RationalWiki talk:Community Standards/Archive24

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 12 March 2021. 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>, <23>, (new)(back)

Proposal to change two-thirds rule on banning members[edit]

As per the discussions on the current Raven's coop some users have given good reasons why the motivations for the two-thirds vote for banning users (originally devised for conservapedia trouble makers and more light hearted trolling) is irrelevant considering the more menacing forms of trolling in the last couple years. Everything else on this site requires a simple majority, I see no reason why the votes of a minority should overpower the votes of a majority on any vote. ShabiDOO 14:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Old community standards

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.

Proposed revamp

In policy and penalty votes, a positive option must accrue a simple majority of votes to pass.

Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 15:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC) ShabiDOO 15:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

  • The Old Community Standards as stated above suggests this vote, being on policy, requires a two-thirds majority to pass.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Eventual vote[edit]

Icon fedora.svg * dons Mod Hat *Icon fedora.svg

This has rin for two weeks. I now declare this vote closed. The 2/3 guideline stays in place. Spud (talk) 10:39, 12 September 2020 (UTC)


  1. The fact that this was even a thing is stupid. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 20:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  2. We should not allow nine users to overrule fourteen. If I cannot stop that from happening now, I can stop that from happening again. As a child of the Bush era who acutely remembers the suffering my household went through in 2007 "if you win the vote you still don't win the election" is kind of a berserk button for me, for those who wonder why I am so passionate about this.-Flandres (talk) 20:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
    Simple rule by majority is in fact a very flawed concept, easily exposed by a crude thought experiment: is it okay for 51% of the population to vote to chop up and eat the remaining 49%?--Hastur! (talk) 21:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
    This is Reductio ad absurdum. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 21:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
    I disagree. This is RationalWiki's own checks and balances. Something to ensure stability and that minorities aren't constantly get muscled out (or eaten)--Hastur! (talk) 21:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
    We're an explicit mobocracy. That means, will of the majority rules. This isn't a "checks and balances", the supermajority guideline is giving undue weight to minority opinions. Our "checks and balances" are that you can coop or dispute with any user at any time, for any reason (but also shouldn't be suprised that if it's a bad case, that it ends up boomeranging in your face) and that no user has more voting/blocking power than any other user (everyone is a sysop and mods/techs are either elected or under higher scrutiny on their actions since they wield a lot more power). The supermajority guideline goes against that idea. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 21:36, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
    It is not necessary to resort to reductio ad absurdum to make the argument against simple-majority rules, at least in some cases. It has been noted elsewhere (e.g., Democracy#What is a democracy?), democracy is more than simply voting and majority rules. Basic minority rights should not be at the mercy of the majority, otherwise it becomes tyranny. That said, some safeguards against such tyranny have been used against minority rights, e.g. in the US: the filibuster and the Senate (and its implicit states' rights). I don't think however that anyone's rights would necessarily be trampled by simple-majority permaban. Permaban, as I've said before, cannot be strictly enforced against a person since we can't match accounts with people. Functionally, permabans are against the account and against the specific behavioral pattern. Bongolian (talk) 21:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) First of all that we call ourselves a mobocracy is at least partly tongue-in-cheek. But assuming that mobocracy is an inherent part of RationalWiki's culture but that an aversion to permabans and censorship isn't is very inconsistent. Second of all, are we an "explicit mobocracy" according to the community standards which are "just guidelines?" Finally this rule was likely instituted because being solely a mobocracy governed my simple majority is a terrible idea, as I've outlined--Hastur! (talk) 21:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  3. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 21:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  4. --RWRW (talk) 21:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  5. The rule may have made sense in the past but it doesn't considering the likes of endless concern trolling/sealioning and disruptive users of late. ShabiDOO 22:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  6. Yes. Absolutely. I am not doing this because of just one user. If a simple majority vote says that Raven stays, I can live with that. But we shouldn't allow the most toxic users to avoid a well deserved ban based on this technicality. Users become that unpopular for good reasons. Coop cases don't get started against people for being mildly irritating. And I definitely don't want us to reopen old cases and invite back the scum of the internet who were permabanned without getting a 2/3 majority.Spud (talk) 02:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
