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: $1800Goal: $3000

RationalWiki talk:Community Standards/Archive12

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Mobocracy and the coop[edit]

An idea just came to me - OK, so it's as daft as fuck but then so am I. What if the Coop were in WIGO format. A user adds their complaint in just the same way as we add items to WIGO:CP, along with, hopefully, diff links. All discussion is confined to the talk page. The mob can then vote yay, nay or meh, as appropriate. Those in authority can see at a glance how the mob feels and act accordingly.

This means that those who like to take their 'mummy, mummy, so-and-so said a rude word' to the coop can still do so - hey, we'll never be able to stop them - but the whole site will see how importantly - or not - the mob takes it.

Just a thought. Jack Hughes (talk) 12:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The mechanism behind that is AFAIK linked to IPs, so that even IPs could vote in the Coop - that's not something we want (or at least I don't) and people could too easily manipulate the polls by voting several times. So, not that great of an idea. --ʤɱ pervert 12:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
It's a good thought, but we want to keep up the discussion as much as possible (although admittedly, the prospect of less Maratrean seems pleasant...)--ADtalkModerator 14:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Maratrean who has only twice ever started a coop discussion on anybody... and we've had how many coop discussions? (((Zack Martin))) 10:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Expanding my proposal and making the mods work a bit more.[edit]

Thinking a bit more about what I suggested above it seems to me:-

  • We have community standards.
  • These are not well abided by (especially in terms of the "no personal abuse" recommendation).
  • We have moderators.
  • The obvious group who should be interested in maintaining the community standards are the moderators - after all they wanted the position and asked for votes.
  • They can act to preserve the standards either proactively or following editors bringing actions to their attention at RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation. There they can either act unilaterally to resolve issues or discuss issues between themselves.
  • If the community - or an individual - is unhappy then they can appeal to the chicken coop.

That seems to me to give a structure which allows everyone to have a fair opportunity to bring a complaint while allowing the community to have oversight of the process. Of course these are just my thoughts and I'm sure that others will have other opinions.--BobSpring is sprung! 18:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The obvious group who should be interested in maintaining the community standards are the moderators - after all they wanted the position and asked for votes. I'm afraid that perhaps some moderators wanted the position not because they were interested in resolving disputes, but because they wanted to preserve and even encourage RationalWiki as a sanctuary for flaming and trolling.--"Shut up, Brx." 04:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Who are you talking about? Aceof SpadesSilverbrain.png 04:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
(EC) While Trent has a lot of authority, I think most people voted without really knowing exactly what mods would be doing - after all, one of the first things we did as mods was to work out our duties from Trent's fiat. In a few months, we'll be having another vote, and the community will be able to decide who they want to keep and who they want to kick out. And people can make a case for why they would be a better moderator. And if we can keep moral and practical weight behind the mods, then - unlike the Loya Jirga - the next vote will actually occur and matter. Then we'll know whether users want mods that are always reasonable and compromising, or mods that are raucous and no-bullshit, or a combination of both.--ADtalkModerator 05:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
In the original mod proposal it was stated:
  • .... the sole purpose of the moderators is to deal with trolling, or disruption we don’t need tons of them. A mere handful of trusted users, that are given the authority and the tools to respond to situations that are disrupting the wiki.
And later:
  • The first step should be conversation, and trying to encourage people to calm down or refocus their energies. If action needs to be taken beyond that it should be all about the minimal action needed to resolve the situation. Perhaps a 2 hour block, or just a 2 hour page protection.
The All things in moderation page also describes the functions of the mods.
But the vote taken above seems to have the effect of sending all trolling, edit warring abuse or whatever to the chicken coop. This may be how people want to handle it, but I'm not sure what the moderators are left with in such a case. Shouldn't the function of the mods should be to act before it gets to the coop?--BobSpring is sprung! 10:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
As the "community's" page, the chicken coop should be the first line of defense against HCM. Moderators should only step in if the dispute cannot be resolved efficiently by the community - I don't think they need to have a monopoly on dispute resolution. Blue Talk 10:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I disagree with Blue. The coop is not the first line of defense against HCM, particularly since the coop has been a prime culprit in perpetuating HCM's (that's such a dumb phrase). Moderators are empowered to put in place short term remedies to preserve order and to gap-fill holes in procedure in order to empower the community to get its own work done. They're not leaders or nannies. Their prime function is to be the front line defense against conduct that's disruptive enough to take off on its own, as things tend to do here, or otherwise preserve order on the short term until the community can get a handle on a situation. I have very grave doubts that certain disruptive people here would ever stand being corrected by a moderator, so at some point more than a "light touch" is going to be necessary to preserve order. In some sense I'm coming to expect that being a moderator will be more akin to being an unpaid sewage treatment plant workers who get to wade waste deep in shit, occasionally getting splashed in the face, looking for the drain plug, than being a beat cop. The coop serves a different function than moderators. The community continues to be responsible for handling its own long term business. So, while a moderator might block an editor or lock a page for a few hours or a day, anything longer term is outside his mandate and solely up to the community. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 14:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

User Talk Pages[edit]

So I have been thinking and writing and working things out on an essay over user talk pages, which have been one of the more contentious things around here. We've gone back and forth on it, but I've seen most people admit that the status quo isn't going to work because the "obvious trolling or abuse" standard is too subjective. It seems like it's time to have a serious vote on this and get it sorted. I have a personal preference, but I have tried to fairly set out the options that seem to have significant support. It seems to make sense to have some brief discussion of the actual vote parameters first, so I'll put this up here first and make sure that the procedure works for everyone before I launch the actual vote.

The vote parameters are that it will be open for votes for two weeks. It will be announced on priority intercom, as well as the Saloon Bar. IP users and editors with less than a week to their credit cannot vote. The winner will be the option with a majority, but if no option accrues at least a 15% lead over its closest competitor then the vote will be trimmed to the two leading options and a second two weeks will choose the winner. Remember, we want this to be decisive, so no one can ignore it or pretend it doesn't exist.

I won't put up the options yet because people would just start voting, but you can see them here.--ADtalkModerator 14:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Like I said on the essay talk page, there's not much I'd change about any of those options. Personally, I would like to start the vote as soon as possible, especially since nobody has really bothered to make a fuss. Blue Talk 18:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 18:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
That's good to hear! I guess if no one has a problem with the vote parameters I'll set this up tomorrow.--ADtalkModerator 00:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I think the vote should be preferential; i.e. rather than just an up-down vote on each option, people should be able to state their order of preferences. The same extension used for mod/board elections could be used for a preferential vote, just the candidates would be options rather than people. (((Zack Martin))) 01:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
What you are proposing, having a second runoff vote if the first vote is close, is a quasi-preferential vote anyway. Why not just have one vote, and go for a full preferential system from the get-go? (((Zack Martin))) 01:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


Proposal[edit]

Proposal: That the current Community Standards regarding user talk pages be amended.

Option Zero: Status Quo[edit]

Summary: Under the current status quo, users are trusted to exercise their own judgment to discern between legitimate comments and "personal attacks or trolling." There is no appeal or further system if the editor leaving the comments disagrees, beyond a site-wide vote in the Coop or temporary action by a moderator. A minor language amendment is offered in this option, for clarity's sake (there is no actual change in policy).

Old policy

User Pages

A user's talk page, like any other talk page on the site, is public and does not belong to the user. However, users are permitted to delete posts containing personal attacks or trolling from their own talk pages, being responsible for any abuse of this permission.

Proposed policy

User Pages

A user's talk page, like any other talk page on the site, is public and does not belong to the user. However, users are permitted to delete posts containing personal attacks or trolling from their own talk pages, being responsible for any abuse of this permission. Users who believe their comments have been removed unjustifiably can take their case to the Chicken Coop or All Things in Moderation, rather than edit-warring over the removal.

Old policy

Talk Pages

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. Similarly, users should not delete or change another user's comments on a talk or discussion page, with the exceptions of obviously vile comments made for the purposes of trolling, and of a user on his/her own talk-page, as described above. The obviously vile trolling comments may either be deleted or enclosed in a collapsible box using the "trolltop" and "trollbottom" templates.

Proposed policy

Talk Pages

No change will be made to the standards.

Option One: Wild West[edit]

Summary: The current rules, as well as any subsequent rules, are no longer to be held as strictly binding, but rather just expressing a community preference. Users are free to comment where they would like and delete where they would like on user talk pages. If you want something to stay or go, then you just revert repeatedly until the other person gives up.

Option Two: Community Property[edit]

Summary: Users are not allowed to delete anyone's comments from their talk page, nor can their comments be deleted from someone else's talk page.

Old policy

User Pages

A user's talk page, like any other talk page on the site, is public and does not belong to the user. However, users are permitted to delete posts containing personal attacks or trolling from their own talk pages, being responsible for any abuse of this permission.

Proposed policy


A user's talk page, like any other talk page on the site, is public and does not belong to the user. Users may not change or remove comments on their talk page.

Old policy

Talk Pages

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. Similarly, users should not delete or change another user's comments on a talk or discussion page, with the exceptions of obviously vile comments made for the purposes of trolling, and of a user on his/her own talk-page, as described above. The obviously vile trolling comments may either be deleted or enclosed in a collapsible box using the "trolltop" and "trollbottom" templates.

Proposed policy


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. Similarly, users should not delete or change another user's comments on a talk or discussion page.

An exception to this policy is that anonymous edits from IPs or from newly-created user accounts (less than a day old) may be removed at will by users, and repetition of such edits cause for temporary blocks. This is to prevent users from being paralyzed in the face of a flood of edits from sources that cannot be held accountable.

