RationalWiki talk:Community Standards/Archive23

This is an archive page, last updated 29 August 2020. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>

, (new)(back)

For the discussion and voting on changes proposed in May 2020, see this archive.

For the rewrites and their discussions during January 2009, see the revamp and its talk page and archive, an early draft here, and further discussions here, plus the voting discussion.

Distinguishing Mods and techs.

As pointed out in this thread by User:Ace McWicked there is currently no official delineation between Mods and techs in the current version of the community guidlines. I would like to propose an amendment to both the guidelines and the tech page (to be voted on) to implement such a distinction.

Techs should not be seen as authority figures in the site's social structure, nor should they act as such. Techs are not de facto Mods. Techs should not lock pages beyond the sysop level, nor implement bans. They may however implement blocks equivalent to those given out by sysops and as prescribed by the blocking policy. Techs should never set sysoprevoke, period. Techs aren't superusers, they're just regular sysops entrusted with certain escalated privileges.

Suggestions on improved wording are welcome. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Change the guidelines

1. Power to the mob. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
2. concur tbh. EK (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
3. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 21:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
4. I suggest adding to the guideline which rights Moderators have that Techs don’t (like page locking, banning etc) Ace^Moderator 21:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
5. If it's just to codify things, I have no qualms. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
6. It would be nice to have this matter formally clarified.-Flandres (talk) 22:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
7. Yes! Scream!! (talk) 23:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
8. Yes. Bongolian (talk) 01:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
9. Sure-Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 07:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
10. Throwing a hat in here as well. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 07:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
11. --RWRW (talk) 15:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
12. I perfectly agree. StrangerCoug (talk) 14:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
13. --Delibirda the Annoying Grammar Nazi (talk) 12:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
14. --Tuxer (talk) 22:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Goat

• isn't this already the case? What special social standing do I have here that I'm missing out on. EK (talk) 20:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

This is addressing the fact that some people think Oxy has been acting too much like a mod when she's only a tech and has never been elected to any position. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 21:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Thats part of the problem I had with Oxy ever since I returned from a long hiatus last year. She was running around banning people for Long stretches for minor transgressions and then acting as an authority when questioned. This is not a dig at Oxy per se bit rather the need for some guideline around it. Ace^Moderator 22:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Point out the fact that techs shouldn't act like authority figures either. It's not just the being seen part, it's the way they behave. They have control over elements like the mediawiki interface, which when they choose to edit it, risks putting them as being authority figures depending on the changes they enact. (A decent example of this can be found over at RationalWiki_talk:Discord#New_guild?) Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 21:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Further discussion, not voting yet

Techs should lock pages when appropriate, they should just lock them to sysop, not mod. Techs should block where appropriate, just as sysops. Techs should never set sysoprevoke even if they're just waiting for a moderator to do it. Techs aren't superusers, they're regular sysops with certain escalated privileges. Nutty Roux (talk) 23:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Quite right. Ace^Moderator 00:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

What right did you have to pull tech appointment rights, Nutty? By your own argument you don't have the authority to do that. — Oxyaena ^Harass 16:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not following. Could you explain what you think I did that I shouldn't have? Nutty Roux (talk) 20:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Close and implement?

It's been over a week since this amendment was proposed, and two days since someone last voted. Should this vote be closed and the amendment be implemented, or does the Mob think it should be extended? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, let's close this. Bongolian (talk) 02:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Reforming our Tech appointment process

Before I start, I want to make clear, that I intend for this to be an open discussion, rather than directly proposing any changes (given how this change will affect the wiki heavily moving forward).

A few days ago, @Nutty Roux removed a change to the Community Standards, pointing out that it was not voted on. The specific segment pertains to the appointment of new Techs. At the moment our formal process for appointing new techs is, as outlined by the standards that new techs can only be appointed by the Operations Manager (@Tmtoulouse) and the server administrator (@David Gerard and possibly @Tim Starling) of the Wiki. In practice however, this is not being followed. As I pointed out over at RationalWiki:All things in moderation, the only tech we have that has followed this process was @Bertran (although since Nutty has their tech rights reinstated, they count as well). All of our other techs at the time of writing have been appointed by either former mods, current mods, other techs, or have appointed themselves when they became mods. The result is that our process to instate techs is effectively not being followed and the unwritten process is closer to the change that Nutty reverted.