    Ah, but the most toxic users don't avoid bans. The system works. If you could demonstrate that individuals like Tisane or Mikemikev have managed to survive ban votes as a result of this rule, your argument might hold water--Hastur! (talk) 05:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
    Well, you were the one that said yesterday that Tisane, Abd and Mikemikev might be able to appeal their bans. You were the one that put the idea in my head. Spud (talk) 06:01, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
    That was a hypothetical. AFAIK their bans passed the 2/3 threshold. Had they not, and they desired to appeal, I am certain that new votes would be unanimous in banning them.--Hastur! (talk) 06:04, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  7. as far as i am aware, the bans hastur refers to centred around unapologetic racism and promotion of the sexual abuse of children. its no big whoop that votes to ban would easily be close to unanimous. issues that you wouldnt want even a suggestion of supporting, and playing devils advocate leaves a bad taste. any new user showing up expressing such views right now would be blocked without question. attempts at avoidance of those bans are thus easy to spot and not really a factor worth considering. recent events however are more subjective, more tied up in perspective. whats is or isnt disruptive, or when is it enough to warrant action, are never going to be so skewed one way or another. evidence relies on its culminative effects and interpretation of the more vaguer guidelines, such as on long term trolling or harassment in block policy. importantly, behaviour in the coop, the manner of defense counts as much as the actual argument that might be made. it is an unreasonable standard to expect anything so definitive as a 2/3 threshold. if there is ample enough examples of what brought a user to the coop in the first place and gets a simple majority, its unlikely to be something that will simply go away. you can disagree with the outcome of such votes, you may be torn over your own vote, may think it is unfairly harsh even, but a simple majority is still a consensus of support, agreement that there is a problem. sorry if any resolution isnt as definitive as we would like, but such is life and a decision is needed. insisting on a 2/3 majority here ensures things will not be resolved. the risks of rights being trampled by our tyranny is limited. we are not handing out death sentences and bans still need to be thrashed out in the coop, needing to be argued for and support needing to be built. attempts at rail roading people will be apparant long before any vote, and would speak to greater problems with community here that wikilawyering would not address AMassiveGay (talk) 16:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
    Good post! Bongolian (talk) 17:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  8. For reasons I gave above. Bongolian (talk) 17:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  9. Am in favour. ⏣sapient_cogbag⏣ [all-lowercase name pls] talk 19:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
  10. agreed with what basically everyone said Vorarchivist (talk) 19:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
  11. Oxyaena Harass 20:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
  12. Time for an update. RoninMacbeth (talk) 21:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
  13. This is not to do with any particular users or coop cases or anything like that. However, I will say firstly that. 1) From a quasi-utilitarian perspective, if someone is disruptive enough to cause those kinds of problems, then the net effect is probably just to make other editors unwilling to participate, or at the very least, to spend time focusing on unproductive drama. 2) I legit don’t think being banned under a certain account is that big a problem; maybe this is illegal or w/e but I feel like it’s pretty easy to just make a new account, not identify yourself, and avoid ALL the behaviour that got you banned in the first place; I wasn’t banned but I did basically the same thing and it’s honestly so much better. Sure, if someone IS banned I guess it’s technically “ban evasion”, but I feel like if someone doesn’t give anyone any reason to suspect, its the same net result as just a new editor. 3) I absolutely think there should be some kind of caveats however; a quorum, a vote margin, previous ban history, etc. is definitely worth taking into account. I can’t think of or propose any SPECIFIC requirements but I think it’s worth discussing. A S E L A कुरा 12:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
    Also would just like to add — I’m not convinced by the arguments about simple majority votes/increased banning leading to “suppression of ideological dissent”. Across the wiki I’ve seen everyone from conservatives to communists to socdems to liberals to anarchists, all of whom might get in heated debates but have for the most part never even been considered for a block/ban. I think there’s a clear difference between banning someone for, idk, saying “taxes should be lower” or some shit, and banning someone for causing trouble. I do think that there should be some kind of strict requirement that ideological differences (short of fascism or hate speech or whatever) should not be considered/discussed in the banning process, but in my experience, that’s rarely been the cause of someone being cooped/blocked/banned, so I’m just not sure it’s a significant concern in these types of cases. A S E L A कुरा 13:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
    Btw, you can use #: (increase colons for deeper indent) to comment on bullet items. This doesn't screw up the list count in ordered lists like this one. Fixed it for you, but thought it might be useful to share. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 19:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
  14. cosmikdebris talk stalk 21:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