Option Three: User's Castle[edit]

Summary: A user's talk page will be under their direct control. While not absolute - they can't edit another's comments - they may delete any comment they dislike, either for a good reason or a whim. Another user trying to add comments repeatedly will be breaking the rules, and subject to temporary action by a moderator or site-wide vote of sanctions.

Old policy

User Pages

A user's talk page, like any other talk page on the site, is public and does not belong to the user. However, users are permitted to delete posts containing personal attacks or trolling from their own talk pages, being responsible for any abuse of this permission.

Proposed policy


A user's talk page, however, is under their direct control. You are permitted to delete comments on your own talk page at your discretion.

Old policy

Talk Pages

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. Similarly, users should not delete or change another user's comments on a talk or discussion page, with the exceptions of obviously vile comments made for the purposes of trolling, and of a user on his/her own talk-page, as described above. The obviously vile trolling comments may either be deleted or enclosed in a collapsible box using the "trolltop" and "trollbottom" templates.

Proposed policy


Talk pages (excluding user 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. User talk pages are an exception. Users are permitted to delete comments from their own talk pages when they feel it is necessary. If a comment is deleted, the editor who added it is not permitted to add it again, since this is harassment. A user's talk page is their property.

Option Four: Moderation[edit]

Summary: User talk pages are considered community property, but users may ask moderators to remove obviously vile or abusive comments and to impose sanctions.

Old policy

User Pages

A user's talk page, like any other talk page on the site, is public and does not belong to the user. However, users are permitted to delete posts containing personal attacks or trolling from their own talk pages, being responsible for any abuse of this permission.

Proposed policy


A user's talk page, like any other talk page on the site, is public and does not belong to the user. Users may not change or remove comments on their talk page. Users who feel that a comment is obviously trolling or vile may request removal from the Moderators at RationalWiki:All things in moderation. Moderators will respond to requests by either deleting the comment(s) in question or not. Repetition of the comments is not permitted if they are removed.

Old policy

Talk Pages

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. Similarly, users should not delete or change another user's comments on a talk or discussion page, with the exceptions of obviously vile comments made for the purposes of trolling, and of a user on his/her own talk-page, as described above. The obviously vile trolling comments may either be deleted or enclosed in a collapsible box using the "trolltop" and "trollbottom" templates.

Proposed policy


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. Similarly, users should not delete or change another user's comments on a talk or discussion page. If they feel that a comment on their own page is trolling, abusive, or harassing then they should seek help from the Moderators at RationalWiki:All things in moderation. Moderators will respond to requests by either deleting the comment(s) in question or not. Repetition of the comments is not permitted if they are removed. Moderators may also initiate requests, but for obvious reasons would not then be allowed to be the one to rule on them. Moderators should, whenever possible, avoid moderating discussions in which they have in fact played any part, although circumstances may make this impossible at certain times of day.

An exception to this policy is that anonymous edits from IPs or from newly-created user accounts (less than a day old) may be removed at will by users, and repetition of such edits cause for temporary blocks. This is to prevent users from being paralyzed in the face of a flood of edits from sources that cannot be held accountable.

Vote here[edit]

This vote will run from September 5th, 2011 1800 NZST (0200 EST, 0600 UTC) to September 19th, 2011 1800 NZST (0200 EST, 0600 UTC). Eligible voters are registered users, with a registration date prior to August 29th, 2011.
The winning option will be the option with a majority of votes. If no option accrues at least a 15% lead over its closest competitor, then the vote will be trimmed to the two leading options and a second vote over two subsequent weeks will choose the winner. Do not add new options. This is a serious and decisive vote with five options already, and any additional options will make it impossible to reach a general consensus.
When casting your vote, please make sure you sign and timestamp under the appropriate heading. You can leave a short statement when voting, but don't be a dick about it. If you want to comment, there is a commentary section after the voting section where you can talk about someone else's vote, the vote in general, or how disgustingly fascist everyone is around here and you are totally leaving and never coming back because this place isn't fun anymore dildo dildo dildo.
Be aware that your favored option may not win. Don't be a big whiny drama queen about that. This is a website you are choosing to post on, not an Alabama lunch counter.--ADtalkModerator 05:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC) {{Vote closed|

This vote has been closed. Please do not add, remove or change votes.
The result of this vote was: ListenerX is terrible and has forced a run-off between the two leading options, 0 and 3. Run-off will be set up momentarily.

Option Zero: Status Quo[edit]

  1. larronsicut fur in nocte 06:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  2. Filby (talk) 06:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  3. Tielec01 (talk) 06:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  4. --TheEgyptiansig001.png 07:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  5. The least of five evils. Blue Talk 08:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  6. --Night Jaguar (talk) 08:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  7. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 09:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  8. Ironclad (talk) 10:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  9. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 12:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  10. Our current policy seems like it is as good as it could get. The Noisy Orchestra Oi! Oi! Oi! 12:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  11. Senator Harrison (talk) 15:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  12. ont understand the moderator option, isn't that what the mods are for. Talk pages should be preserved as a record of who said what although how much space is in archived user talk pages ? Hamster (talk) 16:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  13. steriletalk 02:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC) You can always take something to ALIM or CC, including those edits of short-term users (option 2). 1,3,4 unfeasible.
  14. Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
  15. MarkGall (talk) 04:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
  16. (((Zack Martin))) 09:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
  17. Тytalk 20:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
  18. "wah wah wah, I don't like the rules, they're vague"... idiots. Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 11:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
  19. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC) And stop deleting comments on my talk page. Seriously. Doing that makes a total fucking farce of this "vote".
  20. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 06:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
  21. ADtalkModerator 06:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Option One: Wild West[edit]

  1. Icewedge (talk) 06:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Option Two: Community Property[edit]

  1. -- Nx / talk 06:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  2. Nick Heer 06:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  3. -- Röstigraben (talk) 08:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  4. SuspectedReplicant retire me 08:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  5. --"Shut up, Brx." 11:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  6. -- Iscariot Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012! 15:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  7. --DamoHi 18:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  8. --Alain (talk) 19:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  9. --NDSP 20:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Option Three: User's Castle[edit]

  1. - π Moderator 06:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  2. (Not 'cause it's the best but 'cause it's the most likely to work.)--BobSpring is sprung! 07:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  3. - I can't really see a case currently where I would want to revert someone else on my talk page but I may want to at some time. Oldusgitus (talk) 07:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  4. - LowKey (talk) 07:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  5. - I'd say let users do what they want with their talkpage. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 11:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  6. --ʤɱ libertarian 12:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  7. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 15:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC) There's already a precedent for this, just extend it to user talk as well.
  8. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 15:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  9. -nobsI am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp 16:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Best option. Avoids silliness needing DM.
  10. -I fucked the girl in Hanson (talk) 18:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  11. Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 19:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC) maybe not castle, but "home". some rules are still critical, like if the mob decides to do a global ban on someone. and taking the word "not" out of "you are not a jerk" is probably not all that great to do.  ;-)
  12. -I'm going with this one, provided it's understood that the word "castle" notwithstanding, the vote is solely on the right to delete comments on your own talk page at your discretion. DickTurpis (talk) 21:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  13. - Sam Tally-ho! 01:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
  14. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 19:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
  15. Reason: because!! Rursus dixit (yada³!) 15:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  16. Mack Coster (talk) 18:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
  17. I agree with Dick and WfG - the phrase 'user's castle' has the potential to cause problems... Eye on the ICR talk, or type, or whatever... 08:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
  18. Secret Squirrel (talk) 21:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
  19. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 06:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Option Four: Moderation[edit]

Goat[edit]

  1. - Ajkgordon (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  2. -C®ackeЯ 17:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  3. Tetronian you're clueless 18:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  4. --DurbinatorAn armchair calls to you 19:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  5. ArchieGoodwin (talk) 14:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


Run-off Vote[edit]

This vote will run from September 19th, 2011 1900 NZST (0300 EST, 0700 UTC) to October 3rd, 2011 1900 NZST (0300 EST, 0700 UTC). Eligible voters are registered users, with a registration date prior to August 29th, 2011.
The winning option will be the option with a majority of votes. The options have been trimmed to the top two most popular ones. Do not add new options. This is a serious and decisive vote, and any additional options will make it impossible to reach a general consensus.
When casting your vote, please make sure you sign and timestamp under the appropriate heading. You can leave a short statement when voting, but don't be a dick about it. If you want to comment, there is a commentary section after the voting section where you can talk about someone else's vote, the vote in general, or how disgustingly fascist everyone is around here and you are totally leaving and never coming back because this place isn't fun anymore dildo dildo dildo.
Be aware that your favored option may not win. Don't be a big whiny drama queen about that. This is a website you are choosing to post on, not an Alabama lunch counter.--ADtalkModerator 06:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

This vote has been closed. Please do not add, remove or change votes.
The result of this vote was: The status quo will remain in effect, with some clarifications.

