RationalWiki talk:Community Standards/Archive19

Change the Mobocracy section

Old

New

==Mobocracy== RationalWiki is a mobocracy. Some would use a tautology to describe it ("The way things are done around here is the way things are done around here"). But the most helpful description is that, in the course of numerous talk page discussions and edits to articles, a rough consensus emerges. Hence the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies. Please keep in mind that the standards below are only an approximation of the site's working practices. ===Voting=== However, it is a common practice on RationalWiki to codify the consensus with a vote, especially when the issues at stake are of great importance or interest. ====Franchise==== In order to vote in policy votes, which seek to change the Community Standards or similar official policy documents, or penalty votes, which seek to penalize (or change existing penalties for) a user, you must have at least 75 total edits and a registration date at least three months prior to the conclusion of the vote. ====Common guidelines==== In policy votes and penalty votes dealing with a user's removal from the site (temporarily or permanently), a positive option (an option that is not "nay" or "none of the above") must accrue a two-thirds majority of votes to pass. In all other types of penalty votes, a positive option must accrue a simple majority of votes to pass. Both policy votes and penalty votes must last between seven and fourteen days. "Goat" or similarly labeled votes are not counted toward vote totals when calculating thresholds, and cannot prevent an option from reaching a two-thirds or simple majority. In all votes, if both a user and his or her known sockpuppet attempt to vote, the sockpuppet vote may be stricken by anyone. Importantly, if a user votes only with his or her known sockpuppet, their vote is still valid. Any eligible voter (an account with 75 edits, etc.) can open policy and penalty votes.

==Mobocracy== RationalWiki is a mobocracy: in the course of talk page discussions and edits to articles, a rough consensus emerges. Hence the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies. It is a common practice on RationalWiki to codify the consensus with a vote, especially when the issues at stake are of great importance or interest (and often when not). A user is eligible to vote if they have 75 (or more) edits and and a registration date three months (or more) prior to the conclusion of the vote. Users who fit these requirements automatically gain the words "eligible user" on their user rights page. Any user (even an ineligible user) may strike a vote by an ineligible user. Any user can open policy and penalty votes. RationalWiki has two types of votes, with separate rules. Policy votes seek to change official policy documents. Length of time: All policy votes must last for at least seven days, to make sure everyone has a chance to discuss. Vote threshold: All policy votes must accrue at least a two-thirds majority. Penalty votes seek to enact new and/or change existing penalties for a user. Length of time: Penalty votes must last for no more than three days, to limit the inevitable drama. Vote threshold (removal): In all penalty votes that deal with a user's removal from the site (temporarily or permanently), a positive option (an option that is not "nay" or "none of the above") must accrue at least a two-thirds majority of votes to pass. Vote threshold (other): In all other penalty votes, a positive option must accrue at least a simple majority of votes to pass. "Goat" or similarly labeled votes are not counted toward vote totals when calculating thresholds, and cannot prevent an option from reaching a two-thirds or simple majority. In all votes, if both a user and their known sockpuppet attempt to vote, any user may strike the sockpuppet vote. Importantly, if a user votes only with their known sockpuppet, their vote is still valid.

Removed:

• "Some would use a tautology to describe it ("The way things are done around here is the way things are done around here"). But the most helpful description is that, in the course of numerous talk page discussions and edits to articles, a rough consensus emerges."

Unnecessary; consensus is mentioned elsewhere.

• "Please keep in mind that the standards below are only an approximation of the site's working practices."

Unnecessary; no rules are 100% descriptive.

Added:

• "Users who fit these requirements will automatically gain the words "eligible user" on their user rights page."

Necessary; people might not know where to look.

• "Any user (even an ineligible user) may strike a vote by an ineligible user."

Necessary; people have thrown hissy fits about this.

Changed:

• Switched the parts about length of time and vote thresholds into a bulletpoint list. It looks cleaner to me, but it's inconsequential.
• Who can open votes:

• From: "Any eligible voter (an account with 75 edits, etc.) can open policy and penalty votes."
• To: "Any user can open policy and penalty votes."

This implies that new users can't suggest changes to policy and can't open Coop cases against an abusive admin, both of which seem wrong.