  1. There is a reason we had this policy in the first place. We don't just get rid of people because they're unpopular. This is the one tool that keeps us honest, and that allows use to foster healthy dissent. This is what keeps us civilized. Also quite alarming that some people here have such a rage boner for another editor that they want to change the community standards to get rid of him--Hastur! (talk) 21:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
    We barely apply this guideline to begin with, as I demonstrated in the coop. It'd be honestly a more arbitrary change to start applying it now, given it hasn't been seriously applied in cases where it mattered in at least 2 years, if not more. Luckily, there's no such thing as hard rules, and the will of the mob seems to have prevailed thus far by ignoring this guideline. A simple majority is honestly the fairest situation a mobocracy could allow, rather than allowing a minority of users to get their way over the majority based on an arbitrary guideline. Unlike general voter egliglibility (3 months and 75 edits), which exists to prevent socks from being used to stuff the vote, there is little reason for this guideline to exist. It's our equivalent to the filibuster: In theory and in the past, a great idea, but now it seems to exist to allow the will of the mob to be overturned by a minority. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 21:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
    I disagree. Free discourse and dissent are cornerstones of RationalWiki and this rule preserves our principles. It having been applied inconsistently is no excuse. The rule has served us well in the past. I would like to cite the case of notorious troll MarcusCicero. We only blocked him for a month and we easily achieved a near-total consensus. That we feel the need to permaban a good faith user with a simple majority when previously we only issued a month long ban with an overwhelming majority is to me disgusting overreach and heavy-handedness--Hastur! (talk) 21:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
    easily achieved? it took you literal years and multiple coop cases. thats not super appealing and a permaban is only overreach if we ignore what actually occurred. free discourse and dissent are in no way effected by this at all. a rule inconsistently applied, so much so we forgot about it, suggests its not as fundamental to our freedoms as has been suggested. a simple vote is all that would be required to reinstate if we were to suddenly find this one thing was all that was holding back the tide. i note the vote back then was similarly split between those looking at what was done versus those in denial of reality with a liberal helping of hes alright really. AMassiveGay (talk) 04:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
  2. Always thought of RW as radically inclusive, and tearing that down would be backtracking on RW's legacy and strength imo. Not interested in or aware of the drama that preceded this motion. This wiki is an open wiki that doesn't need registration. Blocks are therefore mostly ceremonial and over personal issues that should be settled outside of these sorts of dramatic wiki changes imo.Neiltyson1fan (talk) 04:49, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  3. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  4. Black Guns Matter. I know it's unpopular, but I'm gonna say it anyway. nobsBlack Guns Matter 02:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
    I'm glad you are interested in Black Americans protecting themselves. You may find the following book instructive:Negroes with Guns by Robert Franklin Williams.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
  5. AceModerator 09:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
  6. Neiltyson1fan convinced me. Even an utter asshole like TK wasn't permabanned back in the day. Let it be noted that it was Nutty who unilaterally blocked him for 4 years (for making legal threats against Trent). That the four years turned out to be a lifetime for TK is incidental. Banning at simple majority makes it too easy to silence any dissenting voices. I'm not great at debating myself, but I have Darwinian faith that this community includes people who can run circles around and by doing so humiliate away any and all douchenozzles who manage to infiltrate it. No permanent blocks needed (with some very rare exceptions...I'm talking about doxing and threats to life and health here).Coigreach (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
  7. This site seems to be a prickly place full of prickly people. There are too many fans of running perceived ideological enemies out of town, A standard higher than mere unpopularity needs to be in place to justify banning anyone. Requiring the two-thirds vote is an imperfect solution to the problem, but any other mechanical device for achieving the same goal will also have issues, because human interactions and algorithms do not mix well. Keep it until something better is proposed. Removing the procedural bar and allowing bans by simple majority is not something better. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 16:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
  8. if you can't get a 2/3 majority to agree it's probably not a good idea. Bans are very rare, we only have a few banned users total, less than 10. — Z 20:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
  9. Reframing the issue as a slim minority suppressing the will of the majority is appalling. This issue has been written about for hundreds of years. It's not a remarkable proposition that votes affecting constututional issues and bans should require more than the slim majority of a fickle mob's blessing. Nutty Roux (talk) 11:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
  10. Raven here. My OG account is eligible, so I will vote on this one. To be clear, LGM and co. are canvassing in the discord (hence why sapient and vora voted here). Ravenism (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
    I think we can all agree that striking this vote is denying the spirit of the law in favor of a rather obtuse interpretation of the letter. I've personally confirmed that this vote is the real Godless Raven. --Hastur! (talk) 20:01, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
    Fails to meet eligibility, which is account-based. I could just as easily make 10 accounts and claim that I'm Raven on each one. Bongolian (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
    Then count this as GR's vote. Ravenism (talk) 20:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
    That is a disappointing decision, Bongolian. I have personally verified this account's identity, and I don't believe that there are grounds to question my good faith and honesty--Hastur! (talk) 20:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
    It's a very simple solution. Dis-scramble my passowrd on GR and I vote with that account then. Ravenism (talk) 20:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
    We'd have to propitiate Davide Gerard or Trent Toulouse and beg them to take time out of their busy schedules for the sake of restoring the password of a user who keeps LANCBing and inexplicably burning their account password+email. You may open a topic up on tech support if you want and I'll say a word on your behalf but dude you gotta stop with stuff like that--Hastur! (talk) 20:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
    It's easy. Just accept my vote with this account. You verified yourself (vouching for it) that it is GR indeed. Yeah, it's me. Owner of socdemwiki. Ravenism (talk) 20:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
    It's easy to fix with renames. — Z 20:26, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
    Eh they're tampering with votes again. Unsurprised. GR (talk) 20:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
  11. FuzzyCatPotato of the Foul Ferret fanciers (talk/stalk) 16:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
  12. Hclodge (talk) 20:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
  13. If we allow people to be permabanned by simple majority, this wiki will rip itself apart through perpetual civil war with endless coops and counter-coops.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 19:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  14. The "mob" is often full of shit, and can be wildly inconsistent in who or what requires the torches & pitchforks treatment from one month to the next. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 01:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
  15. If I recall correctly the rule was introduced to prevent the takeover of the wiki by a 'cabal'. This reason remains. Scream!! (talk) 01:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Invalid votes[edit]