This means that, in my opinion, we should try to see if we can formalize a new process to appoint Techs. Right now, they functionally are a Cabal. The powers of Techs, as they are listed here make them effectively as powerful as mods (they have the same page locking abilities, and are able to edit mod locked pages), and they even have extra rights that mods do not possess. The most notable of these are renaming users and the edit filter (more on that in a bit). At the same time, the process of becoming a tech is entirely arbitrary, with the only real rule being that someone who is/was a moderator or tech has appointed the current techs.

This effectively places the trust of giving Techs power above that of the mob, and their powers are as a result unchecked, which makes them a functional Cabal.

The Edit Filter is also a topic of concern. As has been pointed out in a few discussions (most notably in RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive16), it is possible to obtain an editors IP address using the AbuseFilter extension (which is what we use on RW). This does not make the extension as powerful as CheckUser (which we don't have installed), but it means that it is possible to trace an IP to a user if their edits are picked up by the filter. It is possible to configure the AbuseFilter extension however to limit the ability of Techs to view this data. (AbuseFilter can be configured to log this, optionally forcing a Tech to enter a reason when they want to look at an IP address, however this is is not enabled by default. It also is possible to limit the ability of techs to even be allowed to view IPs at all). This is, at the very least a topic that should be discussed.

I intentionally have pinged Trent, David and Tim in this topic, because I feel their input is going to be needed to reshape this process (which it seems to be in desperate need of, given how all three are not extremely active). In addition, given the origin of this discussion, I would like to request users to refrain from issuing personal attacks on any Techs that users may take issue with that have been appointed due to the current Cabal status of this position on the wiki. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 12:20, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Crows suggestions

I'm putting these under a subheading so that they do not get confused with my invitation to an open discussion. If other users have ideas for the process, feel free to add below as a heading. I think that's what makes the most sense. Comments are welcome.

• Appointing techs should be handled through both the mob and by the moderators. Moderators currently are elected for a year long term, whereas Techs are considered lifetime appointments from what I have seen (barring abuses of power). The reason I suggest adding the moderators to the process is because I believe that given the power of techs, a mere popularity contest should not be enough to become a tech.
• My suggestion therefore is that if a user wants to become a tech, one of our elected moderators, existing techs, the Operations Manager or a sysadmin must be able to vouch for them. Only one user can vouch for another user. In doing so, the vouching user takes full responsibility of the potential new tech, in the event that this becomes a neccessity. This ensures that the user who wants to become a tech has at least a baseline competence that a moderator is able to recognize. After that, the user that wants to become tech will have to get a majority of support through community vote. If they achieve a majority (simple majority, no supermajority), they become a tech.
• I do not see a reason to change the current lifetime status of becoming a tech. Techs are mainly tasked with maintenance of the Edit Filter, and having them serve only a term would run against that (Filters need fine tuning, and that can sometimes take a while to get right).
• Current techs can be grandfathered in. Seems only fair, plus getting rid of our entire techs list is likely not to be very productive for the wiki.

Finally, I would like to suggest an inactivity process for techs. Due to their power (especially the abuse filters ability to view IPs), they are an enticing attack vector for a malicious actor. This means that if a tech is inactive, their account becomes a sitting duck for potential hackers to gain access to. As a result, in order to reduce the risk of this occurring, I would propose that in the event that a tech becomes inactive for 2 years, their tech powers are temporarily stripped. Techs stripped of their power in this way can get their powers back merely by requesting them, without having to go through the process of becoming a new tech. Take this suggestion however as separate to my previous suggestion of a new process however, as I can imagine that this inactivity suggestion is going to be a bit more controversial.

Input and comments on my suggestions are welcome. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 12:20, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Change

1. I fully support everything The Crow said. Spud (talk) 13:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
2. I support this change. --RWRW (talk) 16:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
3. I vote yes. — Godless Raven 🌹 ^Heretic 16:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
4. The Crow has it spot on. Scream!! (talk) 18:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
5. support with alterations. EK (talk) 18:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
6. All sounds very sensible.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
7. Yep but just to clarify - there are 2 votes going on here. This one is regarding how techs are appointed and above the guidelines about what rights techs have. Is that right? I vote to change both. Ace^Moderator 20:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
8. Okey-dokey. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
9. Sounds good Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 22:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
10. This all seems sensible - David Gerard (talk) 23:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
11. Yes. Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:14, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
12. Looks fine to me. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 00:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
13. Yes. Just in case anyone has not thought about this: These techs' 2-year anniversaries of inactivity will be happening this year: @Bertran, @Kazitor, @Owlman, and these techs will be de-teched due to 2+ years inactivity after this proposal's expected passing: @JorisEnter, @Reverend Black Percy, Mod Test (a dummy account). Bongolian (talk) 06:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
14. Yes but I propose that the 2 years inactivity be changed to just 6 months.--Tuxer (talk) 22:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
15. Seems sound enough.-Flandres (talk) 19:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Doesn't address promotion of abusive techs. Fawcett (talk) 21:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
2. What "Fawcett" said, and voting for techs, instead of appointing by merit, is a bad idea. Elections are popularity contests for a reason. — Oxyaena ^Harass 21:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