• Length of time, policy:

• From: "Both policy votes and penalty votes must last between seven and fourteen days."
• To: "All policy votes must last for at least seven days, to make sure everyone has a chance to discuss."

No reason to put an upper limit.

• Length of time, penalty:

• From: "Both policy votes and penalty votes must last between seven and fourteen days."
• To: "Penalty votes must last for no more than three days, to limit the inevitable drama."

This is definitely the most important change. No recent coop case has ever had its balance of votes changed on the seventh day -- and usually all that happens between day 1 and day 7 is metric fucktons of drama. If every coop had a set length of 3 days after the timestamp of the person who opened the coop, this might be fixed -- and nobody would have to ask when it would end, etc.

Per the CS, this vote must remain open for 7-14 days. Apparently. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 15:52, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Long-ass section above. FuzzyCatPotato of the Jocular Cabinets (talk/stalk) 16:21, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Alright. Let's get started. I disagree with the time limit idea. This seems to have been proposed as a result of several recent coop cases that have gone on for a long time and caused unnecessary amounts of drama. Wanting to limit this in some fashion is not a bad idea, but placing a simple time limit cap on coop cases is downright absurd. By definition, it limits the community's ability to regulate itself in a full and real manner, by limiting our time to discuss the matters at hand. Giving us only 3 days to come to a consensus about user penalties is a bad idea, as it rushes the case and inhibits our ability to include all evidence, discuss each side's arguments, and change our views based on the facts. It makes things into even more of a show trial than they already are, and it will only squeeze the drama into a shorter span of time, with more intensity. This is not a solution to the problem.

I agree with the removal of the tautology, but not the removal of the working approximation remark. I also agree with the 2 added sentences. The bullet-point list is a good idea, improving readability. Overall, I disagree with the time limit changes proposed. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 17:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Some cases, 5 minutes is appropriate; some need a week. - David Gerard (talk) 12:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I support all of the changes, apart from the "three days at most" limit to coop cases. Sometimes, more than three days are required to reach a decision. The limit might be put at seven, since I indeed do not recall any coop cases being productive for more than seven days. The rest of the changes look good to me.--JorisEnter (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Another thought I had was to limit how many times people could post to the coop; the idea being that most of the drama isnt actually about the problem but about fighting on the coop, and if people could only post (say) once to a given case, they'd make a good argument for their side and bugger off. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 23:29, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

While I agree that there is a problem with the coop becoming a dramahouse rather than a courthouse (which it kind of should be), I don't think it would be a good idea to limit the amount of times people are allowed to post something. It might be an idea to make it more structured, something like

1. "Prosecution"'s case (made by whoever opens the coop case, plus those who have additional evidence/comments)
2. "Defendant"'s case (started by the accused, expanded by whoever supports the defendant)
3. Votes (with motivation, but hopefully without degenerating into a shitfest)

This might solve the problem of coop cases getting too far off topic.--JorisEnter (talk) 23:40, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I tried to do this a while back, many people hated it. For one, they said that that encouraged gut-voting and not actually discussing (not that different from now, though). αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 23:44, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I can see why, but AFAIK the current coop consists of (1) prosecution's case, (2) votes, (3) drama that does not contribute to reaching a decision in any way.--JorisEnter (talk) 23:47, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

These are all terrible ideas & you're completely missing the point of this page. It's a summary of what the community does, not a set of untested bureaucratic rules & limits. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

+1. RationalWiki is never actually going to be a game of bureaucrat's Nomic, and elaborate attempts to treat it as one are a bad idea - David Gerard (talk) 11:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Instead, it will be a giant shitfest in perpetuum. Huzzah!--JorisEnter (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Is a two thirds majority required for binning?

I may not have read it well enough, but do the rules clearly state whether a two thirds majority is required for the vandal bin? Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 18:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you should re-read it. It is very clear. Nerd (talk) 18:27, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Enlighten me. Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 18:29, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can see, two third majorities are only necessary for banning someone. This was also the ruling in Pbfreespace3 v Pizzameister last April, when Pizza got binned for being a probable sock of a binned user (there was no 2/3 majority to actually ban him).--JorisEnter (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