  1. I can vote, right? Fowler (talk) 06:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
    Nope, sorry. Your account needs to be at least 3 months old. (for reference, you registered on july 28th, you can vote from october 28th onwards). Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 07:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
  2. Let's face them head on, shall we? SMB99thx 07:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
    Sorry, @SMB99thx, you're not eligible to vote. You don't have the necessary amount of edits. — Godless Raven SDAPOe logo.svg talkstalkwalkbalk 🌹 Flag of Europe.svg 08:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
    Late reply, but thanks. I should have been more involved in RationalWiki before voting in this matter. SMB99thx 10:25, 13 September 2020 (UTC)


  • Is there a waiting period for these votes?-Flandres (talk) 19:41, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
    Not to my knowledge, but I guess a discussion beforehand could be nice, also I think Shabi doesn't want this to influence GRs current coop. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 19:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  • This needs a site notice--Hastur! (talk) 21:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
    It has now been posted. Bongolian (talk) 22:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
    Hopefully we'll make it more colorful soon--Hastur! (talk) 22:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
    I dunno, I appreciate the uniform look of the notices we use to inform people about ongoing affairs. Adds a flair of professionality. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 22:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
    I feel that it is not sufficiently visible and that people may miss it--Hastur! (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
    We should make it look like early 2000s sites. A big flashy gif with moving lights around it. That'll grab people's attention :p. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 22:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
    I agree. With a dancing baby--Hastur! (talk) 23:01, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm just trying my best to do devil's advocate. In what hypothetical instance in the context of this wiki can a simple majority vote not be justified? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 00:44, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
    Ban votes, for one. As well as changes to site rules. Simple majority is too volatile. I'd say cases where it IS justified would be for less controversial stuff like mainspace content--Hastur! (talk) 00:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
    Has there even been a case where simple majority was way too close to call (let's say margin under 3 votes) and a decision was heeded? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 00:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I will not vote until the coop case has been completed. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 00:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's appropriate to vote on this while a contentious coop case is happening. I'll defer until the current coop's closed. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 02:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm sitting this one out. For now. — Dysk (contribs) 02:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Peanut gallery opinion. As a reader of RW, I don't think I'm elligible to vote. Countries often implement two thirds majority rules because they think they've created a great system, and don't want anyone changing it in the future. In the future, this only ever seems to create headaches, as people are stuck with rules everyone thinks are outdated. It's not a majority versus minority thing, but a past people versus future people thing. I think it is very important to ensure minority rights are upheld. However, I think supermajority rules are a particularly poor check on the power of the majority, and could even backfire here. Other methods should be found. Supermajority bad. Tulpa001 (talk) 23:35, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
    Actually, I don't see anything that would disqualify you from voting.(EDIT) never mind, you don't have 75 edits. Sorry for the inconvenience.-Flandres (talk) 00:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I’ll admit to being torn on this issue. One the one hand, I think that the current rules open up a bit too much leniency, given how few votes you’d need to prevent blocking/banning, on the other, a permaban potentially based on a single vote majority seems a bit shaky to me. I’d suggest that temporary blocks can be voted through by simple majorities, while permabanning should probably require something more. I’m thinking that this could be either the two thirds options currently on the books or a simple majority provided the user has received at least two prior bans of at least two weeks each. This will slow down more trigger happy editors from wielding the ban hammer too indiscriminately and allow for some deliberation, while still having a fairly speedy process for kicking out serious offenders without gumming up the votes. ScepticWombat (talk) 04:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Permanent bans seem to be unnecessarily contentious. If a user receives a six month or one year ban, how likely are they to return and do the same things? Ariel31459 (talk) 18:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
  • How about requiring that to permanently ban someone, a two thirds majority must be required, whilst for temporary bans a simple majority will suffice. As for policy changes, I'd also propose changing to a simple majority. Look at elections and referendums for a start. Kiko4564 (talk) 21:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Propose that a simple majority should also require a quorum, so it's not something like 2:1. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 23:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Beautiful how the censorious pitchfork population is losing this vote. Will def not help their crusading seasons. — Godless Raven SDAPOe logo.svg talkstalkwalkbalk 🌹 Flag of Europe.svg 04:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Just fucking ban everyone and be done with it[edit]

  1. AceModerator 09:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
    Slope ain't that slippery, dude. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 18:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
    Come on Ace, it's the hardware, remember?

Ariel31459 (talk) 18:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

It's the liquor. Nutty Roux (talk) 19:02, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Motion to strike[edit]

Whilst we can all admire the chutzpah required to launch this vote for such nakedly motivated reasons, at least let the coop play out first, you filthy animals. Le législateur (talk) 23:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Uhhh who are you? Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 23:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
It appears I originally pitched myself as A wiki Moses on wheels; sent to lead y'all to the Promised Land of Happy, Productive Editing, but that's not important right now. How did you get from your history teacher's bad pun about a stuffed animal to an extended riff on a dead Italian fascist as some wiki restaurateur? Describe the journey in detail, please. Le législateur (talk) 00:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
I, too, would like for the Duce to elaborate--Hastur! (talk) 00:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Story time is the best time. Rakim (talk) 00:44, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Motion denied. Let's get this rule sorted out now. ShabiDOO 00:35, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't know, I kinda like this motion--Hastur! (talk) 00:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
If there is really enough of a stink to this (officially changing a rule we haven't been enforcing) that this rule, if successfully changed, shouldn't be applied to the current coop, then I will start another coop next week and if this policy successfully changed and the vote is around the same (no reason why it shouldn't) then the same result will happen. Question is, is there enough of a stink from this from the community (I doubt it but we can see) and is it really necessary to have another coop? ShabiDOO 00:42, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Given that the coop closes sooner than the CS vote...--Hastur! (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
It all depends on how much stink is made. ShabiDOO 00:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
A more principled stance would be to worry about the smell itself, rather than how many people complain about it, but like I said, full marks for chutzpah. Have you thought of running for office? Le législateur (talk) 00:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Also a vote on the community standards should really be left open longer than a single week--Hastur! (talk) 00:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