Option Zero: Status Quo[edit]

  1. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX Actually prefer this option, but now we will be able to end this with a majority in favor of one of the options.
  2. Blue Talk 07:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
  3. (((Zack Martin))) 07:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
  4. TyTy 10:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
  5. -- Nx / talk 06:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  6. Meh. Röstigraben (talk) 06:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  7. larronsicut fur in nocte 07:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  8. --DamoHi 08:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC) Better than the alternative I suppose
  9. - DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 10:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC) - Fucking hell, 85kB of 'discussion'!
  10. steriletalk 10:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC) Deja vu.
  11. The Noisy Orchestra Oi! Oi! Oi! 12:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  12. Jared (talk) 13:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  13. --PsyGremlin講話 14:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  14. Alain (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  15. -- Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 15:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  16. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 15:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  17. Tmtoulouse (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  18. Whatevs. MtDPinko Scum 21:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  19. Tielec01 (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  20. SuspectedReplicant Support democracy - Ace is the REAL moderator 18:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  21. --SmithRob (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  22. --GastonRabbit (talk) 22:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  23. Stile4aly (talk) 21:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
  24. I'm more regular at en.wikipedia where we mostly have option 3 and while it sorta works, it does have its flaws -- Nil Einne (talk) 04:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
  25. --Bertran (talk) 13:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
  26. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 05:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
  27. Doraemon話そう!話そう! 23:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
  28. zOMG! SRS VOTE! --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 11:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Option Three: User's Castle[edit]

  1. LowKey (talk) 06:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
  2. - π Moderator 01:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  3. --"Shut up, Brx." 06:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
    • --ʤɱ structuralist 06:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  4. --Oldusgitus (talk) 08:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  5. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 08:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  6. David Gerard (talk) 10:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  7. --CrundyTalk nerdy to me 12:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  8. - Again, "castle" meaning that an editor is allowed to remove comments from his own talk page at his discretion, nothing more. DickTurpis (talk) 13:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  9. --Lefty (talk) 16:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  10. --nobsabandon hope all ye who enter here. 17:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  11. --SoCal 212 18:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  12. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 21:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  13. --Mack Coster (talk) 21:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  14. WF Lizardbrain (talk) 02:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  15. -- This choice seems reasonable to me, but I'm pretty ambivalent either way. Protoman (talk) 18:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  16. Secret Squirrel (talk) 00:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
  17. It sort of works okay on enwiki. If in doubt, check the damn fossil record. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
  18. I don't have a problem with our current system, but this option seems better since it lets you delete what you want on your own page. I'm concerned about abuse, though; for instance, deleting part of a person's statement to make it look like they said something they didn't. Option 2 sounded pretty bad, though, since it didn't even let you delete obvious spam and insults from your own page unless it was from an anon or someone who'd been a user for less than a day. Rabbitxhampster (talk) 04:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
  19. What, huh? OK, I think I remember I vote like this last time, whatever it was about. Rursus dixit (yada³!) 07:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
  20. --Colonel Sanders (talk) 13:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


Commentary[edit]

The new rule about deleting the posts of blocked users will have to be worked in, but I suppose that can be done later. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 06:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

When the hell did we start deleting the posts of blocked users???? ħumanUser talk:Human 04:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Since this and this -- Nx / talk 04:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

What is the difference between two and four, save for the moderation aspect? Eye on the ICR talk, or type, or whatever... 06:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Not even mods can remove comments in option two. -- Nx / talk 06:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Or, rather, it does not explicitly permit the moderators to remove comments; I think the moderators could still do so under the aegis of their power to short-circuit degenerated discussions.
I would probably have voted for option 4 but for the concern that trolls and drama queens would overwhelm the moderators with frivolous takedown requests. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 06:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I would probably vote for option 2 except for the possibility of personal information being released. Option 0 seems to be the lesser of two evils; although I am not keen on the idea that abuse on talk pages might be censored, personal information or NSFW content on my talk page would be worse.Tielec01 (talk) 06:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
If it's personal info, not only will it be removed, it will be oversighted as well. So don't worry about that. -- Nx / talk 18:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
If the edit history remains intact then it is not gone forever. I am more concerned about ken style behaviour where the page is burned to hide comments. There should be more restrictions on the use of hide/show as people use it for some trivial things. Pimobile (talk) 08:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Yeah that's a potential problem the vagueness of these proposals invites. I think AD's point was to get objectional shit off someone's page so they don't have to look at it and to empower them with a bit of the moral authority necessary to clean their own damn house. That's admirable in principle but I've given my objections to implementing it in practice. There have been some recent issues with Hide Revisions, but I think it's mostly used correctly. Nonetheless, that's a community guideline we'll have to address separately. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 15:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I voted for #2 assuming that this policy also allows for removing the comments of banned users (well, just one user, actually). To me, "community property" also means that community consensus governs user talk pages, meaning that if there's been a decision to ban an editor, their comments can be removed from talk pages by anyone, and nobody can declare their talk page a sanctuary. If that interpretation was wrong, and users would literally not be allowed to remove anyone's comments, I'd change my vote to #4. Röstigraben (talk) 08:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I feel I have to justify my vote because it is a huge departure from my long term position on this.

  1. User talks are different from normal talkpages as a huge orange box shows up telling you that you have a message, there is no way you can not no that someone has left a message on your talkpage. Second of all that box is fucking annoying and if someone has left you a message telling you that you are a (fill in vulgar term for genitalia as you wish) you already know you are one it does not require repeating.
  2. I think this will only work if we also have the banned user one approved above, that is if blocked user X posts on users Y talkpage that user Z is an asshat, if another user removes it user Y can not insist that it remains.
  3. There has been too much edit warring over this recently. If a user wants to paint their talkpage pink and post naked pictures of your mother on it than so be it, just tell them they are (fill in vulgar term for genitalia as you wish) and move on, an organge box will pop up to help empthesis the point. - π Moderator 06:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Maybe there won't be a lot of edit warring (I doubt that, and there'll be a lot of drama when the blocks for edit warring are handed out), but I fear this will lead to tit-for-tat deleting of comments and taking discussions to "safer" places where the other person can't delete it (e.g. "Essay:Is User:Joe a big poo poo head?"). And doesn't this contradict the no troll sanctuary vote? I know the proposal only talks about deleting comments, but if it's my castle, then I'm allowed to have what I want on it, no? -- Nx / talk 12:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem is not in the lettering of the law but in the spirit of the community; specifically, some people act like complete dicks and are allowed end even encouraged to do so. ADK...I'll devour your dishrag! 08:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

My reasoning boils down to this: The "status quo" can be made to work well, if some clarifications to the policy are made (ie the ones suggested in Option Zero). Our issues have been a very ambiguous definition of "vile comments," as well as continued HCM over what circumstances allow posts to be deleted. The clarification fixes this: a user can delete any post from their talk page, but if the posting user believes this was unjustified, he or she can post a complaint at the Coop or with the mods. The deleting user's decision is respected by the community until a decision is reached as to whether or not it constituted abuse.
It's not pretty, but it works. I want to be able to have some level of editorial control over my talk page, to keep things from getting nasty, but I don't want users to be able to remove comments or criticism at will. Blue Talk 08:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

What was the point of all this, then?--"Shut up, Brx." 11:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Option 0 doesn't work because it is unclear what is trolling and what is not, we will only have more bitch fight, whinning at it makes it possible for trolls and those trolls trolling the trolls to game the system. Option 1 only makes sure we have a steady bitch fight. Option 2 opens the gates for trolls to pull shit all the time. Option 3 might seem unfair and will lead to bad blood, but it is the clearest to keep HCMs from our talk pages. Option 4 will make nobody want to be mod no more. We wouldn't need this if we hadn't so many dickheads around. --ʤɱ soviet 12:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Another pointless vote. We need to decide what kinds of posts can be remove, not come up with a replacement system that will do nothing but create new problems and perpetuate old ones. The LJ ruling is the problem.
  • Option 0 is the only sensible choice - with the caveat that our work will not yet be done. We need to tune up the LJ rule to deal with the specific problems that led us here.
  • Options 1 and 3 are identical in function and are both terrible ideas that would introduce far more problems that they solve. If the issue that brought us here is the disruption that was caused by the shitty LJ ruling providing little to no helpful guidance for determining what "vile trolling" is, permitting people to remove whatever they want under any circumstances is only going to exacerbate the problem. If anyone wants to see what suppression and trolling really look like, there's your chance. Nobody likes having a legit comment removed and doing so would only tend to fan flames. Some of you assholes get bent out of shape when someone removes even open trolling. Options 1 and 3 won't make any of that any better. We're a wiki built on open discourse, often inflammatory and uncivil. If you can't take it, get the fuck out or change the policy about what can and cannot be said or removed from a talk page. And if anyone thinks it's ridiculous that we have a user like Maratrean who at once pretends he's a part of this community while wanting to change core mechanics and running to all these different website to bitch about this, you're shooting RW in the foot by voting this way. Options 1 and 3 would permit even worse shit than people have ever had the moral liberty of saying to anyone on this wiki - simply because it can be removed with the click of a button. That's nonsense. The LJ ruling was close to the mark but was inartfully drafted. Fix it.
    • Despite the extents to which Options 1 and 3 purport to differ in the amount of edit warring they accommodate, I say they're functionally identical in that they're inconsistent with a moderator's mandate to stop disruptive behavior in its tracks and the community's interest in avoiding conflict. Regardless of how this vote turns out, a moderator isn't doing his job if under either option he sits on his hands while a hot edit war happens between 2 inflamed users removing and inserting awful comments. Option 3 is also impermissibly vague in that it refers to nonexistent rules. "Another user trying to add comments repeatedly will be breaking the rules." What does this even mean and how is it going to solve any problems? What is "repeatedly?" What rules will someone be breaking? And how exactly would voting this option in change a user's ability and right to bring abusive conduct to the coop or ask for moderator intervention?
  • Option 2 is a non-starter because it purports to hamstring a moderator's ability to remove disruptive comments or even stop commenting altogether in order to preserve order. We don't have the authority to limit the function of moderators in that regard, regardless of how we vote. That authority was delegated by the Foundation to Trent alone as Operations Manager in the corporate by-laws. Your corporate overlords are benevolently lording over you. Deal with it.
  • Option 4 is and will continue to be the catch-all regardless of how we vote. As with Option 2, the role of moderators is what it is. We don't have the authority to change it.
  • I'm seeing concerns that this vote might affect prior community rulings re: removing edits from banned users. That's a specific rule. Everything proposed here is a general rule. Under common rules of construction the specific rule would always apply over the more general rule. Worry not, hearties.

