RationalWiki talk:Community Standards/Archive27

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Casting a vote...for yourself[edit]

So, in a now archived ATiM case, somebody attempted to vote "nay..." in a vote to topic ban them. Now, it was deemed ineligible (their account was too young) but it lead to a discussion about, I believe the phrase was, "sitting in judgment over your own trial." This interested me, because even though no rule prevents you from, say, casting the decisive vote to acquit yourself, I've seen people sporadically object to this basic idea in the past. I've waited till after the case is archived, because changing the rules for a penalty vote when such a vote is open tends to be controversial, but I've decided to settle this.

What does the community think? Should people not be allowed to cast a vote in a penalty vote about them?-Flandres (talk) 22:47, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

This vote has been closed. Please do not add, remove or change votes.
The result of this vote was: Proposed change fails. Thanks for particpating!-Flandres (talk) 21:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Aye, people shouldn't be able to[edit]

  1. Scream!! (talk) 00:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  2. On the understanding that this literally means that nobody should be able to vote in a case about themselves. (Even if they are eligible to vote on other matters.)Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  3. โ€” ๐—ฆ๐—พ๐—ฟ๐˜-๐Ÿญ talk stalk 10:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  4. but as per gc below, it wont make a whole lot of difference AMassiveGay (talk) 10:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  5. I don't feel very strongly about this. However, I do think this is the more sensible option. Spud (talk) 13:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  6. It is pretty absurd to be able to vote for yourself. I don't know any other forum where that happens ShabiDOO 15:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  7. I originally was just trying to facilitate debate without a fixed position, but the example Shabi provided convinced me.-Flandres (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  8. I don't think this will make a massive difference but it's probably worth enacting. armed_roomba(she/her)What am I doing wrong this time? 18:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  9. Plutocow (talk) 13:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
  10. Doesn't make much of a difference anyway, like GC said. Probably worth enforcing, tho. โ€” Exaskliri (they/them) (talk | contribs) 13:13, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Nay, people should be able to[edit]

  1. It generally won't make much difference. โ˜ญComrade GCโ˜ญMinistry of Praise 23:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
    Ehhh yes, HBC, not that long ago, got away with their trouble making by casting a deciding vote for themselves. It can make a difference ShabiDOO 15:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
    That is true (RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive124) but that's probably the only time that happen. I mean, I see the perspective but to me IMO the disenfrachisement is worse. --Andrew5 (talk) 15:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
    1. I don't feel too strongly on this. It shouldnโ€™t make too much of a difference as per GC, and I can only think of one time where it did. Plus, this is like saying โ€œif we put your article at AFD, you canโ€™t vote to keep itโ€ or something like that. --Andrew5 mobile (talk) 11:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC) Actually....on second thought I'm abstaining because I thought about what Shabidoo said and it does make sense. --Andrew5 (talk) 23:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  2. Monet Ye 09:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
  3. People have always been able to vote however they wished if they were otherwise eligible and the eligibility requirements were not initially intended to prevent this, but to prevent brigading, ballot stuffing, and trolling. Nutty Roux (talk) 12:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
  4. It's more of a polite courtesy not to do it. I think it reflects poorly on those that do it, but I would not be okay with forcing this in the CS. -- Techpriest (talk) 10:57, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
  5. Aren't politicians allowed to vote for themselves? Also In dubio pro reoWikipedia. GeeJayK (talk) 11:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
    I don't think it's the same thing. If there is a secret ballot where you are electing someone then you could vote for anyone - including yourself. But when sanctions are being considered against an individual, it is difficult to imagine a situation where said individual could use a potentially casting vote in their favour. — Unsigned, by: Bob M / talk / contribs
  6. ๐’ฎ๐‘’๐“‡๐‘’๐“ƒ๐‘’ talk 15:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
  7. LeucippusSalva veritate 20:26, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
  8. UncleKrampus (talk) 00:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
  9. It's not really worth the trouble to create more bureaucracy, and, as GC said, it probably won't make any difference one way or another. โ€”cosmikdebris talk stalk 03:24, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
    Has made a difference already, quite recently in fact ShabiDOO 16:14, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
  10. If a resolution calls for a vote, and the person affected by the resolution is a voting peer of the group responsible for carrying out the vote who had not been not previously barred from voting, then prohibiting them from voting in their defense constitutes a removal of rights at accusation. And if a sanction vote would fail if the accused could vote in their defense, it probably shouldn't pass anyway. 192โ€ค168โ€ค1โ€ค42 (talk) 12:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
    Good post! โ˜ญComrade GCโ˜ญMinistry of Praise 13:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)