You'll note that my vote said this current coop would be treated in a "grandfather clause" sort of way, still applicable under the old rules? Strawmanning is such bad sport, you know...-Flandres (talk) 01:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Legislation doesn't apply retrospectively. The current Coop case will continue on the 2/3 rule as usual. Y'all are welcome to do it again later, if you must be drama queens. — Dysk (contribs) 02:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Okay. We'll just do the whole coop thing again next week. ShabiDOO 02:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Second time around will be a cleaner, less dramatic, clearer event I'm sure... — Dysk (contribs) 03:01, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
The reason legislation generally doesn't apply retroactively is because of the concept of the rule of law. It's a good rule to adhere to for RW even if it's not codified.— Unsigned, by: Bongolian / talk / contribs
So, this is going to be the one rule we actually adhere to, even though it's not actually a rule? Cancel my rhumba lesson! Ariel31459 (talk) 02:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
I have a feeling the next vote will be on changing these from guidelines to actual rules. Or at least it will be if the vote goes in favour of keeping the 2/3 guideline. Spud (talk) 04:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


How about a simple majority wins, assuming the margin is some number of votes? Seems that manages to not let the 51% mow down the 49% but also means that the minority can’t rules-lawyer their way into beating the majority. (talk) 03:24, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Define the margin. — Dysk (contribs) 03:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
I would agree my dear, but Dysk has unilaterally decided how we are going to apply a rule that hasn't been applied for some time and reverted my attempt to work it out democratically through consensus. So yeah...this is where we are. ShabiDOO 03:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Shabi, don't be provocative. I think Dysk is right; we shouldn't be holding a vote to just try to subvert a rule that didn't align with a result we don't like in a coop (considering that a vote has already taken place in the coop). The rule should be dealt with first, then it should be applied to coop. At the very least, this vote should've happened before there was a coop vote. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 06:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Please take it easy on the tone policing LGM. I'm not provoking I'm expressing my dismay that an attempt to get the community to democratically make this decision was unilaterally torpedoed because one person didn't like it. Reverting a call for consensus without even a discussion...I don't think that's cool. But if we are to have a drawn out second coop and delay the inevitable...so be it. ShabiDOO 07:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
I understand it seems this way, but I believe Dysk acted out of advice from another user, Nutty (DM?), not on a whim. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 08:07, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
My only involvement in this is public. I hope you're just making assumptions. Nutty Roux (talk) 11:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
I must be mistaken then. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 18:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Not exactly, I based my commentary on Nuttys commentary, here on the wiki and possibly in Discord channels. These are of course public comments. — Dysk (contribs) 00:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Dysk. I am but a humble IP address so I don’t really know how many votes these things get or really anything about the process so I cant answer confidently. I’d say anywhere from 2-5 personally, with 3 sounding reasonable. Idk though I guess it’d be ideal if whatever margin usually fell in the 5-10% range for these types of things. (talk) 17:51, 30 August 2020 (UTC) For clarity, I don’t even know what this is really about either; I’m just here bc I saw the thing on the top of the screen and I figured it sounded like it might make people happier with whatever option is chosen. (talk) 17:54, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I ain't convinced that is workable. — Dysk (contribs) 00:54, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Do you think there is any way to make the option more workable or nah. Idk I just feel like this situation is a good “compromise moment” tbh. Having read a tiny bit of the drama page, this all seems fairly intractable otherwise (talk) 10:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

As has been pointed out. Any proposal to change the existing system would itself need a two-thirds majority.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 12:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

The introduction is not really accurate.[edit]

The introduction reads: ... some users have given good reasons why the motivations for the two-thirds vote for banning users (originally devised for conservapedia trouble makers and more light hearted trolling) is irrelevant considering the more menacing forms of trolling in the last couple years. Everything else on this site requires a simple majority, I see no reason why the votes of a minority should overpower the votes of a majority on any vote."

I would point out that the current version of RW came live in May 2007 - some time after many of us had a falling out with CP. The requirement for a two thirds majority was voted on and passed in October 2011. You can see the rather rather difficult process by which that number was arrived at here, and this was well over four years after we said goodbye to CP.

It was certainly not designed to deal with "light hearted trolling" From CP. In fact, the worst troll we had to deal with was TK and he was very active on CP. This (now deceased) user was certainly as big a difficulty as anyone we have seen in recent years and, if I remember correctly, he was the first person who ever got a perma-ban. Though this was before our formalized process existed.

I also note that CS states: "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." Which means that not only permanent bans, but also policy changes need to pass the two thirds threshold. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:22, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, sir. A very useful post. You are much appreciated--Hastur! (talk) 17:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Added caveats for a simple majority[edit]

I’ve seen a few people propose various ideas to make the simple majority thing fairer; ie to avoid situations where someone gets thrown out the door bc of only one or two editors, etc. I do think SOMETHING along these lines is a good idea — options I’ve seen proposed are some kind of necessary vote margin (eg the difference needs to be greater than three editors), a quorum of how many people have to vote for it to count, and taking into account someone’s previous history of blocks/sanctions/disruption. I think these ideas all have good points and bad points, but I do think it’s worth discussing. So, if it does go to simple majority, does anybody have any proposals for how that could be made fairer? A S E L A कुरा 12:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I’m going with no on that. We have established users openly using sockpuppet accounts, and no way to really stop people from socking. Some of these discussions have been really close, giving sockpuppets an avenue to affect ban discussions and other matters in big ways. 2607:FB90:7C97:C18D:E0A8:B073:C1A5:8B23 (talk) 18:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

It's been two weeks. Let's end this now![edit]