Vote Option 0 and fix the LJ ruling or you're voting to create more problems (Options 1 and 3) or voting for nothing (Options 2 and 4). Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 15:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm tempted to vote for option 3 here, although I would like it to be made clear that this castle does not supersede other rules of the site. For example, banned users are still banned from these pages, personal info can be removed, and while unwanted comments can be removed, they cannot be oversighted or deleted (excepting those cases in which it is absolutely necessary). It is obviously unworkable for someone to post a huge picture of a penis on someone's talk page and have it remain there in perpetuity (or even until some sort of ruling is made by mods or the community) under the rules that no user can remove comments from his or her talk page. The problem with the LJ's ruling is that exactly what a user could remove was entirely subjective. The only workable solution to me seems to be that the user must be given sole discretion of what he or she considers trolling or abuse. If that means innocent comments are removed because the user feels like being a dick, so be it. In such cases clearly the user does not want to engage whoever is commenting, and you can't really force someone to interact with you if they simply refuse to. If important questions about a user's behavior or some issue if importance to the site are removed, we have other forum in which these subjects can be discussed where the user cannot remove them. So, to sort of address Nutty's point above, that the only real solution is to fix LJ's ruling, I would support amending it to clarify that what constitutes "personal attacks or trolling" is at the discretion of whomever's talk page it is, even if that means an innocent comment is occasionally collateral damage. If people get bent out of shape because their comments are removed, get over it. If something important needs to be addressed bring it elsewhere. I'm not sure if this scenario is more reflected by option 0 or 3. DickTurpis (talk) 16:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I like this idea the best that has been proposed so far. It gives the understanding that 1) there are other places to take up behavior issues if you need to, and yet 2) allows users the autonomy they need or want to say "I don't like penises, why is this on my page". (or, "I don't like dicks, why are YOU on my page", i suppose). Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 16:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Option zero is too heavy handed and requires bureaucratic moderation in purely personal disputes. DM should be reserved for dealing with article content pages & project pages, just for the workload sake.
Option three, while not perfect, makes best sense. The problem would be if once a comment is reverted, the same poster returns the next day and posts a different comment. Then something like option zero may be necessary. nobsI am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp 16:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Option 0 doesn't require moderator intervention any more than other options and I think it would in fact require less once we get the LJ ruling sorted. Permitting people to willy nilly remove posts under option 3 could lead to users becoming infuriated by being unable to address an issue with another editor without having to take it to a community page like the coop, which is a waste of all our time and is more likely to cause spillover and disruption than adequately defining what can be removed. It also makes it very difficult to search for a relevant post without having to step through a bunch of diffs. We had years of success with the status quo with the exception of a few incidents that could have been avoided if the LJ ruling wasn't shit. I am mystified why this community is developing a habit of proposing more sweeping changes than necessary without even attempting to address basic issues as they arise. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 18:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
That's why I think option 4 is best, like you said, the status quo (minus LJ ruling) worked fine except for a few incidents, and the mods (and if necessary the coop) can deal with that. There's really no point in polishing a turd. We could come up with detailed guidelines of what is and what isn't trolling or abuse, but we'll always have dickheads who'll wikilawyer their way around that to cause disruption. -- Nx / talk 18:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Nutty, under Option zero a user could involve the whole community after one instance in what is no more than a bilateral personal dispute. It would make sense to allow a user to remove what they deem inappropriate without reversion. Once a poster makes a series of postings, that may then be considered harassment requiring the chicken coop. nobsI am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp 18:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Sort of, but in such as case it's incumbent on the person trying to reinstate the removed comment to get the community behind the action, and until that entire process is played out the talkpage defaults to the version with the potentially offensive material removed (if I'm reading it right). That is far superior to Nx's preference, which seems to necessitate a potentially lengthy process to get goatse removed from one's page. DickTurpis (talk) 19:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd say with common sense exceptions, but sense isn't that common unfortunately. And it wouldn't be such a lengthy process if mods actually did something on their own initiative instead of just sitting around waiting for someone to post at RWT:ATIM. Anyway, option 0 is acceptable with the possibility of appeal that was added. -- Nx / talk 19:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
In a nutshell, the issue comes down to involving mods & the community in bilateral personal dispute (user talk page disputes). In the long run, everyone becomes overburdened, because these elaborate processes involving mods & the community should be reserved for substantive content disputes and bad behavior on project pages. nobsI am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp 20:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Maybe option three should be appended to indicate that users' comments can't have their meanings changed? As an extreme example, if UHM went to my page and asked about an edit to an article, it should be disallowed for me to change his comment to I love sucking dicks that have just fucked my mother (no offense, UHM- just the first user name that came to mind).--"Shut up, Brx." 18:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
No probs. But, isn't that covered because we aren't allowed to change another user comment anywhere? We need some form of hierarchy of rules to make clear which rules beat which and where. That is (besides people being dicks) the main reason why there is so much trouble. --ʤɱ pervert 18:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Of course changing comments would still not be allowed. -- Nx / talk 18:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Option three does not explicitly mention this. It could be subject to abuse--"Shut up, Brx." 18:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
The standards say elsewhere that you're not allowed to edit other user's comments. This proposal only allows you to delete other user's comments. -- Nx / talk 18:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
The use of the term "castle" in the description implies much broader powers, though the proposal only mentions comment deletion. That's a bit of an issue for me, and I'd be more inclined to get off the fence and vote for that one if it were clear that I'm not voting for a walled fiefdom wherein a user exercises complete control. DickTurpis (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh my sweet baby jesus... of course that's not allowed, Brx. You're also not allowed to call other users and breathe huskily into the phone every night, even though that's not mentioned, either.--ADtalkModerator 20:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok, okay, I admit: I just wanted an opportunity to say I love sucking dicks that have just fucked my mother. But really, someone could totally have tried that.--"Shut up, Brx." 20:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
My God in heaven. Anyone would think this was Wikipedia. Ajkgordon (talk) 20:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Section break 1[edit]