  • Before I decide where I want to vote, the vote framing I proposed was actually slightly different, and can be found here. --Andrew5 (talk) 23:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  • We have ended up with an ambiguous "Aye = they should not be allowed" formulations of the question. Can we clean up the phrasing to make sure everyone's voting for what they think they're voting for? Queexchthonic murmurings 00:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
    What do you suggest?-Flandres (talk) 00:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
    Just adding what the 'aye' or 'nay' is for should be enough, assuming that doesn't hold any surprises for people who've already voted. In general (for the future), making it so the affirmatives and negatives match up avoids confusion (Aye, people can vote on their own cases; Nay, people can't vote on their own cases). Queexchthonic murmurings 00:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
    Is that better? Sorry for how awkward this has been...-Flandres (talk) 00:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
    I am not pleased with these altered ballots... โ˜ญComrade GCโ˜ญMinistry of Praise 01:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
    They weren't altered; you just hadn't read the question closely enough (which is exactly the thing I was afraid of) Queexchthonic murmurings 12:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
    Remind me of the Maths A-level where everyone else in my class thought the question was asking them for the thirteenth element of a sequence when it actually asked for the thirtieth. Queexchthonic murmurings 12:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  • There are a number of people on both sides of the vote saying "It (probably) won't make a difference" - and then voting. I am sort of surprised they didn't go for "goat".Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
    Even though it actually, quite clearly, has made a difference in the past, quite recently in fact. I wonder if someone is still going to vote again, despite me pointing this out twice now, that not only can it make a difference, it would have made a difference in a recent vote. ShabiDOO 16:15, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
    That is true, however has also argued that a vote in which it failed because they voted in their favor shouldnโ€™t have passed in the first place, which GrammarCommied goodposted. Thereโ€™s that perspective too.
    Nobody commenting here should close the discussion. We should wait, once the minimum time passes, for someone uninvolved to close to get a fair close, unless of course people overwhelming vote in one favor. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
  • What happens if there is a tie (which there currently is)? If it goes to no consensus, which side wins? Or do we have to keep the vote open until one side wins. Or, as Bob said, if not enough people care will that be a factor? Andrew5 mobile (talk) 14:28, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Removing posts that are "from users who have been blocked from the site"[edit]

I think that it is de facto permissible, but not mandatory as in practice they aren't always removed. That said, they sometimes are. In fact, I myself have striked some posts in those circumstances, only for another sysop to revert me. We agreed to disagree on whether or not it was a good idea, and I therefore refrained from a pointless edit war with them. However, I have to ask whether or not the "Community Standards" should be amended to reflect this reality on the ground, or left as they are. I propose replacing the word "mandatory" with the word "permissible". Harry Potter (talk) 22:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I would instead go for "encouraged", to signify that it is allowed for them to technically stay (especially hatted), but to discourage people from doing so. Permissible means it's fine either way, and it should be encouraged, but not mandatory, to remove. --Andrew5 (talk) 23:36, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
It's fine as is; we remove stray comments. If a discussion somehow pops up, we collapse the comment instead. -- Techpriest (talk) 11:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Techpriest on this. Bongolian (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Also, treating the innocuous-looking posts as unimportant might discourage some of their activity. Nothing a troll likes better than to be taken seriously as a threat.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes. As a matter or fact, that's why we also try not to identify trolls unless needed. It's like this on other sites too. On Wikipedia, we go, "and a sockpuppet did..." without referencing what that sock was. At Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars/Images ยง 2020 Atlantic hurricane seasonWikipedia when they mention a sock account was involved, that was me per my comment here, but I wasn't referenced to deny recognition. --Andrew5 (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2021 (UTC)