This discussion started on 29 August. It's now 12 September. I say it's time to stop it. It looks like the guideline about not permabanning someone unless a 2/3 majority votes for it will stay on the books. I will point out once again that at the moment it is only a guideline. If you want to change it to a hard and fast rule, that needs to be another discussion. And that goes for everything else on the Community Standards page too. Spud (talk) 06:48, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

And another victory for the rule of law. Close it, Spud. — Godless Raven SDAPOe logo.svg talkstalkwalkbalk 🌹 Flag of Europe.svg 06:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree that it should be closed. It's been going on a long time and it looks like there is no chance it will pass.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:21, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
I have declared the vote closed. The 2/3 guideline stays in place. Spud (talk) 10:39, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Collapse template[edit]

We need to have a major conversation about the excessive use of the {{collapse}} template. It causes disruption in most cases rather than solving anything. I see it being used as a muzzle rather than an attempt to clarify things. — Godless Raven SDAPOe logo.svg talkstalkwalkbalk 🌹 Flag of Europe.svg 04:44, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

GR you created your own template which is designed to stop conversations instead of clarifying things. ShabiDOO 05:25, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Shabidoo, does said template cause edit warring?--Hastur! (talk) 05:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
How does {{verygood}} censor people? it's supposed to be a sarcastic joke. that's all. — Godless Raven SDAPOe logo.svg talkstalkwalkbalk 🌹 Flag of Europe.svg 05:40, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
As I clearly and unambiguously said it is "designed to stop conversations instead of clarifying things" I did not say censor. Please don't put words in my mouth. Your template is designed to deflect, avoid and stop a conversation instead of responding to people. You have used it multiple times to avoid clearing up a valid problem, question, criticism or responses. So if you are serious about fostering a better atmosphere of "clarifying things" then you can lead by example and delete that stupid template of yours. ShabiDOO 06:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
You are a sysop, you can delete it yourself if you desperately want it gone? — Godless Raven SDAPOe logo.svg talkstalkwalkbalk 🌹 Flag of Europe.svg 06:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
And that's why it's hard to take your concerns here seriously GR. ShabiDOO 06:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
??? 1. You are a sysop 2. It's a public template 3. Thus you can delete it. You don't need me to do it for you, do you? — Godless Raven SDAPOe logo.svg talkstalkwalkbalk 🌹 Flag of Europe.svg 06:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) If Raven doesn't desire to respond to a particular post, that is fine. I do not see his cesium template as being on the same level as the collapse template. The cesium template is clearly meant to reflect his own opinion, and perhaps his own decision not to pursue a particular conversation, ergo nobody edit wars with him over it. The collapse template is meant to represent a shaming from the entire community, as well as shutting down a discussion for the whole community, and thus is far more controversial. This is why I oppose using the collapse template but not GR's cesium template. Edit: Not that I am defending or encouraging the cesium template. Rather I tolerate its existence--Hastur! (talk) 06:26, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Since he was ambivalent as to what happened to it, I have deleted Raven's verygood template. Spud (talk) 06:33, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
And it's been immediately restored (but not by Raven). Spud (talk) 06:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
That was a mistake. You can delete it again if you feel strongly about it--Hastur! (talk) 06:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
I really don't feel particularly strongly about it, But I've deleted it again anyway. That's the last time I'll do that. Spud (talk) 06:41, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Now that we got rid of that tiny problem Shabidoo had, can we talk about how the {{collapse}} template is overused? — Godless Raven SDAPOe logo.svg talkstalkwalkbalk 🌹 Flag of Europe.svg 06:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Spud you are a legend ShabiDOO 06:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Shabidoo's perspective[edit]

The collapse template is extremely useful especially for toxic content. I agree, to a small extent with GR that it has been a little over used recently, but I think his claim that it has been "excessive" is pretty exaggerated. Though in the case to today and yesterday's Salon "sea lioning" or "concern trolling" posts, it would have been wiser to have just put up the seal lioning template as we used to do back when Unlicensed Thinker was sea-lioning the shit out of the Saloon. But I still think the majority of collapsing has been sound judgement call but I agree that a little (and only a little) more restraint would be a good idea and using warning templates instead of collapsing whenever possible. ShabiDOO 06:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Lure2.png Caution: SEALIONING AHEAD Lure2.png
I've created a template for Baiting as some of the recent shit is more baiting than concern trolling or sea-lioning. ShabiDOO 07:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, this is clearly worse than my template. Let alone how that yellow stings in my eyes. — Godless Raven SDAPOe logo.svg talkstalkwalkbalk 🌹 Flag of Europe.svg 08:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
First of all, templates made for talk pages are best small. Such as Template:dftt. Second of all, I'm not fond of templates designed to claim a community consensus where none has actually been reached. The problem with the collapse template is not that it collapses speech, rather that it dismisses it and presents it as useless in the eyes of the community. That's why it's controversial. It's fine if you want to say a post is bad as an individual. People accept that. But they get tilted when you try to claim nobody wants to listen to them. That's when people start edit warring. Does that make sense? Don't create templates that cause conflict, basically.--Hastur! (talk) 08:08, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
You both have a minority view. The sea-lioning template was completely accepted by the community and done frequently used. A notable percentage of posts in the Saloon are trolling completely written to mislead and provoke. And the longer they sit around with nobody doing anything about it the worse they get and more frequent they come (unlicensed thinker is a particularly good example of that). If you think a template is irresponsibly used you can remove it or state your objection to it. I cannot remember ever seeing such a template used with anybody disagreeing with it. Sealioning, concerntrolling etc was blatant and called out for it. They NEVER led to edit wars. You're arguing about a non-issue in this case. ShabiDOO 08:26, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
This template, along with the excessive use of the collapse template, will cause more conflicts. — Godless Raven SDAPOe logo.svg talkstalkwalkbalk 🌹 Flag of Europe.svg 08:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
No. Moose's sea-lioning template never caused conflict. The authors of trolling bullshit on the saloon know what they are doing, I've never seen them contest the templates because all they are looking for is a reaction. Not to mention the fact that you've done a fair bit of ill advised collapsing yourself. Try to distinguish between collapsing obvious stupid shit with collapsing to seriously shut down a welcomed or necessary debate. And yes the template is hideously ugly. That's the point. And no Hastur the templates are not all small, several of them have been prominent and large including the Sea-lioning template which thankfully hasn't had to been used for some time. You're both doing a fair bit of exaggerating here. ShabiDOO 08:41, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
I mean, neither did my verygood template. People don't like the response, but it didn't create conflict (conflict already existed). — Godless Raven SDAPOe logo.svg talkstalkwalkbalk 🌹 Flag of Europe.svg 08:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Shabidoo rolls his eyes all the way around in their sockets ShabiDOO 08:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

