong deeds is irrelevant... JUSTIFYING ANYTHING WITH "we voted" IS NOT A PHILOSOPHICALLY VALID ARGUMENT. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 09:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Eira, I'm somewhat surprised to be saying this, but I agree with you completely. Goodpost.gif (((Zack Martin))) 09:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Eira, why do you insist on bringing real-world examples into this? This is not the real world. This is not SRS BZNS. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 09:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Tyranny of the majority, of course. In America the principle of majority rules is curtailed by minority rights and some basic elements of structure found in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. And you have a point that we have no such guarantors here. Theoretically, if everyone hated a user enough, we could all band together and vote him off the island. And that would be a bad thing.
Unfortunately, I am just not persuaded that this slight risk of tyranny makes anarchy the better solution. To put it plainly, I am just not interested in being at RationalWiki if the principle around which we function is always going to be, "The loudest one wins." That's a different kind of tyranny.
Look, in his heyday we have had users who were more active than just about everyone else put together. They commented on everything, their talk pages were hubs of activity, and they edited hundreds of pages. And that's awesome. But under this principle, this also means they would get their way on everything, all the time. Who could possibly have the patience to out-revert one of our super-users? They already wield outsize influence - do we really want a tyranny of the loudest - a "dynatocracy"?--ADtalkModerator 10:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Here's an idea for you — consensus. A consensus does not require unanimity, but it requires significantly more than a majority. A good rough approximation to consensus is a supermajority, say a two-thirds vote. The second ban of MC only got 58%, which fails that standard. (((Zack Martin))) 10:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Eira argues against any voting system at all. That's to what I was replying. If you want to propose all votes require supermajorities, that's fine but unrelated.--ADtalkModerator 10:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Nice work. Whoever started it, probably about 10 months ago, you have succeeded. RationalWiki, as a community, as a group of brothers and sisters and friends, is broken. I hope it gets fixed someday. ħumanUser talk:Human 08:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I wrote an essay about this whole debate over talk pages, and the potential options that exist. Maybe you could take a look at it and comment, if you think that RW is "broken"?--ADtalkModerator 09:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Tentative proposal: Henceforth all votes shall require a two-thirds supermajority[edit]

Majority voting encourages a 50% + 1 winner takes all mentality. A supermajority of two-thirds helps ensure proposals have broad support, without requiring absolute unanimity. It increases the likelihood that significant minorities will have their views respected. It encourages those proposing change to draft proposals which will receive the maximal possible support, rather than the bare minimum to get a majority.

This proposal, if adopted, will apply to all votes on up-down issues (e.g. whether to amend community standards, whether to ban a user, etc.) It will not apply to multi-choice votes. (The expectation should be that the winning option in a multi-choice vote should be confirmed by a separate up-down vote.) It will not apply to elections to offices, such as moderator, board, etc; those positions have their own separate voting systems which will be continued unaltered under this proposal. To determine a two-thirds supermajority, only YEA-vs-NAY votes will be counted; GOAT votes, and any other possible response, shall be ignored.

Since the current standard is plurality voting, it is appropriate that this proposal itself be decided under the terms of plurality voting. If adopted, two-thirds supermajority will apply to all up-down votes after this one.