I have seen when users have disruptive usernames they are renamed. This works, but I've been seeing one particular mod prioritizing renaming over blocking. Renaming doesn't stop disruption; all the new account needs to do is to see their new username and log in with that. I think the CS should be made more clear to say, Users can be renamed only if they request to have their name changed or if they have a patently offensive or intentionally disruptive name (the disruptive user name should be blocked first, renaming is secondary to blocking. --Andrew5 (talk) 23:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

No need. Just remind the tech/mod to block first. Or block the accounts yourself. ๐ŸŽ„Chef Moosoliniโ€™s Ristorante Italiano๐ŸŽ„Ask about our holiday specials! 01:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
You could just say it's me. Also blocking after a rename is a largely unnecessary action since accounts almost never edit under the new unwieldy name but if they want to press a few buttons, fine. You don't have to remind me, I know what I'm doing. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 01:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
(1) I actually can't block as I don't have sysop tools per a CS vote, (2) I didn't say the mod in particular as there is a bad sentiment against giving names (some people don't like it, I've tried doing that before on other sites). I guess I could go to ATIM but making 20 block requests for troll accounts is frowned upon, so I try to limit it under circumstances. --Andrew5 (talk) 01:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Abolishing the civility parole[edit]

In the current ATiM, some users disliked the civility parole (because it's difficult to enforce, poorly designed, etc.) Therefore, I will start a vote. (After the 24 hours run out.) Monet Ye 14:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

You'd only need to get it lifted from USH. It also isn't a CS sanction, it's something we invented to deal with Oxy being Oxy. -- Techpriest (talk) 20:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I'd say there is one use for the civility parole. It's that some users who are overly litigious will start an ATIM case whenever someone blocks them for being stupid, and a civility parole does at least show that the block did have proper procedure without having to have a long argument on ATIM. Basically, it can prevent unnecessary ATIM drama from troublemakers who like to litigate every little thing. I'll admit that it's not the intended use, though. Plutocow (talk) 00:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Maybe there will be other users, who will have a civility parole sanction in the future. Monet Ye 18:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

So we are voting to remove something that doesn't exist in the standards? Bongolian (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2022 (UTC) If you're referring to removing the civility parole on USH only, then the vote should either be on the mod page or the coop, and USH should be the one to request it. Bongolian (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Sounds about right for RW. Would be good to have a consensus for retiring it as de facto sanction, though. Queexchthonic murmurings 18:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Like I already mentioned, maybe there will be other users, who will have a civility parole sanction in the future. And it exists in Active sanctions. Monet Ye 19:13, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Just remove the thing from USH and we can retire it from the sanctions page. -- Techpriest (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)


It's surprising that the CS doesn't mention plagiarism, and that's a pretty big oversight in my opinion. I think plagiarism from other wikis should be banned, because number one many of them have incompatible licenses with ours, two our mission is different from other wikis and copypasted material from other wikis is inadequate to our mission, and three we really shouldn't be stealing content from other wikis even if the licenses are compatible. I feel like small quotes with appropriate credit should be allowed, but not copypasting entire articles. I've been treating this like it's a rule anyway, but it would be nice to formalize it. Plutocow (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Do you have some specific wording in mind? -- Techpriest (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
I was hoping someone more experienced than me with policy writing could help with that, but here would be a start: "Don't plagiarize articles from other websites, even if they have compatible licenses with ours; it must be in your own words. Using short quotes or snippets with proper credit is fine; copypasting entire articles is not. Plagiarism can result in a short block or a longer block if it is done repeatedly." Plutocow (talk) 00:12, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Plagiarism (copying without attribution) is a separate issue than copyright law (which governs the right to make copies or publish). Fair use is a somewhat vague concept that falls under copyright law. In general the amount that can be copied under fair use is proportional to he original copyrighted work. In some cases people on RW have made a probably legitimate claim for copying entire works for academic critique. Some examples of this can be found in Category:Side-by-side articles. I think you either need to remove the "short quotes" sentence or better explain it with reference to fair use. Bongolian (talk) 02:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
This proposal covers people copypasting large sections of text in lieu of writing an article, not responses that add a substantial amount of content and are properly credited. That's what the "small quotes or snippets" gets at, though if you want to make the wording more clear you can. Plutocow (talk) 22:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Vote on codifying a ban on plagiarism in the CS[edit]

This vote has been closed. Please do not add, remove or change votes.
The result of this vote was: Narrowly passes, 4-2 (66.6%)