If this ends up a three-way tie I am just going to flip the fuck out. There seems to be some concern about the options and their working with other things. My intention, which I think I did successfully, was to make this a Serious Vote. So it's important and what is voted on will be a rule, but it will not supersede other things that have been and will continue to be unnuanced rules that we have always had. Under any of these, personal information will be subject to deletion and burning. Physical threats will be subject to deletion.
If people choose Option Zero, then yes, someone will have to figure out what "personal attacks and trolling" means. It's not gonna be me, because I couldn't figure out any way to define it more clearly that didn't get ridiculous, and doing this shit was enough for me for a while.
I should also mention that we're not actually abandoning common sense in any of these things. If someone puts a 700x700 picture of a penis on your talk page on any of these, you should be and will be allowed to make it small or remove it. The person who would leave such a thing is just being an asshole, and anyone who would protest that removing it was censorship is also being an asshole. Don't be assholes. We're never going to arrive at a ruleset that allows us to abandon our judgments. This is not ASK, and we're not having a three-judge panel in charge of appropriate tilde use.--ADtalkModerator 20:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Calling it a "Serious Vote" makes you seem silly. Four options and no procedure or timing for the poll? No emails to users announcing it? Phhht. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
^What he said. Ajkgordon (talk) 20:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Ah, in an ideal world, or on an ideal website, "Don't be assholes" would be the only rule we'd need. Unfortunately, endless bickering over stupid shit has made us, as Ajkgordon points out, one step closer to Wikipedia. I suppose it is the way of things. DickTurpis (talk) 21:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Option three has a unique deterrent factor, the fact a problematic posting can be thrown away like a used snot rag may deter it from happening in the first place. nobsI am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp 21:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Option 3 seems horrendous to me. Being able to delete legitimate criticism from your page because you don't like it? Introducing the ability to censor your image will make it a tempting possibility - at least for me (and I suspect for others). At the moment the knowledge that someone can go to my talk page and show me how dumb I've been is a great incentive to try and not be dumb. In addition it was really comforting to log onto moderators talk pages and see them getting abused by editors - a clear demonstration that at least some rule of law was in place here. — Unsigned, by: Tielec01 / talk / contribs
Sure, but how is deleting legitimate criticism any different than utterly ignoring it, which anyone is obviously free to do of their own accord? Someone who deletes a demonstration of how dumb they've been is exactly the sort of person who will refuse to acknowledge it no matter how blatantly it is pointed out to them. Pretending otherwise is foolish. It's my view that no one can make anyone heed what they've been told on their talk page or any other forum, so it's folly pretending that the mere presence of their words is going to have any impact on them, regardless of how long any statement is forced to remain on their talk page. Removal of criticism is a pretty clear indication that the user in question is not going to pay any mind to what anyone else may think, so letting them delete such statements is just going to let everyone else know where they stand, which can be helpful. The bottom line is that people will delete whatever they like from their mind regardless of its status in their talk page, so the end result will be the same either way. No one can force someone else to listen to them, so why bother pretending? DickTurpis (talk) 03:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
But talk pages are public, unlike a private email inbox, for instance. Even if the receiving user ignores it (which I don't think is likely, especially with the great big orange box), others may not, and it's worth it to have available for public viewing. That's what CP sysops did - they removed comments because they were embarrassing, I doubt they really cared about responding or not. Blue Talk 03:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Further to what is stated above by Blue- which is worse: the removal of this dissenting comment, or ignoring this dissenting comment?Tielec01 (talk) 03:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
[EC] Alright, let's use the Conservapedia comparison here. Imagine someone leaves a note on Kendoll's talk page telling him that his retarded essays are an embarrassment to Conservapedia, and perhaps to conservatism as a whole. Do you honestly think it will make any difference whether he removes the comment or not? Either way he is going to pay it no mind whatsoever, regardless of how big and orange a box may be. Let's not naively pretend that the mere presence of words on a talk page will make any difference. In fact, removal of such a comment will speak far louder than merely ignoring it would; it's the equivalent of writing "fuck you, I don't care what you think", while a non response may leave one wondering if they ever noticed the message. No matter what we may decide here, some people will respond to comments as if they weren't there at all, so actually making that the case doesn't fundamentally change anything. Now, memoryholing such comments is a different matter, and is something I think should not be allowed, which is why I made a point about the "castle" not being absolute. One should be able to point to diffs, if need be, demonstrating how they tried to address an issue with a user, showing how the user removed the comments, which is a pretty clear indication of intent. As long as the history remains and can be cited I don't care what people do with their talk page. But no matter what you do you can't force someone to listen to you. DickTurpis (talk) 03:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
The point, to me, is not that a user refuses to address comments on their talk page. It's that those comments are public. A user's talk page, like any other talk page, is a public forum. Sure, its express purpose is for communication with a user, but in practice, it tends to function as a more general forum. I think the User's Castle option would change how talk pages are used here, and we'd see an influx of arguments and controversial exchanges to "protected free speech" pages because the users involved were concerned that their posts would be deleted if they were posted in userspace. Now, that may be what we want, or we could be perfectly willing to put up with inter-user HCM being more visible. But I don't see the current system being so broken that we need to dramatically redefine how talk pages function. Blue Talk 04:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, I should probably respond to this when I'm sober, but I'm going to now anyway. Comments are still public, in that they can be seen in the edit history, which is hardly less public than your standard user talk page, which hardly anyone looks at anyway. Let's face it, a user could always archive their page, and any potentially offending comments with it, so I see no major difference there, as either way comments are no longer visible to the casual editor. Nor do I see this as a great departure from the status quo. Users already have the right to remove obviously offensive material from their talk pages; this just gives them sole discretion of what is considered offensive material, and I see no better arbiter of what is offensive than the user in question. Yeah, they may well abuse this privilege, but that's their prerogative. In any case, I'm satisfied with either option 0 or 3, provided option 0 gives users significant latitude in deciding what constitutes removable material. DickTurpis (talk) 04:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
If you remove criticism of yourself everybody's going to see it and laugh at you. However, option three does not provide for those troublesome users wishing to harbor trolls--"Shut up, Brx." 04:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I would think that the "no troll sanctuary" rule would hold for any of the five options. Blue Talk 04:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I would think so too, in fact, I specified that in my comments and my vote. I freely admit I have qualms about the whole "castle" phrasing being interpreted too broadly, when the proposal only indicates it is pertinent to removal of unwanted comments. DickTurpis (talk) 04:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes previous rules would hold in all five cases, except where removed. The rule about troll sanctuaries/banned deletions was a full vote and not included here, so it's unchanged. Hopefully it won't come up again in the future - it only arose because we had one unusually persistent troll and one unusually persistent protester, who combined to make a Captain Planet of Annoyingness. We barely even ban people (what, like one every two years now?) so it's not a big concern anyway, but it will remain in force.--ADtalkModerator 09:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

15% Lead[edit]

Does "15% lead" mean that the frontrunner has 2nd place's votes times 115%, or does it mean that the frontrunner's percentage of total votes is 2nd place's percentage plus 15 percentage points? Those can be very different. LowKey (talk) 00:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Uh, the latter. A 15% lead is the total votes of the 2nd place option, plus 15%, not 115%. I didn't think that was ambiguous at all...--ADtalkModerator 01:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm a precisionist. 15% does not mean 15 percentage points, except colloquially and somewaht ambiguously. Thanks for clarifying. LowKey (talk) 04:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Human concerns[edit]

You haven't even covered the issue of censors removing comments from OTHER PEOPLE's talk pages. Which I find despicable. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
If you're referring to comments by MarcusCicero, then there's this. If you're referring to other comments then you probably have a point. DickTurpis (talk) 14:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Glad you decided to take over running the place (/not). Slapping votes up all over the place... talk about drama... Kumquat west (talk) 09:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

What Weaseloid thinks[edit]

Added here because it doesn't exactly match any of the options above. User talk pages essentially belong to the community, like all other pages, but are administrated by the user, & so can be considered "their" page to an extent. Users should archive their own talk page (and not other people's) at reasonable intervals. Users are obliged to keep archives, with links to them on their talk page, even if they LANCB, and not just delete talk pages or threads. Users don't want to be disturbed by excessive message reminders, so it's sometimes appropriate to move a thread to another location (e.g. Forum or Salaoon Bar) if it's no longer of interest to the user whose talk page it's on. Talk page edits which constitute vandalism (e.g. spam, offensive links, page blanking) can be reverted (by anyone) under normal vandalism guidelines which apply to the whole wiki. I'm not a big fan of reverting or deleting troll/personal attack comments, & not convinced that it works as a remedy or deterrent, but don't object to users fast-arcxhiving stuff they don't want to see from their own talk page, as long as this doesn't get overused. So essentially I guess the only special priveleges I would like to see users have over their own user talk page are responsibility for archiving or moving old or unwanted threads. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Isn't this essentially option two? The old status quo, before the LJ decision? -- Nx / talk 14:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Closer to option 2 than any of the others, but I don't agree with making special exceptions for comments by BONs & new accounts as outlined in option 2. Also, all of the options seem concerned only with rights to delete comments and none of them really address who has the right to move threads to archives or other pages, which I think is quite an important aspect of user talk page jurisdiction. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

question: in the bit about the pages the User page thing mentions talk pages. Are we talking about user pages or only talk pages ? Hamster (talk) 15:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I had understood this discussion to be about user talk pages specifically. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Franchise[edit]

What voting eligibility criteria are we using by the way?--BobSpring is sprung! 10:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Didn't AD answer this already above? "Eligible voters are registered users, with a registration date prior to August 29th, 2011." So basically, any account more than a week old can vote. (Well, if they are banned, they can't, since they won't be able to edit the page.) (((Zack Martin))) 11:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm guessing Bob meant generally, as he made a new section for the question…
At the moment as far as I am concerned we have no regulation of votes except tradition. It seems like everybody is announcing their regulations when a vote is opened, that includes eligibility. I think the gerneral concensus is "has an account" and "here for a while". --ʤɱ anti-communist 12:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Actually Bob failed to read AD's suggestion above. I would have preferred the x time and x number of edits which we used (I think) moderators.--BobSpring is sprung! 13:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I would have preferred that too. Sockpuppetry is a bigger problem when you don't exclude editors with a small number of edits. AD should have done what Bob suggests. I'd change it myself but it's not fair to disenfranchise what I must assume to be a hypothetical good faith voter this late in the game. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 15:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to change it.--ADtalkModerator 20:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
You made the post hoc determination to throw out 4 votes, did you? User:Filby has been here since 3/24/09 and has 59 edits. User:Tielec01 - 7/28/11 - 56 edits. User:I fucked the girl in Hanson - 4/27/11 - 24 edits (if it turns out any of these are sockpuppet accounts of users who voted with their regular accounts I'm going to have a stroke). User:Durbinator - 8/14/2011 - 28 edits. Needless to say, I object. It's fundamentally unfair to change voting eligibility rules after the polls open and those that would be disenfranchised have already cast their votes. No, it's an outrage. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 21:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I didn't think anyone would have their votes thrown out by that. They all seem like legitimate users. I'll change it back. Thanks for the heads-up!--ADtalkModerator 03:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Being an illegitimate user sounds like more fun. Thanks Nutty, you're alright in my books.Tielec01 (talk) 09:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

AD likes to make up election rules as he sees fit, and somehow the rest of us are expected to be bound by them. This whole "process" is ridiculous and embarrassing. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