Essentially the tech role should work like the sysop role. This means that it is given out by existing techs as and when needed to those who are deemed responsible enough to have the role, and and misdeeds are kept in check by the mods. This basically means that the tech appointment process would remain as its been for the last 4 years or so and work exactly like appointing sysops. The advantage of this system is that it's decentralised, it works even if certain key people are inactive and it has been working fine for the last few years. EK (talk) 12:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

This makes them a cabal. Sysops aren't one since we give the role to nearly every editor, as long as they don't forcibly keep inserting content in mainspace or are obvious vandals. Techs have way more power than sysops (more power than mods even). With moderators, we have agreed that there are some rights that should be reserved for elected positions (mostly, modlocking pages). Techs have these powers without being elected, even if they don't have the formal authority to do so, which is weird. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 12:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Cabal is good in this instance because its splitting the responsibility and makes sure that only people who actually are needed get appointmented, making it a popularity contest is not a good way to manage it. If all the mods and techs can appoint more then there is no way to get undue influence over the site. EK (talk) 12:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I have clarified a few things in my proposal. Specifically, I've taken into account the ability for existing techs to appoint new ones and made the role of a vouching user more specific. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 18:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

looks fine. EK (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

How often...

...are people actually given tech rights? ShabiDOO 19:53, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

It is rare, since there are only 23 (or 22 since one appears to be a test account) of us currently. Tech rights, once awarded, have usually not been rescinded or relinquished. Bongolian (talk) 19:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Goat

• Baaah. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 12:20, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
• Contrary to what was stated above, it is the case that moderators can rename other users. E.g., LeftyGreenMario does this frequently for offensive user names; she is a mod but not a tech. Bongolian (talk) 16:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
• I used to change names on occasion. I view it as normal sysop duties. — Oxyaena ^Harass 16:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• sysops can't do renames, it's a mod power that techs can do if requested or required for technical reasons. EK (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

The ability to rename bad users is the only reason I run for mod. I miss being able to do that. Avida Dollars^{her again} 14:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• I think we should create a committee which will appoint 23 users each two weeks to nominate a tech rights commission which will then appoint one user to nominate three mods who will then vouch for a possible sys-op user, only if the mob doesn't overthrow the wiki via a peaceful protest to reinstate the right of techs to appoint other techs, unless the 23 user committee vetoes this process in which we'll just have AMassiveGay make all the decisions. What's wrong with this idea? ShabiDOO 16:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Sounds a little over the top if you ask me. That said, the answer of "let AMG figure it out when things get a mess" isn't unappealing, in the same breath that when the apocalypse hits that "let Tom Hanks figure it out" (LWT reference) is enticing. Luckily we aren't at that stage yet. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 18:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• I've made a few small changes based on conversation with @EK. Specifically, I have clarified the role of vouching and why it's specifically used and expanded the types of users that can vouch for other users. I know some folks are supporting my specific suggestions, so I encourage everyone to review these changes. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 18:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
• I also think techs should be able to demonstrate that they need the tools to work. A tech that doesn't make use of tools given probably should think if they should retain the role. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to close the vote

No votes have been cast after 4 days, and the voting is unanimously in favor of the change. I propose to close the voting. Bongolian Bongolian (talk) 18:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Not trying to be oppositional, but I don't understand what people were voting on or what exactly you'd do if you closed voting right now. OP posted a suggestion that changed while people were putting up votes and there's no specific policy language proposal. There's broad support for the concept, but it's not nailed down. This isn't done cooking. Nutty Roux (talk) 20:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

So do you want to propose a specific wording change to the exiting policy that aligns with the more general proposal above, and call a new vote? Bongolian (talk) 20:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