For all other penalties, a simply majority would do. Nerd (talk) 18:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Is there any reason for binning to be treated differently from banning? If I understand this correctly, a five day ban is harder to achieve than a bin for all eternity. Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 22:41, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Binning doesn't prevent you from editing. It just restricts you to one edit every half-hour. --Ymir (talk) 23:47, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Have a look here another +++Swedish+++ conspiracy by +++Laurogeita Hamabost+++ 14:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Re: Weaseloid's criticism of RW:CS as a rulebook

I made this provisional edit. Feel free to rollback. I think the gigantic fucking bold text surrounded by hyperzealous rulewielders gets the point across, you feel? (Vote: in favor.) Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 04:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

RBP doesn't seem to care, Human dislikes. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 03:59, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Is user Arcane a sysop here? If so he should be de-sysopped (sorry if that isn't a word)

User Arcane (aka GethN7) although not posted in a while - his account says sysop? Arcane is someone involved in harassing Trans Lifeline (see below) and is a notorious transphobic/homophobic pro-Gamergater, he also is a prominent member of the cyberbully troll forum Kiwi Farms where he harasses people.

Here's Gethn7 writing a load of false allegations and defamation against Translife Line; Refuted - Debunking Misinformation and Trans Lifelife Isn't a Scam:

Kiwi Farms launched a harassment and misinformation campaign intended to discredit Trans Lifeline. This included creating social media accounts to pose as trans people who’d had bad experiences with the lifeline and spread fabricated stories. (Notice that the Twitter account linked in the post is a bot that was only active for a few weeks in August, and that many of the other links go directly to Kiwi Farms.

GethN7 was involved in that harassment, yet he's a sysop here? And he's best mates with the notorious racist Joshua Conner Moon calling himself Moon's "certified ally" on his blog.Nitro Man (talk) 05:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Merge the "Point of View" and "Mission" sections

We already have a RW:SPOV section at RationalWiki:What is a RationalWiki article. No need to have an extra one here.

FROM: ==Mission== See the main article on this topic: RationalWiki:Mission The mission outlines what RationalWikians like to write about. As per most community standards, it's not a hard rule, but more of a suggestion. Articles that are wholly or mostly on-mission are likely to stay; those that aren't will probably go. The RW mission is: Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement; Documenting the full range of crank ideas; Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism; Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media. ==Point of view== RationalWiki does not use Wikipedia's well-known "Neutral Point of View". We have our own version: SPOV. SPOV means two things: Snarky point of view — This is the meaning most people refer to. It means that, to keep our articles from being dry and boring, we spice it up with humor, sarcasm, skepticism, satire, and wit. Scientific point of view — Less talked about but arguably more important, the scientific point of view means that our articles take the side of the scientific consensus on an issue. RationalWiki should be and will be highly critical of any unscientific, irrational, or just plain stupid idea, movement, or ideology. Our official policy on religion is that we do not have an official policy on religion. Our community of editors includes followers of various religions, as well as many atheists. Please bear this in mind when editing. However, our scientific point of view respects the scientific method as the most reliable framework for researching and understanding what happens in our universe. For this reason, we are critical of both religious and secular movements which oppose or ignore scientific thought and knowledge.

TO: ==Mission and Content== See the main articles on this topic: RationalWiki:Mission and RW:SPOV The mission outlines what RationalWikians like to write about. As per most community standards, it's not a hard rule, but more of a suggestion. Articles that are wholly or mostly on-mission are likely to stay; those that aren't will probably go. The RW mission is: Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement; Documenting the full range of crank ideas; Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism; Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media. In addition, RationalWiki adheres to "SPOV": our articles should be snarky & skeptical, call out bullshit, and give reasons for both.

The text that's removed can be easily merged into RW:WHAT. Thoughts? FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 19:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Origin of RW:CS#Talk rule

After I deleted some trollish bullshit inflicted on my Talk page, it was reverted, and RationalWiki:Community_Standards#Talk_pages was pointed out to me. No problem, I archived the crap. But it made me curious about the origin of this rule. I could only guess that in the early days of RW when it was entirely focused on trolling Conservapedia, this rule was necessary to prevent the destruction of "evidence" when Conservapedia trolls would show up on RW to cause trouble. Or did I guess wrong? I sure would like to know the backstory. Leuders (talk) 14:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

A fact check template like snopes

Can we have a fact check template like snopes; "true", "mostly true", "mixed", "mostly false", and "false".—CheeseburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 21:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Surely false information should just be removed? Unless there's something here I'm not understanding. —Kazitor, ^pending 08:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussions and debates?