I am not going to put this to a vote as yet, I want to get some initial feedback on the idea itself first, and any suggested amendments. (Consider this to be a green paper.) If I feel the response is sufficiently positive, I will put this to a vote. (((Zack Martin))) 11:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I see a minor problem; maybe you can figure out a solution. This would, by your formulation, not apply to multiple-choice votes. But we have traditionally run votes whereby anyone could make a vote multiple-choice by just proposing a new option and voting for it. Would this rule do away with that, requiring that no one be able to make new solutions to a vote, so that each vote must be accepted as it is presented? Or is there something I'm missing?--ADtalkModerator 11:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Supermajorities enshrine the status quo, period. Take a look at parliamentary votes and referendums from around the world, and see how often a two-thirds threshold has really been cleared in democratic systems. Adopting this proposal would make it extremely difficult to get anything done at all, at least anything that's even just slightly controversial. We've typically had no more than 30-40 votes in even the most prominent decisions, so keep in mind that a determined group of about a dozen editors could effectively block any proposal they don't like. Some editors want it that way, which is a legitimate view and all, but it's what everyone should be aware of if a new standard were to be adopted. It also speaks volumes that this proposal is to be adopted by simple majority instead of the supermajority it envisions for the future, because you're well aware that it would have zero chance of passing under your own rules. Röstigraben (talk) 12:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
You are too pessimistic. Harder to adopt changes? Certainly. Impossible? Hardly. The purpose of this proposal is to change the type of proposals that are made, to try to find a proposal that satisfies 66% of member's desires (and hopefully many more), rather than just 51%.
The proposal will be decided under a simple majority because the current rules don't provide for supermajority votes on anything, even imposition of a supermajority. You are proposing that proposals to introduce a supermajority should be adopted only the basis of a supermajority. That itself is a new proposal, a deviation from the status quo. Should your proposal be decided under a majority or a supermajority? (((Zack Martin))) 12:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
All I see is an apparent inability to accept the results of a series of free, democratic votes on the part of a tiny minority of editors. First we hear from Eira that there should be no rules at all and that no vote should be binding - an opinion to which you gave a "Good post!" just above - and now you come along and say that it was illegitimate because it didn't meet an arbitrary, retroactively applied threshold, coupled with a call to impose a whole new system. So you found yourself on the losing end of a vote, get over it already. Röstigraben (talk) 12:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
(EC) Dealing with multi-choice votes is difficult. There are approaches to integrate them with the two-thirds model. For example, if there are five choices, if any one gets two-thirds of the total non-GOAT vote, that choice wins. But that is both complex, and somewhat pointless (the more choices on offer, the less likely any one will get two-thirds). I have two suggestions:
  1. Start out with a non-binding multiple choice vote as a feeler. If it looks like one particular option is a winner, someone can propose an up-down binding supermajority vote to confirm it.
  2. Discourage/disallow additional options. If votes are easy to introduce, then rather than say "Vote for my third choice", you can say "Vote NAY to Proposition 38, and vote YEA to proposition 39 below instead".
(((Zack Martin))) 12:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Having the mods vote on everything would be much better. You vote in a mod that will vote like you. --193.65.150.15 (talk) 12:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not too wild about the prospects of having two votes on everything, nor of restricting the possibility of new solutions mid-vote (as we saw with the second MC vote, where people overwhelmingly decided not to go with either yes or no, but instead with a third option.--ADtalkModerator 12:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
What's the problem with more votes? How is 1 vote with 3 choices (A, B or neither) better than 2 votes with 2 choices (A or not-A, B or not-B). Starting a new ballot should be simple and straightforward. Using e.g. Preload templates (and maybe some associated extensions), we could make it really easy. If a new solution pops up mid-vote, start a new vote, and let people campaign for "NAY to vote1, YEA to vote2" (((Zack Martin))) 12:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
It seems pretty annoying and drawn-out. Particularly since we often have successive votes, once for temporary measures and again for more permanent ones (we have done this with pretty much every user-related sanctions). That's like four weeks of voting to deal with one person, assuming we go with what has become the standard week per vote.
Not to mention, of course, the absolute inevitability of an proponent of a proposal gaming the system and making any vote they want multiple-choice and more likely to pass. For example, under this proposal if we were voting on this, an ally could just introduce a new option that is the same but with the additional addendum that only moderator votes should count. They're throwing away their particular vote, since no one will agree with it, but they've just dropped the requirement to pass that proposal by multiple votes (depending on the numbers) so it's a net gain.
I guess there's nothing inherently wrong with it. It just seems complicated and silly to me to jump through such hoops in order to fix this standard.--ADtalkModerator 13:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I'm not fixated on two-thirds specifically. Three-fifths (60%) is another viable option if people would prefer that to two-thirds. It might be a good compromise with those who feel two-thirds is too hard. (((Zack Martin))) 12:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why one side in a vote should get extra votes just because they want to keep things they way they are, and if this vote does take place it should take place under it's own super majority rule. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 12:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
if this vote does take place it should take place under it's own super majority rule - you are proposing all proposals to impose a supermajority requirement of X% must be adopted by a supermajority requirement of X%. That is not part of the current rules (written or unwritten). So you are yourself making a supermajority proposal. Should your own supermajority proposal be adopted by a majority or a supermajority (and if the later, which one)? (((Zack Martin))) 12:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
It shall be decided by a three-legged race on the village green. Cider for all after the finish. No, you silly sod, I wasn't saying it was a rule, I was saying it should be part of the proposal for the vote. Unless you don't have any faith in the system you propose? EddyP Great King! Disaster! 13:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
If I Understand this Correctly - if 65% of the wiki wanted a Particular change, then this wouldn't be enough because we want to endure that Minority Opinions are nor Overruled? And this is felt to be somehow more fair? Or am I Missing the Point?--Tolerance (talk) 14:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Make it retroactive, for the lulz--"Shut up, Brx." 14:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Chicken Coop moderation[edit]