He's a moderator. He's job is to make up the election rules so we don't have to have a vote about how to have a vote about a vote. -- Nx / talk 04:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I didn't even do that, really. First I wrote a long essay about all this, working out the various options. I asked for comment for a couple of weeks, responding to people's concerns and changing the options four or five times to suit input. Then I asked other moderators and people to take a look at it. After getting some positive response and requests for a vote, I then suggested a voting scheme. I waited for further comment or problems. Finally, I posted the voting scheme and whatnot here before the actual vote, to see if even then there was some sort of problem that anyone saw. I literally cannot think of anything more I could have done to get input on this vote or make people alert on it, aside from a prior Intercom drawing attention to the potential decision to have a vote - a step I considered and thought was annoying. But in deference to your concerns, next time DHL will knock on your door with a carved wooden version of the suggested vote scheme. It will be rendered lovingly in cherrywood by a team of Indonesian children, and each carved letter will be carefully filled with gold leaf by a single scrupulous ogre who has ascended from the depths of the earth just to limn each character for your inspection.
After all, I wouldn't want to just bind you to my will.--ADtalkModerator 11:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif Blue Talk 12:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
You and your cheerleader seem to have skipped addressing part where you purported to change voting qualifications after the fact in such a manner as would disqualified 4 voters. That's what this section is about. Huw made a general criticism. Your specific response is unresponsive. So yeah, great post, right Blue? Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 13:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I was responding to Huw's general criticism with a general reply. The specific bit in this section I already addressed - I made a mistake. It didn't occur to me to limit the voters by edit count initially, no one pointed it out at first, and once it was pointed out I didn't think it would eliminate anyone so I didn't think it would do any harm to just change it. Your concerns seemed pretty reasonable, so I wanted to address them. You pointed out that this would eliminate some voters, so I changed it back - at no point removing anyone's votes, of course. It was a mistake that came very close to... well, it verged on almost disenfranchising some people who might have hypothetically possibly voted after that point maybe. It was certainly a mistake, but I'll be the first to say I'm not perfect. I'm so imperfect I'm not even within shouting distance of perfection. So I'm sorry, but I tried and continue to try to do my best.--ADtalkModerator 14:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
This is why we need a general policy for voting here, so every time we have a vote we don't need to set different rules on who's eligible. You know, a standard of x number of edits over whatever length of time. I guess we need to have a vote on that, though, so maybe we can set that up once we get a respite from this current spate of voting we're currently undergoing. DickTurpis (talk) 14:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I've been saying for months that we need specific, not general, policies for categories of votes. There is no reason in the world to hold off on starting the discussion, as it's going to take longer than these votes. It's been long enough and we've made some shameful mistakes for our lack of guidance. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 14:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
You're right, this is something that should be dealt with. I'll be eager to see the vote you propose.--ADtalkModerator 05:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I think AD is doing a lot in an attempt to get some things sorted and he deserves every praise. Having said that, I see no reason why we couldn't set up a standard for voting in respect of future issues of this type.--BobSpring is sprung! 15:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
We would need to vote on the standard for voting. Blue Talk 19:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
If the moderators were to specify that a 90% majority was necessary in proposals to implement any voting rules, that would settle most questions about the legitimacy of votes settled under those rules; in the meantime, the moderators are within their rights to set the terms. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 21:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
I refuse to allow the setting up of a vote to decide the standards of voting until we sort out the standards for the vote to sort out the standards. RW will not be allowed to slide into dictatorship!DamoHi 05:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I could swear, I read that comment sometime in May this year… --ʤɱ structuralist 13:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
There's no absolutely legitimate way of setting up voting procedures, especially for such an important vote as one for the voting standard itself.
The best we could do would have, maybe, at least five moderators sign off on a voting procedure for the voting standard vote (Jegus that's a lot of that word), and for that procedure to involve a very stringent requirement for adoption of a standard - 80-90%, like LX suggested. They would also have to find the most legitimate eligibility requirement.
The vote itself would have to be multifaceted, with different sections for vote length, types of votes, voter eligibility, etc...
Point is, to have a vote on voting procedure would be much more difficult than some people may have thought. I'm not saying we shouldn't try, but maybe now isn't the best time for such a big undertaking. Blue Talk 22:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

FOUL! (alternative title "What the Hell?)[edit]

The vote is closed already? I quote: "This vote will run from September 5th, 2011 1800 NZST (0200 EST, 0600 UTC) to September 19th, 2011 1800 NZST (0200 EST, 0600 UTC)" As I started typing this, it was 5½ hours short of that close, but the poll has been closed already. Foul!, I say.

Also, I again quote: "If no option accrues at least a 15% lead over its closest competitor, then the vote will be trimmed to the two leading options and a second vote over two subsequent weeks will choose the winner." I count 50 non-goat votes, so the maths is pretty easy; each vote is 2 percentage points. Option 0 has 21 votes and Option 3 has 18 votes. That is a difference of (11 minus 8, carry the one...) 3 votes, or 6 percentage points. There would need to be at least an 8 vote margin; not 3. Foul!, I say again. LowKey (talk) 00:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

A wiki most foul. Aceace 00:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
The first was a mistake - remedied now. If anyone wants to vote in the next few hours, they can.
The latter is not a mistake, as far as I can see. Option 3 has 18 votes. 115% of 18 is 20.7, I think. Option 0 got 21 votes. 21 is more than 20.7, or at least equal to it if you're rounding up. I don't understand the way you're doing it.--ADtalkModerator 00:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Wait, so you're saying that a 15% lead on 18 votes would be 26 votes? I'm not a Mathlete, but I'm pretty sure that's crazy.--ADtalkModerator 00:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
And now I'm looking at your previous question above about this, which I see I totally misunderstood at the time. I answered you wrong before, I guess. I really didn't think it was ambiguous and your question confused me (I am dumb).--ADtalkModerator 00:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
The whole reason I asked the question is that it was (and apparently remained) ambiguous. Often in the context of voting people use "percent" when they mean "percentage points". Percentage points are unambiguous, but "percent" - particularly "15% lead" - is ambiguous because it could mean either 15 percentage points (in keeping with the common but incorrect usage of "percent") or it could mean 115% of the next in line (i.e. 100% + 15%). When I asked you quite specicially said "not 115%" so I thought you were referring to 15 percentage points. Now it looks like that was not what you meant. In this vote even an additional 5 Option 0 votes (i.e. 26 votes) would be insufficient because then 1 vote is not worth 2 percentage points but only 1.82 percentage points. Even an additional 6 votes for option 0 would mean no second round only if Option 3 received no more votes, and the other options received no more than 4 votes between them.
So now here were at (almost) the end of the vote and a fundamental part of the process is still totally unclear. Seriously, this site needs to establish clear and consistent standards and processes as a matter of high priority. There have been several votes lately, and from what I have seen they have all left much to be desired on multiple points. Really truly seriously you all need to work out how to do elections before you have more of them. I am far from a lone voice on this. LowKey (talk) 01:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Essay:Voting. Join in the discussion. Blue Talk 01:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
(EC) I was confused by your question before, sorry. I thought it was fairly clear that the leading option should have 15% more than the runner-up, and since I didn't reference the total pool of votes I don't know why anyone would think that is what I meant. I answered your question wrong.
If you are interested in the voting standards, Blue and UHM have each been working on proposals.--ADtalkModerator 01:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
And that discussion is the nth go-around. I said my piece in a couple of places about this, but they turned out to be backwaters and nothing has flowed through anywhere. I'll have a look there, but I frankly don't hold out much hope. LowKey (talk) 01:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I just "published" that essay yesterday, actually. Blue Talk 01:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, stop bitching and propose a vote, then. If you're sick of "go-arounds," then do something. Or maybe recognize that this is a huge and very complex and very important issue and it might not be solved as quickly or easily as you want.--ADtalkModerator 02:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
He recognizes exactly that and I wouldn't exactly call what he's doing bitching. He doesn't have to come over here at all, let alone help us by pointing out, oh I don't know, real issues like you closing the polls early, among others. It's not exactly like he gets the best reception from people, including me. You take the help you can get. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 04:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough.--ADtalkModerator 04:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Nutty. Even without standards - with every vote being ad hoc and non-standard - the essentials like franchise, duration, notification and majority should be established before the vote opens and rigourously maintained throughout. In most of the votes going on lately, those essentials (most if not all) were still open questions at the time that the voting started, which is doubleplusungood for executive function. LowKey (talk) 06:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


Proposal: threats of violence and urging people to commit suicide[edit]

Propose to add the following standalone paragraphs to the "Conduct" section:

Proposed policy

Unacceptable behaviour includes: death threats; threats of physical or sexual violence; advocating that a user commit suicide. The same behaviours are also unacceptable when directed at third-parties who are not site participants. It should be noted that such conduct, as well as not being acceptable on this site, may also constitute a criminal offence in many jurisdictions.

Some jokes are just in bad taste — this includes jokes about murder, rape, and suicide.