We also have this template.

Rough storm pirate.png Ahoy, matey!
Beware, for there be a great sea of
Concern Troll Bullshit ahead!

It was created specifically for Unlicensed Thinker's Saloon Bar. It did its job and nobody ever complained about it.

You know, I think this entire discussion is making a mountain out of a molehill. Yes, sometimes the collapse template has been used when it shouldn't have been. But I don't think it's being used excessively. If you think it's been used inappropriately, just remove it. However, I think it's only right to collapse borderline sexist/racist/homophobic stuff. And blatantly nasty sexist/racist/homophobic stuff is nothing but vile trolling and should be removed. Spud (talk) 11:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I like the new bait template, I'll try to use that from now if I'm not allowed to clean up bigoted stuff outright I guess. That said, I'd like for a more softer yellow, #ffffbf or something. That'd be easier on the eyes. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 11:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
This whole discussion is built on blatant exaggeration. The actual number of cases where the collapse template was genuinely abused is...very small.-Flandres (talk) 15:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm not clear why this debate is here. What aspect of CS is being discussed? What is the CS proposal?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:58, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes. I think this would have been better suited for the Mod noticeboard or just the Saloon Bar. Spud (talk) 14:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
My thinking too.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:18, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Can someone remove the site notice template, please?[edit]

The vote on the 2/3 guideline ended on Saturday. There's nothing to discuss as far as the collapse template is concerned. There's no discussion going on here now. Spud (talk) 05:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

It's gone. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 07:54, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

About drafts[edit]

So, I have been going through draft space lately and I have noticed a lot of drafts are permanent stubs only edited by their creators that have since been completely abandoned. Does the article deletion process just apply in main space or is it for drafts as well?(sorry if I sound like a fool for posting this-I do so mostly because I have seen drafts unilaterally deleted before)-Flandres (talk) 00:17, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Assuming draft space isn't indexed, the only concerns are that 1. we run out of server space and 2. the draft content is exceedingly offensive. This is likely to be a situation where doing nothing is fine--Hastur! (talk) 00:29, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Draft articles are not indexed when they contain the {{draft}} template on them. I went through all the draft articles a while ago to make sure that they had this template, and I try to keep it up to date. I see no reason not to just summarily delete stubs that have not been edited in more than a month. They just add to clutter. Before the existence of draftspace, it seemed to be customary for editors to summarily delete stubs in mainspace that were going nowhere. Bongolian (talk) 00:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Draftspace and categories/navpages[edit]

Recently @Magic Master reverted my edit of Draft:Julie Bindel, wherein I had removed the categories and navbar. Magic Master requested that I explain the deletion. My rationale is this generally: it's lazy and potentially dangerous to put them in at that stage. Specifically:

  • Currently we have over 300 articles in draftspace. Very few of these ever become good enough to enter mainspace.
  • It was recently decided to insert the "{{draft}}" template on all draftspace pages, so as to prevent them from being indexed by search engines, and in part to prevent anything potentially libelous from being indexed.
  • In mainspace, it is bad form (and in some cases potentially libelous) to add categories to pages that are not substantiated by the content of the pages (in particular by a citation), and consequently should be removed in such cases. Similarly, categories have the same potential problem in draftspace, but additionally fewer eyeballs are upon these pages.
  • Categories on draftspace pages allows the existence of these pages to leak out into search engines because the categories are indexed even though the draft pages are not.