That was originally my idea. Having multiple people agree to some suggested changes by multiple people, then draft up more specific policy changes and do a vote on those. I intended to do it that way because of Bob's criticism of doing these heavy handed changes without multiple suggestions/stages so that people could have input on those. Instead, people took it as "let's do a vote on Crows plan", which is fine I guess, but does put us in the rather awkward position of not having any direct changes to policy to make rn since none were explicitly suggested. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 20:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

the vote is supposed to be open for two weeks anyway. EK (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

OK, fine. I will withdraw my proposal. Bongolian (talk) 20:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't matter how long the vote is open for if it's impossible to discern what people are voting on. This is the prime peril of people slapping up vote sections while the wording is being worked out. Nutty Roux (talk) 21:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Quite a few of the pro voters (including me) signed before the motion was finalised. I would like to suggest that a revised and final motion be made and the current one closed. Scream!! (talk) 01:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

In point of fact the wording does need to be formalized. People are saying they agree with the ideas which are expressed informally for discussion - but they have not (yet) been formatted in such a way that they can be transposed into the guidelines.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 16:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

It's now been more than two weeks for this vote, so I propose that it be closed. Bongolian (talk) 03:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I added approximately the same wording to the community standards as Crow wrote and was voted on. Whether its required to vet the actual wording I'm not sure exactly. — Z 03:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Effect of LANCB resignations

In the many years I have been on this wiki I have noticed that a number of our (probably younger) users have been "serial resigners"; people who repeatedly engage in LANCB. I would like to suggest that User Rights have something like the following added.

Proposal removed

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

Any thoughts?Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 17:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Avoids any people coming out of the blue causing trouble. More relevant for tech rights than sysop rights though--Hastur! (talk) 17:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree, good idea. LANCB should have consequences. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 17:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

So this has to be patrolled so that someone has to see who has a LANCB on their page, remove their rights, then wait a month after the LANCB has been removed? It's a lot of work for nothing. It's not worth the effort. If people want to come back and cause trouble, they can just get cooped if it's bad enough. Bongolian (talk) 17:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I would say it should just be done for tech rights--Hastur! (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

That wouldn't be too difficult. Just add a LANCB category to the template, it'll transclude itself automatically. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 17:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I think the LANCB, so far, should be dealt on an individual level. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, although I don’t think autopatrol should be removed. Just other rightsChef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 22:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ No comment, except for that sometimes this one gets enraged enough to genuinely consider leaving, but always comes back because they have a love/hate relationship with this site. Doing this seems like a slight against them particularly. — Oxyaena ^Harass 22:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I think it's not worth the effort. People can come and go as they like and they can claim to resign and then not resign. If they come back and cause trouble, then we can deal with the trouble. Resigning and coming back again days later, multiple times, may be particularly obnoxious in some examples, but I don't think its destructive. I'd prefer users who contribute the site come back than not. ShabiDOO 22:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Nah. Bob's idea is made of so much win & awesome that he's hereby awarded all the Internets in perpetuity. People who insist on screaming & slamming the door on the way out are often the kind of people you might not wish to invite back in on the same terms as before. Codifying this in policy seems eminently sensible to me. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 23:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

In terms of people who contribute to main space, I would say the sites history would spell out the opposite. Several users who have resigned and come back have greatly contributed to the website, far more than the majority of users who would get worked-up over it. ShabiDOO 23:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

It’s a relatively minor sanction. Maybe reduce a month to two weeks, but it still seems fine to me. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 00:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I edit mainspace and WIGO more than most people here. — Oxyaena ^Harass 00:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

You always say that - as if it grants some sort of gravitas or authority (it doesn't). Ace^Moderator 05:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Multiple people on here have expressed statements to the effect of disagreeing with you. — Oxyaena ^Harass 21:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

You have far fewer allies than you think you do. Don't say weird thirsty things and you'll fair better here, I promise--Hastur! (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't care what the people say - editing RW grants you no special rights or authority. You are a member and sysop - just like everyone else. Ace^Moderator 22:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