  1. We shouldn't tolerate plagiarism. Plutocow (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
  2. I fully support a "no plagiarism and no copying large sections of stuff you're legally allowed to copy with attribution either, write in your own words" policy. — Unsigned, by: Spud / talk / contribs
  3. "RationalWiki's tone is very different to most other wikis, and RW articles need to be more than bland regurgitation of facts available elsewhere. Copying text from other sources, regardless of whether doing so is compliant with those sources' licenses, won't make a good RW article. A short, SPoV article written from the ground up is better than any amount of copy-pasted text." Queexchthonic murmurings 11:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
  4. While Techpriest and Bongolian made good points below, I think we can make exceptions where it applies, and codify it elsewhere. --Andrew5 (talk) 00:48, 18 March 2022 (UTC)


  1. Bongolian made a good point that I'd like to see addressed first. Stuff like the Annotated Bible and the Annotated Qur'an are at risk of being caught in this policy. -- Techpriest (talk) 19:59, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
    The KJV and Qur'an are actually not good examples of this since the editions used in RW are not copyrighted (public domain). There are actual examples of extensive quotation of presumptively copyrighted material that would normally not be considered fair use except for the argument that extensive quotation it is necessary for academic criticism. Note: for modern publications (internet or print), the presumption that a unique work is copyrighted unless it states otherwise or can be demonstrated otherwise (e.g. US government publications are not copyrighted). Some examples are: 77 Non-religious Reasons to Support Man/Woman Marriage, About the Rain in the Qur'an, Answers in Genesis-Creation Ministries International's Statement of Faith, Blazing Saddles. Bongolian (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
    In the discussion above, it's mentioned that even if we have the rights to do so, we shouldn't copy text from other sources too much verbatim, which would still include the KJV and Qur'an. -- Techpriest (talk) 20:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
    Yes. In sum, it's a bad proposal because it conflates two ideas (plagiarism and fair use) without explanation. Bongolian (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
  2. As above. Bongolian (talk) 20:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)


  • @Plutocow, Spud, and Queex Can you confirm what I've written above since you voted? Bongolian (talk) 05:44, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
    • The proposal isn't even about fair use in the first place, it's about the copypasting of articles from other sources. Responses to texts or quotes won't be affected by this proposal. Plutocow (talk) 05:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
      • Given that the proposed text that we're voting on is, "Don't plagiarize articles from other websites, even if they have compatible licenses with ours; it must be in your own words. Using short quotes or snippets with proper credit is fine; copypasting entire articles is not. Plagiarism can result in a short block or a longer block if it is done repeatedly." there is an implication of fair use because of the restriction to short quotes. As I noted above, plagiarism (not giving credit to the source) is an entirely different issue than fair use, which is covered in copyright law. Bongolian (talk) 06:42, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
        • I'd assumed the vote was on the principle, and we'd fine-tune the wording as needed. Seems more sensible to have a general consensus and then trust the mods to hammer out the exact wording than to try to vote on the wording in the first instance. At the very least, the latter would require at least two rounds of voting by which time everyone would be sick of the idea. I even supplied my own suggested wording. Queexchthonic murmurings 10:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
          • I also believed I was voting on the general principle rather than tbe exact wording. Having said that, I am fine with ehat Bongolian wrote.I also don't see why Bongolian and Queex's versions can't be combined. Spud (talk) 12:48, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
            • OK, good. We seem to have an agreement that the vote is about not allowing plagiarism (something that has long-standing practice on RW), rather than specific wording. Bongolian (talk) 17:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
  • It seems that this has passed a while ago (reaching the required two thirds majority) but nobody seems to have done anything about it yet Plutocow (talk) 03:02, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
    @Plutocow you can close the vote yourself if you want. --Andrew5 (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

The value of straight and honest communication[edit]

I think something is missing about conduct. Basically, we all know, and recognize, the problem with open insults. But the recent ATiM drama involving Andrew5 leads me to think something needs to be clarified, about the value of straight and honest communication. The problem, in a nutshell, is that assuming good faith leads to painful messes when dealing with passive-aggressive behavior. Personally, I think that one incident of open, honest hostility is less of a problem than weeks of crazy-making bullshit.