Since, navbars only list mainspace pages, it should be fine to have them in draftspace pages. Bongolian (talk) 03:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment. Category tags on draft pages should be avoided and wrapped in comment blocks to prevent them from leaking into and polluting the main space. Since the navigation bars don't include draft pages, it doesn't matter if they're included in drafts. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 03:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 09:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. Spud (talk) 10:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
If they leak into search engine results, they should be avoided. After all, the point of Draftspace is to work on projects without them being official articles yet. Also, I apologize for adding categories in previous instances, I didn't know. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 10:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Voting for or against oneself in the coop[edit]

It is generally understood that a person may not sit in judgement of him/herself, and that an accused criminal may not sit on his/her own jury (natural law, rule of law).[1] As such, it should not be the case that a person should be allowed to vote in a coop case regarding the adjudication of his/her own punishment. Bongolian (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Seems fair. After all, the coop is like a court but for edit-warring, harassment, and abuses of sysop, mod, or as we were all reminded quite recently, tech powers. --Goatspeed. Stalk meCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee what I'm planning 20:43, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
So long as they can speak in their own defense. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 20:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Again, we are trying to change the community standards in order to pursue grudges/editors we dislike. Voting for or against yourself in the coop has always been allowed. I've voted on my own behalf a number of times. It's never been an issue. The fact of the matter is, LiberalTears is a member of this community. A tragically hilarious and often annoying member, granted, but he does get a say in votes so long as he meets the activity thresholds. Comparing this to a jury or a court of law is rather silly, if you ask me. We don't have judges, prosecutors or defense attorneys. That's because RationalWiki's justice system is democratic. Or mobocratic, if you prefer. We issue penalty votes on a 2/3 majority, of the entire community. That is how we do things. And Liberaltears is a member of the community, and thus is allowed to vote for themselves. This has always been the case and has never been an issue--Hastur! (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Regarding DuceMoosolini's point: Yes, they should be able to represent themselves in the coop. The policy to unblock users to represent themselves in the coop would still stand. Bongolian (talk) 21:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
RationalWiki is a good example of anarchy in practice. It's based off of free association and ran without any actual hierarchies, while still maintaining rules for allowance into a group. Anarchism doesn't mean rules are off-limits per se, only that such rules should be voluntary and people should be allowed to leave if they disagree with said rules. Oxyaena Harass 21:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
You know, for someone who spouts off about power and control and anarchy you nonetheless display a hunger for power and authority. Between claiming you were a "de facto mod", your constant calls to be a sysop again and how aggrieved you get when challenged. It's an interesting irony. AceModerator 21:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Sure thing, champ. Oxyaena Harass 23:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I disagree, but you are free to disagree with me back. CoryUsar (talk) 21:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

The proposal Bongolian made is eminently reasonable. Can't wait to see people whine about how it will "turn this site into radicalwiki" or whatever.-Flandres (talk) 21:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Hastur's comment. No, this is not about me pursuing grudges. I realize that any result of a rule change on voting would be applicable to the current coop case, both because of timing and because of not applying rules retroactively (part of the rule of law). I have been irked by self-voting in coop cases in the past, but haven't pushed for a change because I don't think it's mattered in particular cases as yet. You and I have a strong difference of opinion about policy, but I respect you as an editor and have not grudge with you. Bongolian (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
the idea we are trying to change community standards to pursue personal grudges is just pure arse water. as hastur notes, we still require 2/3 majority to permaban and its just bizarre idea to be in a situation where the 'accused' (is that really the right term here?) might have the deciding vote. the coop IS a jury of ones peers - is that not enough to ensure fairness? they would still be afforded the opportunity to defend themselves.
its also a facile idea that because somethings always been a particular way then it should remain so. the rules have constantly been evolving over the years, and just because its 'never been an issue' before does not mean it wont ever be - it apparently is now.
its an argument based on nostalgia and nothing more. the rationalwiki of the past is not the rationalwiki today. deal with it. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I have no real objections to the community standards being amended to prohibit voting on one's own coop. But as said above, users should always be allowed to defend themselves when going through coops (I was the one who unblocked LT so he could comment on the current discussion). --RWRW (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

This type of formality could be settled either way. It's just a rule with relatively innocuous consequences. Ariel31459 (talk) 22:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
In my eyes, voting in ones own coop should be allowed. I consider coops to be in part of our general voting process and I don't think we should disqualify people from voting in their own coops because they are the target of said coop. They have their opinion and given we do decisions here by majority or supermajority, we shouldn't exclude the targets of coops. I do consider it good faith to abstain from voting in your own coops, but I am unwilling to make that into a policy as a requirement. Informally, our behavior surrounding this also has leaned more to allowing people to vote in their own coops (the GR situation was the last time this came up a few times cuz of his re-registering accounts and not meeting eligibility criteria), so this would run contrary to what we seem to enforce it as. We don't need a policy change just to deal with LT. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 22:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Good post!Generally principled people have voted Goat in Coops about themselves. But we shouldn't force unprincipled editors to be principled. If that one vote is enough to turn it over, then it probably wasn't strong enough case.
I would say though, this Community Standards discussion and vote will probably go beyond LT's coop case. And changes to community standards must not apply retroactively. If the coop fails to ban LT, he can of course be cooped again. But he must not be cooped for that same old transgression. Until he does something else ban- or blockworthy, the results of this coop will have to suffice. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 23:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Total no brainer. You shouldn't be able to vote in a coop deciding community sanctions against you.ShabiDOO 23:30, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Pretty sure if the accused got to vote on their punishment in any other system, very few people would get punished, and fewer would receive the punishment they deserve.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 00:47, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I would like to reiterate that this is about conforming to the rule of law, not about bearing a grudge as has been suggested. In my view, it is unlikely that passing such a rule would ever even apply to LT. Bongolian (talk) 01:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Stop trying to apply coercive legal measures to a website that defines itself at least partially by mobocracy. Oxyaena Harass 09:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)