And anyone who returns under Bob's proposal and goes on "greatly contribute" would quickly have their rights restored. What's your point, Shabi? Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 00:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I'm leaning against this idea, since I don't really see it as fixing anything that needs fixing. Any proposal should include whether or not it's retroactive. There is currently one tech who has LANCB'd, @Kazitor. Bongolian (talk) 00:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Given that it clearly disincentivises LANCBs by drama-prone types who jealously guard their user rights, it's hard to see how any mod can seriously argue against it. I'm unaware of anyone suggesting it should be applied retroactively. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 01:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Bob and HBC have it right. Scream!! (talk) 01:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Cheers. I'll add that in most social situations - whether at work, the gym, or your favourite bar - if you make a huge Fuck you guys, I'm leaving!!! scene, your readmittance on the same terms as before is rarely guaranteed. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 01:13, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I know I said it's rather easy to check for, but if I'm being frank, I'm not really sure if I want this. I don't really see the advantage of making a LANCB notice something punitive. As a general rule, we don't police userspace content as long as it doesn't break our community guidelines. Saying that users lose rights over posting a LANCB notice on their userpage (and given the reasoning I assume this is also talking about our retired templates) to me feels like crossing the line into punishing users for their userspace content. Serial abusers of LANCBs can be dealt with in other ways (drag them to the coop for being disruptive editors), we don't need to punish everyone who has ever slapped a LANCB template on their userpage. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 05:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Earlier, I was thinking this might be a good guideline rather than a rule. If you LANCB, you can expect to lose most of your rights (but you might not). If you then come back, you can expect to wait a month before you get those rights back (but you might get them back sooner, later or not at all). Each case would be dealt with individually. But now I'm leaning more towards it not being necessary. If you keep causing drama, you're going to lose your rights eventually. Spud (talk) 05:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I guess there would be other ways of doing it. I'm just trying to make it less of a meaningless gesture. Historically, and more recently too, we have had editors who keep the LANCB message up more or less permanently while they continue to edit as normal. Such a thing doesn't cause any actual harm, but it makes the whole dramatic announcement worthless.^{— Unsigned, by: Bob M / talk / contribs}

Well @Bob M, have a friendly word with any editors that do that and suggest they take the template down. I'll do the same if I spot any users like that. Spud (talk) 13:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Great stuff. For the benefit of those at the back, what we're witnessing here is some notable "civility" enthusiasts - half the site's current moderation team among them - suddenly becoming squeamish after having been presented with a concrete proposal that has an excellent chance of discouraging LANCBs and their associated disruptive drama. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 20:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Sigh ShabiDOO 21:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I fail to see how LANCBs cause disruptive drama--Hastur! (talk) 21:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

lancb: not all cause disruption nor are the necessarily uncivil. i don't get the suggestion of a double standard on "civility enthusiasts". i want lancb cases to be treated individually, so @ sweeping rules, i am not fully on board. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we need any rules around LANCB. People who continually LANCB and then appear the next day should be treated with scorn. It's dumb drama-queen bullshit that should be ignored. Ace^Moderator 22:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal Removed

OK. It's evident that such a proposal would need substantial community endorsement and that this is lacking so I wish to remove it. Obviously this wouldn't prevent others proposing something similar.

I hate you all!!! This place stinks! I am leavening for ever and ever and ever! Nobody ever f*cking listens to me! ME! I would like to thank everyone for such a civil discussion. Things don't always go so well. :-) Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 06:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Fuck you Bob. Civil discussion? I’m fucking leaving! Ace^Moderator 07:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Obligatory response LANCB declaration: "Oh Ace! Please don't go! You contribute so much!"Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 07:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah but no one appreciates the work I do. I’m the heart, soul and backbone of this wiki. You’ll suffer, toil and rue the day I left. Ace^Moderator 09:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

You're a dick. — Oxyaena ^Harass 09:14, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

No, I’m a happening , with it and all round cool cat. Hells yes my brother. I’m hep. Ace^Moderator 09:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I’ve also been drinking heavily and I have been mainlining nutmeg. Ace^Moderator 09:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Mike's Hard Lemonade has a good flavor to it, masks the alcohol to a large extent. Don't know if it's available in New Zealand of course. — Oxyaena ^Harass 10:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

My real name is Mike. I need this drink. Ace^Moderator 11:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

It's nearly as repulsive as you are. Put gin in lemonade. Nutty Roux (talk) 13:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal(moved from coop talkpage)

After sifting through the archives, focusing on cases that came to a vote, I think the coop would benefit from a two round voting system. The first options would be permaban, temp ban(without specifying length just yet), and no ban. If temp ban wins, then a second vote is held between various lengths of banning(one week, three months, so on). My hope is that no opinion is outright discarded in the second round so a very close and contentious case can have a resolution that still reflects a firm majority. For instance, if temp ban won but a large amount of users felt the user in question did not deserve it they can still vote for the shortest possible ban in the second round, thus their views are not just voided instantly because an option won by one vote.-Flandres (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Navsidebars

List of all navsidebars: https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Navsidebar&namespace=10&limit=500&hideredirs=1&hidelinks=1

My proposal: there should be some common naming policy for navsidebars.