When I make edits, I've realised that mods can (and do) just revert the edits with no respect for these community standards and with no explanation. So I take it to the Talk page and explain my edits and I get nothing back. So how does one make edits if there is at least one mod who is offended or challenged by them? Am I right in thinking that in practise, a mod can block, lock, ban and revert anything for any reason without discussion? If mods refuse to engage on an intellectual level, what are the rest of us supposed to do? ^{— Unsigned, by: Star Gazer / talk / contribs}

Is RW a Wiki or a satirical blog?

The 'Snarky point of view' has often deteriorated into partisan rants, hateful name calling, and childish jokes that nobody else think are funny. I feel that the reputation of RW is undermined by this. The web is full of weird conspiracy theories, fake news, and crackpot pseudoscience. There is a desperate need for a place where you can fact-check the latest rumors you see on the social media. A wiki is the ideal format for this purpose because everybody can contribute with hard-to-find facts, and this is exactly what RW is supposed to be according to its main mission. There is no obvious alternative to RW out there. Unfortunately, people get disappointed when they seek trustworthy information about some conspiracy theory and they find silly jokes instead. We are losing the opportunity to be the place to look for debunking. We are losing our raison d'être unless we change the community standards. If people need a place to hang out and have fun, we can have a discussion forum for that, put that should be in some other format than a wiki to avoid confusion. 2.110.93.203 (talk) 07:01, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@2.110.93.203 I see that a relatively minor joke about a libertarian think tank still offends your rather delicate sensibilities. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

PS: Given that your only contributions have been to remove content in fits of outrage, and to accuse a longstanding and respected member of the community of being a vandal, I think you should avoid using words such as "we", as YOU hold these opinions (and they are mere opinions), not the majority of the community. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:45, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

You fail to notice that I have made serious contributions debunking conspiracy theories. In addition, I have tried to remove hateful speach and childish jokes, which are against the standards specified in RW:What_is_a_RationalWiki_article?. Regardless of my merits, I maintain that RW is unable to fulfill its mission as it is now. 2.110.93.203 (talk) 19:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

My informal rule is "Subtle snark is good. Too much snark makes the article look stupid." Given RW's history, there are a lot of places where there's too much snark and too many inside jokes that have lost whatever hilarity and relevance they might have had several years ago, and that is clearly an opportunity for improvement. I am not in favor of removing the SPOV from the wiki, however. Cosmikdebris (talk) 19:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I note you haven't given any examples of these so called "serious contributions debunking conspiracy theories". ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

To avoid further pointless coops

This is the probably the wrong place, but I don't care in the interests of visibility.

Can we all agree that, in future, the first person who sees a non-HCM coop case is allowed to unilaterally remove (not archive) it immediately? Or some similar system? —Kazitor 00:15, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

How do we tell the difference? What are the criteria? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 00:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Whether there's been a violation of community standards, first and foremost. Annoying people is not a violation. Secondly, whether any attempt has been made to resolve it on relevant talk pages. —Kazitor 00:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Really just look at the header text of RationalWiki:Chicken coop —Kazitor 00:23, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Well it looks like most people are against unanimous deletion by individual users, but I guess the discussion was enough to help get poor cases removed with a recent incident being deleted by a mod. —Kazitor 00:05, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

if you think this page is a good tactic to apply in gaming the mob into doing your bidding, you may be shocked to see your post archived quite swiftly.

"pls unban me" qualifies for swift deletion. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 00:08, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not asking for any sort of justification, just bringing this vote to a somewhat-official close :) —Kazitor 00:09, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

For

1. —Kazitor 00:15, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
2. fine - but, only mods can do this. and coop cases must be endorsed by two sysops to start Because someone mentioned this as an option and it seems easy. — Dysk (contribs) 00:36, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

   The mods seem active enough to make this a good proposal. I have no issues with it. (but maybe it should be under "Alternatively..."?) —Kazitor 00:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

   If this proposal passes, I'm not following it.—CheeseburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 00:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Against

1. We don't remove talkpage entries on RationalWiki (unless it personal information or spam). Why should we start now?—CheeseburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 00:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