After this discussion I believe we ought to keep the Chicken Coop from being more of a joke than an actual discussion/"serious business" page. I propose adding this section:

If you feel you have been the victim of administrative abuse or believe that a user has egregiously violated these standards, you should take your case to the Chicken coop. When presenting your case, be sure to include who you are accusing, what exactly you are accusing them of, some hard evidence, and a brief explanation. Since the sole purpose of the Coop is to resolve these disputes, don't post unrelated or more generalized complaints there - if you do, your posts will be moved off the page.

Thoughts, suggestions? Blue Talk 04:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I would support this measure. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 05:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Me too. And "some hard evidence" should be further defined, maybe "at least one difflink or log entry documenting a clear violation of the community standards" or something along these lines. Röstigraben (talk) 05:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more with the proposed change in standards. Nothing pisses me off on this Wiki more right now than the fact that people here have changed our abuse complaints page into a drama zone, and I've made clear that I am fed up with such drama bullshit being pasted all over a page that used to have a legitimate purpose. Lord of Reckless Noise Hooray! I'm helping! 05:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Very good proposal indeed. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 08:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
We certainly need to use it like it used to be used - for administrative abuse only.
I would point out though that our standards include the point:
  • Discussions here sometimes get heated, but resorting to personal attacks is strongly frowned upon, however justified they may seem.
Of late this has sometimes been honoured more in the breach then the letter, but the proposal - as worded - would seem to allow anybody to bring another user to the coop following a personal attack.--BobSpring is sprung! 10:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Agree. Тytalk 11:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Maratrean's bizarre complaints below aside (that the standard that hasn't been adopted yet isn't being followed yet and whatnot) I think this is a good idea. I think that basic procedure should use common sense - if a Cooping thing is silly or ridiculous or lacks those basic things, the mod can either request improvement ("Please provide some diffs so we can see what you're talking about, or we'll have to move this off this page, since it's meant for substantiated problems.") or just move it. I don't think it's necessary to police the actual discussion - I think we all want to retain the ability to yelp REDS REDS REDS to Lx or ask Ace how drunk he is or tell me about how delicious steak is - but we shouldn't have Coopings that are ephemeral right from the start.--ADtalkModerator 04:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Such things should not be disallowed on the Wiki generally, but there is no need for them in the middle of a discussion in the Coop. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I think they shouldn't be allowed in the proposal, but I'll tell you right now that it would be a terrible idea to have mods have to start determining acceptable speech in general in the Coop. I don't want to be having to decide whose comment is pertinent or silly or rude or whatever - or worse, editing people's personal remarks out of their comments. And then of course there would be arguments over that and then each of those would inspire their own arguments and it is a morass that would be ridiculous.--ADtalkModerator 04:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, it's funny standard to propose, given that the way those proposing it have acted was opposite. Eira's complaint ("Fucking Everyone!!!") is still on the page, albeit closed, despite being highly generalised; while the complaint against Eira, while Tolerance started making in a joking manner, I quickly made something quite specific about what she does, and yet was moved to Talk, despite being quite specific about her. The rule "resorting to personal attacks is strongly frowned upon" applies definitely to Eira's behaviour — she can think what she wants of myself or my religion, but when she turns unrelated conversations into an attack on me, I think that is a personal attack. Likewise, when I introduce an idea that has nothing to do with my religion (e.g. change in RW voting system), if you want to attack that idea, that is not a personal attack; but when you focus on an attribute of mine totally irrelevant to the issue at hand, like my religion, it has become a personal