Maybe the wording could be improved, but I hope the basic point is non-controversial. (((Zack Martin))) 08:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure. whatever. --Mikalosa (talk) 04:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
We've banned people for doing this before (UncleHo, for one). Blue Talk 04:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
No. Telling someone to commit suicide might be nasty, but it's still within the bounds of legality and making a rule against it opens up too many things to annoying rules-lawyering. "Go choke on a bag of dicks" should always be permissible to say. I suggest instead, "Unacceptable behavior includes: death threats, threats of physical or sexual violence, and the unwanted revealing of personal information about another person. In none of these cases does it matter whether or not the target is a member of RationalWiki, nor does it matter if they are personally reprehensible otherwise. Such comments are directly abusive, will be removed wherever they appear, and will be grounds for promotion, temporary blocks, or (if it continues) permanent banning by the community."--ADtalkModerator 05:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
In many jurisdictions, using the Internet to tell someone to commit suicide is illegal. e.g. In Australia, it is a federal crime to use the Internet to advise or encourage another person to commit suicide — Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), section 424.29A(1). (((Zack Martin))) 06:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
An off hand remark like "go jump off a bridge" is not the same as encouraging or advising someone to kill themselves. - π Moderator 06:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, I think they'd find "go jump off a bridge" to just be a figure of speech. But, "Ed, you should seriously consider killing yourself", that is more than just "go jump off a bridge". (((Zack Martin))) 06:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
You should seriously consider killing yourself is also just a figure of speech. Maratrean if you are going to create a huge stink about this you should seriously consider keeping of the internet until the end of the long weekend.- π Moderator 06:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Urban Dictionary is scarcely a respectable or mainstream resource for what are considered to "figures of speech"... it is filled with every kind of racism, misogyny, homophobia, etc.... surely you know this. (((Zack Martin))) 07:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
It is not the OED, but does give an insight into internet culture and what is considered "normal" on the internet. - π Moderator 07:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Given that, in developed countries, the vast majority of the population uses the Internet (and those who don't are mostly the elderly, young children, the profoundly disabled, the homeless, etc.), the idea that there exists an "Internet culture" separate from the wider culture of the societies which use the Internet, or an "Internet normal" separate from the normal for the wider society, doesn't make a lot of sense. And wider society is very quickly catching up with the anti-social subculture of Internet trolls, as articles like this one demonstrate. (((Zack Martin))) 07:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
(EC) Read (1)(c) and (3)(c) and (3)(d). Then go choke on a bag of cocks. -- Nx / talk 06:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, let's consider the statement "Ed, you should seriously consider killing yourself" — let us suppose for the sake of the argument that statement had been made in Australia. (1)(c)(i) reads the person... intends to use the material to counsel or incite committing or attempting to commit suicide. Well, if a person is publicly counselling another to commit or attempt suicide, it is clear that they intended to use the material to counsel or incite committing or attempting to commit suicide. That clause is intended to protect people who are transmitting such material for other purposes, e.g. for the purposes of research or study, as opposed to actually meaning it themselves.
Section (3) deals with people engag[ing] in public discussion or debate about euthanasia or suicide or advocat[ing] reform of the law relating to euthanasia or suicide. "Ed, you should seriously consider killing yourself" is not part of a public discussion or debate about suicide, or a proposal to legalise euthanasia, so section (3) is not applicable to it. (((Zack Martin))) 06:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
It's good to know you can read the minds of the people who wrote the law. -- Nx / talk 06:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
It's not mind-reading — it's called comprehension, they teach it in primary school. But, if you disagree with my exercise in legislative interpretation, I'd be happy to hear your arguments to the contrary. Anyway, you may not be very familiar with the minds of Australian politicians — but I doubt they are that much different from politicians anywhere else — if you asked one of them, should we make it a crime for people to tell other people to kill themselves on the Internet?, how do you think they would respond? "No, we shouldn't"? Hardly... (((Zack Martin))) 06:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
You mean like that time when you were lecturing us about what a section of the community standards that we fucking wrote means? Anyway, politicians (especially Australian ones) have a pretty bad track record of trying to regulate and censor the internet (usually these attempts show a profound lack of understanding of how the internet works). Does that mean everyone who says "go die you stupid poo poo head" in a youtube comment should go to jail? Hardly. -- Nx / talk 07:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
You mean like that time when you were lecturing us about what a section of the community standards that we fucking wrote means - and what are you talking about? Should everyone who writes "go die you stupid poo poo head" go to jail? No, but I think everyone should be clear that such behaviour is unacceptable, and I'm amazed that there are people here defending it. (((Zack Martin))) 07:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not defending Jeeves's comment, I think it was way out of line. The joke by the goddess was clearly not meant seriously, though it was in bad taste too. -- Nx / talk 08:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
So, if you agree that they are in bad taste, will you agree that the community standards should be amended to state that clearly — since apparently some people need to be told. (((Zack Martin))) 08:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
(EC) And in New Zealand too — Crimes Act 1961 s. 179 — if you advise or counsel someone to commit suicide, and they commit suicide, or attempt to, you can be imprisoned for up to 14 years. (((Zack Martin))) 06:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
California Penal Code s. 401 — "Every person who deliberately aids, or advises, or encourages another to commit suicide, is guilty of a felony." (my emphasis). So it is illegal in California too. I'm sure if I looked harder, I'd find many other places around the world where advising or encouraging suicide is a crime. (((Zack Martin))) 06:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Also - should be "death threats etc. are unacceptable behavior," not "unacceptable behavior includes." Blue Talk 06:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
The point of includes is that other behaviours not listed can also be unacceptable. For example, clearly, uploading child pornography is unacceptable, yet it is not covered in the list of unacceptable behaviour above. One should not assume that one can give a complete list of unacceptable behaviour ahead of time — someone might one day do something which is clearly unacceptable, but not explicitly forbidden. (((Zack Martin))) 06:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
"other behaviours not listed can also be unacceptable. For example, clearly, uploading child pornography is unacceptable"
Exactly. Thus I dropped the suicide bit.--ADtalkModerator 06:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Is it acceptable to tell another user to commit suicide? Yes or no? You said it was "within the bounds of legality", when I have produced evidence it is illegal in Australia, New Zealand (where I understand you live right now), California, and I'm sure if I looked I could find other places where it is illegal too. I didn't mention child pornography, because I am not aware of any actual cases of that on this site — whereas I am aware of actual cases of death threats and advising suicide. But, I have no objection to modifying the proposal to include an explicit ban on child pornography — but still, I would argue for the retention on the phrase includes, since I don't believe it is possible to produce an exhaustive listing of unacceptable behaviour — whatever you explicitly prohibit, there will always be things equally deleterious that you failed to think of. (((Zack Martin))) 06:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely it's acceptable to tell you to commit suicide. Nx did it just now, and it was fine. I'll do it right now: go choke on a bag of dicks and die. Obviously it's contextual, which is why I excluded it from your version, so you won't be able to wikilawyer us into oblivion. We're not putting in a provision just to permit you to fulfill your own prissy version of RW.--ADtalkModerator 06:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't think suicide is funny, unlike you. My cousin committed suicide, and she was only in her early twenties. It was a rather painful experience, and I was just her cousin — I really can't imagine how her sister felt. Or my mum. We'd all tried really hard to help her, especially given her parents had died (and weren't always the most supportive when they were alive), but it didn't work out. Your desire to turn to suicide into a topic of jokes is absolutely fucking disgusting. There, I said it. (((Zack Martin))) 06:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh yeah, and my ex-girlfriend attempted suicide so many times, it wasn't fucking funny. You ever had your partner attempt suicide AD? Do you have any idea what it is like? One time she called me at work, and I can't remember exactly what she said, but it was enough to get me really worried. And then I got in a taxi, and when we got to our apartment building, I could see her standing on the ledge of the balcony, centimetres away from death... luckily by the time I'd got up to the apartment building, her psychotherapist (who she'd called as well) had turned up and managed to coax her off the balcony. But, seriously, you think suicide is fucking funny? Fuck off. (((Zack Martin))) 07:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
So you have some personal shit. Go make rules about it on your own wiki, or go edit somewhere where there's no risk someone will tell you to go choke on a bag of dicks. We all feel very sorry that you've had personal issues with suicide and you're sensitive about it, but we all have personal issue with things. Trying to legislate us into conforming to your own sensitivities is not going to fly.--ADtalkModerator 07:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
You are so fucking full of it AD. Can't you just admit it — "suicide is serious business and joking about it is wrong". Or is that too hard for your precious pride? Your heart is the colour of charcoal. (((Zack Martin))) 07:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Jesus Christ man, this fucking maratrean. No, suicide is not funny but, for fucks sake dude. Shit or get off the pot. If RW ain't to your liking just fucking leave. Fuck. Aceace 07:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey Ace, why don't you leave? And if you agree that suicide isn't funny, do you agree that the Community Standards should be amended to prohibit telling people to commit suicide? Either it is meant seriously or it is said in jest — but it doesn't actually matter, since either way it is completely unacceptable. (((Zack Martin))) 07:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Obviously casual demands to go kill oneself would be excused out of hand. But quasi-sincere monologues on how user:x is a waste of air and should go kill himself (without wasting air) should not be permitted, as we've seen far too many news reports of people being pushed over the brink because of careless internet posts. If someone emotionally unstable comes here and you make a detailed post asking them to kill themselves (and not just "jump off a bridge"), that might be enough to cause a tragedy.--"Shut up, Brx." 07:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

We don't need a suicide clause. We've already got "resorting to personal attacks is strongly frowned upon", which covers a lot of ground. The extent to which a personal attack, including a "fuck off & die" comment, is frowned upon depends a lot on the nature & context of the attack, so we don't need to give specific examples. The only thing that might be worth adding is a few extra words in the following sentence to say that threats of physical violence, real life interference, or litigation are not tolerated. This is sort-of covered in our Legal FAQ but worth mentioning briefly in CS. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Some jokes are just in bad taste — this includes jokes about murder, rape, and suicide.[edit]

Ok. So what? -- Nx / talk 08:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

So, some people apparently need to be told this explicitly, since it is obviously not sufficiently clear to them already. (((Zack Martin))) 08:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
They've been told. Just look at the responses to Jeeves's comment. -- Nx / talk 08:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
And what is the harm in making it crystal clear, by inserting it into the Community Standards? (((Zack Martin))) 08:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
No. Aceace 08:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Let's also add that picking your nose in public is in bad taste. -- Nx / talk 08:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I really don't see how one could pick one's nose in public on this website. But suppose you uploaded a video of yourself doing so... that is still a very different order of bad taste from joking about suicide, or rape, or murder, or similar such things. The comparison fails. (((Zack Martin))) 08:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I'd say that wasn't the point of the comparison.
It would be a sad day in any community when a person who does such a thing is criticised, not for being in bad taste but because it's "against the Rules." We don't need it spelt out... Peter talk, or type, or whatever... 08:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
The fact that there is so much forceful opposition to it being added to RW:CS is a sign that it needs to be. RW:CS speaks against far more trivial things already — yet people are opposed to having it speak against things far more weighty. (((Zack Martin))) 09:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
No, it's just a sign that people are tired of the attention whoring concern troll. Now go edit the ASK RW article to include how the site encourages suicide. Then choke on a bag of cocks. -- Nx / talk 13:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
The Standards are supposed to be comments about what the community does & doesn't do, not a straight-jacket it must be forced into. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Moved from Alternate proposal[edit]