   @CheeseburgerFace I was hesitant before writing that; my thinking was that someone would do it before any replies could be posted. But having thought about it, perhaps the original posting could be relocated to a relevant talk page (such as that of the user in question). —Kazitor 00:58, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

   @Kazitor Moving the discussion rather than censoring it sounds more in line with RationWiki's style. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 01:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

2. The vast majority of coop cases come to a quick close anyway when other users point out there's no case to answer. Let's carry on doing what we have been doing, closing frivolous cases quickly and archiving the pages. Let's not remove content from the coop page and pretend it never happened. Spud (talk) 01:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
3. I would tend to favor @Spud's suggestion, as it lets the argument(s) be heard and then promptly put into context. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 01:07, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
4. Bad coops should be moved to the archive immediately but not vaporized unless they're spam, abusive or otherwise off-topic. Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:07, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

   So you're suggesting that as soon as you see an off-topic coop case, with no replies, it be sent to the coop archive? —Kazitor 01:26, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

   Only when it's blatantly obvious that the coop is not warranted. In most other cases, the sysop should wait a while and check the context of the issue, just to be sure. One of the guiding rules of sysopship here is supposed to be "assume good faith." I've learned that being patient and waiting for others to weigh in works best. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:35, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

5. Rabidly oppose with angry vitriol and inappropriate posting behavior. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 02:46, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Goat

1. I have a counter-proposal. How’s about we just require coop cases be approved by a mod? It removes the problem with allowing people to unilaterally delete coop conversations. The two sysop rule might work, but we all know that being a sysop is no guarantee that you’re not a dumbass. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 01:13, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

   Tempting, but it places more power with the mods. Part of the point of the coop is to answer administrative abuse. It seems unwise to require mod approval to bring a case. I'd rather keep the stauts quo than tat. RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:19, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

2. It really depends if the discussion is worth an archive. Sometimes, attempts at coop can get so stupid and swiftly resolved that it doesn't need archive. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 01:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

   That's the crux of the matter. I also don't think that stupid cases need proper archiving, especially since it seems each case tends to get its own archive page. —Kazitor 01:47, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

   The trouble is that many people here Looks at himself 0_o are used to ANI, where you can literally moan about anything and ask for punatives... Maybe to cut down on unneeded coop cases there needs to be another forum where the case can be proposed first. Before coming here. — Dysk (contribs) 10:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

3. What would the great divine Spanish goat of dispute resolution suggest? I wanted to know it's take on coop cases and fortunately it also lives in Madrid...unfortunately it was barely conscious due to this blistering heat wave and it only survived after I bought a 5€ bottle of water at a tourist kiosk. It will be a week before the divine Spanish goat of dispute resolution can give us his advice. Can we wait this long? ShabiDOO 02:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
4. From my observations, it is already the case that blatantly stupid coop cases have been removed without further ado. If the instigator is not a sysop, I don't see a problem. If the instigator is a sysop, they at least deserve an explanation (which could include belaboring the point by allowing the coop case to proceed) to hopefully improve their behavior. Bongolian (talk) 17:09, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

   I'm not talking about blatantly stupid cases, I mean valid problems that aren't HCM. —Kazitor 00:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

5. If a complaint is viewed as worthy of consideration, then perhaps, when a sysops looks at it, they should say so. If several sysops say it looks like a valid complaint, then it should move forward. Otherwise, after a fixed period, it should be removed. Really, if no one cares it isn't going to succeed anyway.Ariel31459 (talk) 00:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Reconsidering Penalty Votes

Current Community Standards say that penalty votes should last no fewer than 7 days. Given that we tend to resolve coop cases in less time (even the Bryan See vote got resolved in less than a week, IIRC) and that there are more instances of the Coop being used for non-HCM occurrences and that seven days for a coop case is ripe for pointless drama, perhaps it's time we reconsider this? RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

This is a good suggestion. Most of the coop cases in the last couple of years that weren't quickly archived as inappropriate were closed in much less than a week. The latest drama involving User:WWW was done in two or three days. The tendency seems to be to get these resolved as quickly as possible, but there should be a minimum time before closing. I'd be in favor of reducing seven days down to three for those cases deemed worthy of HCM. Cosmikdebris (talk) 20:16, 22 August 2018 (UTC)