attack. (((Zack Martin))) 11:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't see your point in this specific case, Maratrean. You seem to suggest Eira's bitching was given deference because it was closed rather than moved. I'd argue the opposite. In either case, it's not really important. I like this proposal, but if it's to be for administrative abuse only, then what do we do about other abuse or issues? Marcus, for example, was not an admin (I think; if he was, let's assume for the moment he was not), so would cooping him be improper? If so where do we discuss those matters? The All Things in Moderation talk page seems like an odd place for it, but if that's to be it we should make it official here. Making this page for admin abuse only seems like an arbitrary distinction, especially here where "admin" is an almost meaningless title.
Yes to the rest of this, though. DickTurpis (talk) 12:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
There are now two issues here. I'm sorry if I helped to introduce this complication.
The first is how to moderate or refocus the chicken coop, and the other is what to do about personal attacks. We need to treat these seperatly I think. Might I suggest that the moderators be responsible for pointing out to people that personal attacks should be avoided and that the Coop is really used for instances where people have abused their authority is some way. That would then become complaints about moderators I guess. --BobSpring is sprung! 12:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Oh, so we can only coop moderators? But then, some of the mods are quite insistent they don't have "authority", and hence lacking authority we can't coop them either. So we can't coop anyone—delete the coop? On the contrary, there needs to be a process to deal with misbehaviour, whether that be by a mod or non-mod, sysop or non-sysop... I would think personal attacks would fall under that process also. (((Zack Martin))) 13:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
It's just my thoughts. No doubt there are other solutions.--BobSpring is sprung! 13:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Where does it say "we can only coop moderators?" Sysops are subject to cooping. You are one, and you, and you... If you can offer evidence that someone outside the janitorial circle has misbehaved, then what is stopping you from cooping them as well? I would draw a line excluding "failure to read before responding" from the set of coopable offenses, since there is enough of that to overwhelm any conceivable regulatory system. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, if "failure to read before responding" was coopable, we'd be cooping you, since you complain Where does it say "we can only coop moderators?" — in Bob's post to which I was immediately responding, which ends with the Coop is really used for instances where people have abused their authority is some way. That would then become complaints about moderators I guess. (((Zack Martin))) 14:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I must have really not wanted to see that. No worries, it will happen again. And again. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Can I suggest that now that we have the moderators in place, that the only people who should be involved in a CC case are the aggrieved parties and the moderators. Everybody else stays the fuck out of the discussion, otherwise we end up with the clusterfuck that followed Eira's CC post. --PsyGremlinTala! 13:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

While I'm sympathetic to concerns that significant discussions get inundated with inanity, I don't support this proposal. First of all, the community is still supposed to be in charge, which they can't be if they're shut out of the process. Secondly, while I hate to judge before all the facts are in, I haven't seen a whole lot of evidence that the moderators, as a whole, are actively getting involved in matters, and waiting for their input might prove rather slow. If a non-moderator has something pertinent to say I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to say it. "Silence, peon! This matter is above you!" is not the RW way. DickTurpis (talk) 14:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
There is a page for that already, RationalWiki:All things in moderation. The Chicken Coop is a community page and should be open to discussions from everyone. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll move this proposal to a vote, I think, as there's been little opposition to the spirit of it or objection to the language. I'd say - vote to last 7 days, simple majority prevails, counting non-yea-or-nay votes. Blue Talk 04:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

This vote has been closed. Please do not add, remove or change votes.
The result of this vote was: Coopings must be serious.