For instance, we have {{sex}} and then there is {{logicnav}}. I know this isn't a major issue, but still something I think should be talked about.

And I think it could be easier if we named them starting with "nav" e.g. "navsex" or "navlogic". — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 14:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Seems like a good clarification. In specific text, we'd add something like this to the Help:Manual of style. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 15:44, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Unclear wording in "ban"

“”Techs are not de facto Mods. Techs should not lock pages beyond the sysop level, nor implement bans.

'tis but a small one, but "ban" does not appear in any of our community standards and is rather ambiguous (are techs not allowed to block BoNs? are they not allowed to enact blocks from coop votes against sysops?). I get the reason why this was added given the circumstances re: above on the issues with our tech process from back then, but "ban" is ambigious. Recommending a small clarification here from @GrammarCommie. Probably doesn't need a vote. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 19:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@The Crow I can change it to "Techs should not lock pages beyond the sysop level, nor implement Indefinite blocks (bans), with an exception for clear spam accounts." ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

It would be good to clarify. I think the general understanding is that 'ban' applies to permanent blocking of a Sysop, i.e. removing their capacity to unblock themselves as a Sysop and then giving them a permanent block. Infinite blocks of non-sysops is a sysop right, but can be contested by other sysops on an individual basis. Bongolian (talk) 19:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie Looks good as a fix to me. And yeah, @Bongolian I get that it's commmon slang here, but the problem is that our CS doesn't clarify it and "ban" isn't mediawiki terminology, whereas "block" is. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 20:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I've added the changes, hopefully that clarifies things. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 04:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Situation resolved, thanks. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 13:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Anyone can enforce a ban... obviously. I've done it hundreds of times. Furthermore, there are numerous reasons why mod locking a system page is a fucking good idea. If you want to include this ill thought out crap make a full community vote on it. — Dysk (contribs) 23:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

This section was voted on by the mob; read up above. Feel free to dispute it (within your rights), but it was voted on and received general support. Also the point isn't that you can't modlock certain system pages, it's that techs can't go around behaving like mods when there's a dispute over a regular page and lock the entire thing so that only techs and mods can edit it. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 09:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't see it. — Dysk (contribs) 22:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

"Distinguishing Mods and techs." Very first heading of this talkpage at the time of writing. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 09:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Vote was 14-0 in favor of the new guidelines. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 12:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Where exactly is the wording you keep adding stated in the aforementioned section? — Dysk (contribs) 14:23, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

"Techs should not be seen as authority figures in the site's social structure, nor should they act as such. Techs are not de facto Mods. Techs should not lock pages beyond the sysop level, nor implement bans. They may however implement blocks equivalent to those given out by sysops and as prescribed by the blocking policy. Techs should never set sysoprevoke, period. Techs aren't superusers, they're just regular sysops entrusted with certain escalated privileges." (potholes to pages removed) The section that I keep restoring is related to the "techs should never set sysoprevoke" bit, and the clarification about not being able to set blocks.

Both of these are in the section I just cited, but in the page they have some minor alterations that are related to just simple clarification (they're not substantially different from what was propopsed).

Your changes on the other hand are more substantial (sysoprevoke being authorizable by a moderator, exemptions for page protections, and outright removing the warning about blocking). Keep in mind that this section was written up somewhat reactively to a tech going out of control and random firing when it comes to blocking BoNs and new accounts. Whilst I don't think that the page protection exemption needs a vote since it's more of a practical explanation more than anything else (although I'll point out that given a minor sidebar incident involving using the mediawiki interface and a template related to RationalWiki:Discord, I am somewhat hesistant to even say this is fine without stipulations attached), the changes to sysoprevoke rules and especially removing the warning relating to blocks would need a full vote from my purview to be included in the article. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 15:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

You see that big box with words in it? That’s the section we added. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 15:23, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed per vote. ShabiDOO 15:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Blogs, clogs, and maybe vlogs?

In order to free saloon bar from youtube videos based on vlogs, how about we have a vlog portal? — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 11:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)