Add advising or advocating others to commit suicide. (((Zack Martin))) 09:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
If we list every single thing someone here gets upset about the list will be unimaginably long. - π Moderator 09:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, let's stick to instances there have been actual examples of? There have been cases of this already. And AD's version still includes "threats of... sexual violence", when to my knowledge (I may be wrong) there have been no actual cases of such threats. How about being consistent? (((Zack Martin))) 09:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Arbitrary choice of unacceptable behaviour mentioned. No logic given as to why these 3/4 things should be mentioned, and not others that equally well could be. (((Zack Martin))) 09:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
"Threats of physical or sexual violence" is a common couplet - 'violence' needs to be there, but it needs to explicitly include 'sexual' as well. 'Personal information' is something that a) people worry about and b) does need to be in The Rules. 'Death threats' stands on its own, I'd think. Happy? Peter talk, or type, or whatever... 09:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Why not encouraging suicide? No good reason given — other than the increasingly obvious ideology of many RW editors, who refuse to take suicide seriously as an issue. (((Zack Martin))) 09:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
(EC)"Don't tell people to kill themselves" seems way more arbitrary then threats of violence and only people that remember this specific incidence will even understand why it is there. - π Moderator 09:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Internet trolls driving people to commit suicide is a sadly common occurrence — [1] [2] — it is depressing that this site cannot approach this issue with the seriousness it deserves. (((Zack Martin))) 09:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
If someone is so emotionally fragile that they kill themself because of something they read on RW I really have to wonder how long they were going to survive anyway. You're making a mountain out of a molehill. Now go choke on a bag of dicks and die. --Longbow (talk) 10:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Alternate Proposal on Conduct[edit]

To be added to Conduct:

Proposed policy

Unacceptable behavior includes: death threats, threats of physical or sexual violence, and the unwanted revealing of personal information about another person. In none of these cases does it matter whether or not the target is a member of RationalWiki, nor does it matter if they are personally reprehensible otherwise. Such comments are directly abusive, will be removed wherever they appear, and will be grounds for promotion, temporary blocks, or (if it continues) permanent banning by the community.

Since the above discussion is just Maratrean arguing against everyone, I'm bringing this down here. Actual productive discussion is welcome - don't drag the above down here, or I'll just move it. Seems like a good change, and makes explicit our current policy regarding things that are seriously not tolerated. Depending on response, I'll call a vote in a few days.--ADtalkModerator 09:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I am fine with what you wrote. - π Moderator 09:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Me too. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 10:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Sure, but how do we know the threat is actually serious? And are we prepared to actually enforce this, rather than just ignore it every time because oh it wasn't serious and I was just drunk and stuff. -- Nx / talk 13:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't know, I totally agree with the spirit of the proposal, but think this would just open the gates to more concern trolling. The next time Ace tells Maratrean that he's going to skullfuck him or something, he'll open a coop case for threatening sexual violence, and then whine about irrationality or inconsistency when it's dismissed. I'd entrust it to the common sense of the community to identify comments that are out of line and tell the editors who made them off. Like what actually happened with the comment that started Maratrean's latest crusade. Really creepy and possibly serious threats are still rare enough to deal with them on a case-by-case basis. Röstigraben (talk) 13:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif -- Nx / talk 13:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, maybe we can let moderators decide whether or not a threat can be perceived as serious by the threatened.--"Shut up, Brx." 13:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
This is probably the stupidest thing I've ever seen on RW. Why the fuck are we even entertaining that little troll? Has there ever been an explicit death threat, threat of violence, etc (telling some little wanker to take a long walk on a short pier does NOT count) on this wiki? No, never. Therefore this is a ridiculous point to raise, and given that it's been raised by concern troll and possible sock of MC (this is just the sort of stunt he'd pull), it's even more ridiculous that we even entertain it. This discussion should be terminated forthwith and if that sad little basement dweller wants to fuck off and write about it on ASoK let him. --PsyGremlinPraat! 14:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Amen. For this wiki, for the people here, this new proposal is like saying we need a law against eating humans. It's overkill, and it will be misused.Pink mowse.pngGodotThe Peyote God awaits 14:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
(EC)Yes, there have been explicit death threats from UncleHo to ListenerX. He was banned for three months. Tytalk 14:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that was the only time somebody who may have been serious threatened violence, and it was handled smoothly even without an official policy. TK's threats against Nutty were about legal action instead of violence, but it was a similar case and also led to a swift ban. So we're not half bad at taking action when it's needed. Röstigraben (talk) 14:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Really? wow. ok... ignore my comment then.Pink mowse.pngGodotThe Peyote God awaits 14:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Here's a thought; if by legislating specifically against death threats, are we saying that without such things we'd view it as acceptable? Let's face it here, the majority of us are atheists and would happily call out people who moralise about God for implying that without the threat of hell they'd go on a murderous rampage. So does that mean that without this in CS we'd happily go up to someone and say "I'll find your address and send you a pipe bomb"? Anyway, why legislate against such specifics when we all know that major bad things that happen only happen precisely because we didn't expect them enough prevent them. We need to learn general rules, not specific ones. ADK...I'll fill your gelato! 14:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Ok, so there was one event, which seeing as a few people don't even know about it, was clearly a non-event and dealt with appropriately. The need to formalise this is just stupid and will only result in little wankers like Maratrean running to the Coop every time somebody tells them to (deservedly) fuck off and die. Once again, we don't need this, and by even considering it, all we are doing is giving the concern troll a hard-on. Once again - no no no no no. --PsyGremlinFale! 14:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
The problem would solve itself if Maratrean would just seal all the doors and windows of his cellar with tape, light half a dozen disposable charcoal grills and sit back with a good book and a glass of whisky to wait for the carbon monoxide. But I'm not going to suggest that, because it would be wrong. --Longbow (talk) 14:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

A community of smart grown-ups with a sense of humour doesn't need this kind of thing. This is about one user's inability /unwillingness to roll with the punches and his desire to be a drama queen. With the Uncle Ho case, we proved ourselves able to deal with this kind of situation. Putting it to a vote would be like asking if you support decency--a way to gain the moral high ground with no real substance attached. B♭maj7 (talk) Shut the fuck up, Maratrean 14:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. If we as a community decide that something is out of order we can take action. There's no need to start vomiting rules all over the place just because some wingnut with his own made-up religion goes all Dorothy when the subject of suicide comes up. --Longbow (talk) 14:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

List of things RW needs to come out against[edit]

  • Genocide
  • Arson
  • Treason
  • Larceny
  • Terrorism
  • Perjury
  • Honour killings
  • Torture
  • Biological and/or chemical warfare
  • Pyramid schemes
  • Hit and runs
  • Dandruff
  • sheep-fucking
  • Gerbiling
  • Eating the last piece of pizza AND drinking the last beer
  • Bad breath
  • Flavoured coffee
  • Standing on the left side of the escalator.
  • Sugar in tea
  • COBOL
  • Texting while driving
  • Axe deoderant commercials (for giving false hope to men)

Help me out, what else guys? Tmtoulouse (talk) 14:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

You missed off suicide bombing. ADK...I'll employ your drain cleaner! 14:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Well the list is not meant to be complete, just to get the brain storming juices rolling. Tmtoulouse (talk) 14:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
(ECX3) pants sagging, public breast feeding, and drag racing come to mind. Tytalk 14:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I have had flavored coffee from time to time. steriletalk 14:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Arranged marriages
  • Bad breath
  • Free-flow exhausts
  • Gansta rap
  • Not having a complete thought before a colon, including in this proposal.
  • Arson in her majesty's dock yards
  • Piracy on the high seas
  • Wearing a long sleeved shirt under s t-shirt
  • Miley Cyrus and Justin Beiber

List of things RW really needs to come out against[edit]

  • Promoting your own bat-religion.

Dismiss all this[edit]

I say we toss out all this. Whether it's officially stated or not, threats of death or violence are not tolerated here; I think we agree on that. Personal info is already covered under our community standards, so we don't need to delve into that any more. (I guess we have a de facto grandfather clause for people like a certain Ken DeMyer, whose real name is bandied about with impunity even though he never released it himself. Since we can't unring that bell, so be it.) So basically we have nothing new. The proposal about banning the encouragement of suicide isn't going anywhere if there's a risk of censoring "choke on a bad of dicks" and similar comments. That being said, if there were a active campaign here to honestly harass and bully someone into suicide (as has apparently happened in other places on rare occasions) we should be able to deal with it through our usual process. It's been actively made clear in the past that we, as a site, do take suicide seriously, even when it involves some of the less popular editors here. If we do feel the need to spell out "Do not threaten to kill people here" we should be able to do so without all this back and forth squabbling, but I don't think it's really the sort of thing we need to specify more than, say, "don't upload child porn". DickTurpis (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. Oh and go choke on a bag of cocks. -- Nx / talk 18:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes. Dismiss this proposal; we have shown ourselves to take this stuff seriously (the few instances we've banned people have been mostly for threats of death/violence). Blue Talk 18:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Totally agree to dismiss. The next time someone makes an in-poor-taste comment like Jeeves did, it can get dealt with on its own merits. B♭maj7 (talk) Shut the fuck up, Maratrean 19:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Probably the most sensible thing anyone's said. Maratrean's love of decision-free endless open-ended discussion and pedantry has rotted RW's collective brain. Ajkgordon (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)