Vote to add the section to Community Standards[edit]

Yea[edit]

  1. Blue Talk 04:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
  2. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
  3. --ADtalkModerator 05:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
  4. --Тytalk 11:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
  5. SuspectedReplicant retire me 11:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
  6. Lord of Reckless Noise Hooray! I'm helping! 12:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
  7. DickTurpis (talk) 12:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
  8. --ʤɱ secularist 13:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
  9. --EddyP Great King! Disaster! 14:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
  10. Röstigraben (talk) 16:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
  11. --TheEgyptiansig001.png 21:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
  12. --YossarianSpeak, Memory 04:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Nay[edit]

  1. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 13:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
  2. --BobSpring is sprung! 15:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

  • Just to clarify, I'm assuming that "the section" refers to this paragraph:
If you feel you have been the victim of administrative abuse or believe that a user has egregiously violated these standards, you should take your case to the Chicken coop. When presenting your case, be sure to include who you are accusing, what exactly you are accusing them of, some hard evidence, and a brief explanation. Since the sole purpose of the Coop is to resolve these disputes, don't post unrelated or more generalized complaints there - if you do, your posts will be moved off the page.
If so, we should keep in mind that some aspects of community standards are undergoing some modification, if that matters to people. DickTurpis (talk) 05:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Er, why would modifying other, unrelated parts of CS keep us from adding this? I'm not sure I understand your logic. Blue Talk 10:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
It wouldn't necessarily. I'm just pointing out that when we talk about violating "these standards" that various aspects of "these standards" might not presently be defined. That's all. DickTurpis (talk) 11:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
If the objective of this change is to reduce the activity at the coop then I don't think it will work. Anyone who egregiously breaks our standards of conduct will be eligible for the coop. Given how often these standards are ignored I'm not sure that this will reduce activity.--BobSpring is sprung! 11:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
The aim was not to reduce activity, just to clean up what's presented there, trying to keep at least the original posts to serious business. Blue Talk 15:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Ok, but it seems to me that what this does is abdicate the moderators' duties to the chicken coop. Shouldn't they be ones getting involved so as to ensure the the coop isn't necessary? Weren't the moderators supposed to prevent chicken coop postings? Shouldn't they keep a proactive eye out in respect of community standards?--BobSpring is sprung! 16:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Unless the moderators start exercising a great deal of power that they were never meant to have, I don't see how they can stop Chicken Coop posts from happening. Their job is to streamline discussions of that sort, not to stop them altogether. Blue Talk 17:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
If the moderators are not going to be responsible for - at the very least - maintaining our agreed community standards then what will they be responsible for?--BobSpring is sprung! 19:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
They'll be responsible for duties consistent with the limited circumstances stated in their mandate, which doesn't include being in a leadership role or generally maintaining agreed community standards. We put out fires and gap-fill policy where there's a pressing need. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 19:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
And that means that things like personal abuse, edit warring, and HCM will need to be referred to the coop? I'm cool with that if that is what people want - I only want to make sure that people are aware that this proposal has the potential of legitimizing and increasing coop usage rather than reducing it.--BobSpring is sprung! 19:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Bob, I agree that mods should focus on prevention of HCM. That does not invalidate reforming our dispute resolution process. Introducing new rules for trials does not legitimize crime, it legitimizes the judicial process. Blue Talk 19:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
No, Bob. I think things like that, to the extent they're becoming disruptive, are absolutely within the moderators' limited bailiwick. Coop usage should be for things more substantial than a moderator stepping in to put out a little flamewar, etc. Blue, are you saying that it's the role of moderators to reform the dispute resolution process or that it's up to the community? Trent's description of the moderator position had the maximum extent of us "introducing new rules for trials" as bootstrapping and therefore gapfilling holes in process like the length of a vote or how it should be counter. My view is that those gaps in policy should ultimately be filled by the community so that they don't need moderators to do a thing that's not 100% community consensus. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 20:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
So let's take HCM. Part of the community standards says:
  • If you are engaged in an ongoing argument with another user about something, please keep the dispute within the relevant talk pages. Don't turn every possible page you or they appear on into another front of the battle.
Which sounds like HCM to me. So I seem to be hearing that mods should take an interest in this part of the community standards but not in the abuse or edit warring parts. But abuse and edit warring are some of the very things that can lead to HCM. Which leaves a confused situation.--BobSpring is sprung! 20:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I like jokes--"Shut up, Brx." 12:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)