I propose the following (Note: Old version, new version is further below.) addition to "Conduct", but I'd like some feedback on whether it's a reasonable idea, or there's a better way to write it, etc., before putting it up to a vote.

Finally, this wiki has a serious purpose or mission, and therefore, it makes sense to require some minimum of straightforwardness and honesty when problems between people are brought up. Refusal at length to engage in a simple and honest way translates the assumption of good faith into a painful mess. Passive-aggressive crazy-making over time is not tolerated any more than throwing slurs around in the moment are.

This kind of consideration could also make unacceptable the behavior of some former, ultimately-banned members who stuck around in moderately intensity conflicts in the long term. I think it may be a better solution for some of the things that the "civility parole" attempted to deal with when a lack of simple honesty had already inflamed things too far. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Kinda agree in principle, although I'm not sure there's a practical solution. The problem with boundary-pushing dickweasels is that they will push the boundary wherever you choose to place it. Attempts to alter a CoC to push them out of existence just end up pushing them around, leaving scraped-off trails of shit behind them. And this is before we even get into how to be sure someone is being inauthentic. Introducing debate about whether someone's truly being dishonest just sucks up even more time. If someone's posting is sucking up heaps of time, to respond to, to clean up, to collapse, to put down edit wars from the BoN goading them on, does it really matter if they're acting in good faith or not? It's the behaviour that's the problem, and we shouldn't get bogged down in trying to infer motives when the solution is to send them packing. Queexchthonic murmurings 16:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Actually, I was trying to bring focus more to a type of behavior than to a mentality. Rewording to make that clearer may be good. What I have in mind is when simple questions are asked of someone, and then the questions are dodged with irrelevant tangents, or the responder pretends to not have read the questions, etc., and it becomes repetitive, and a waste of time. Behavioral evidence of that kind adds up quickly, and it is that which I hope to make it easy enough to point to in relation to a "rule". I don't know what else to call it other than not being straight in communication, but maybe the word "honesty" should be dropped? --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 16:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I love this idea. It codifies a requirement of actual, concrete, good faith conduct into the Community Standards. Mind you that Andrew isn't the first person whose ego has lead to the wiki putting an unreasonable amount of dedication into the question on if they should be kept (Godless Raven and Ken jump to mind as big cases). It also reflects a large number of recent coup cases. You have my full support for this suggestion. -- Techpriest (talk) 18:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
This proposal seems rather vague to me, and if enacted could I think lead to reprimands for humorous asides and satire. Bongolian (talk) 18:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Also, civility (which covers slurs) is already in the CS. Bongolian (talk) 18:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Yep, this is super vague. We already don't like evasive people. It seems obvious for that one guy but it's really hard to demonstrate, and sometimes the term "bad faith" gets slung a little too easily. Even if we do try to codify such a thing, I still think people will disagree on what constitutes bad faith and they will disagree on how to deal such a thing. I do not see how this will speed up how we deal with headaches that coop cases bring as long as there seems to be a fundamental disagreement on how to proceed here. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 19:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

โ”Œโ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”˜ I've thought about better wording, and tried below to make it more clear and focused on behavior, yet still short. To pick Bongolian's concern, if someone makes a faux pas while trying to be satirical, the rule should never apply unless the person insists in playing "in character" too long, after others are bothered and have asked what's up. It's only the refusal to meet others with clarity when something bothers people and they're trying to sort things out through discussion that's meant to be covered by this addition, nothing else. And often people seem to keep asking what rule trollish people are breaking and finding none when they face exactly that, so I still think there's a point.

Finally, this wiki has a serious purpose or mission, and therefore, it makes sense to require some minimum of straightforwardness and honesty when problems come up between people. Refusal at length to have a clear and to-the-point exchange when something bothers people translates the assumption of good faith into a painful mess. Evasiveness combined with crazy-making over time is not tolerated any more than throwing slurs around in the moment is.

I don't know how good the last part is. Bongolian, I know civility is already mentioned in the CS, and the point was/is simply to make a comparison, not to add that slurs are bad. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

As Bongolian and LGM have mentioned, this proposal, if accepted, would needlessly complicate our existent standards. Moreover, it is hopelessly vague. I fail to see how some standard of โ€œstraightforward and honest communicationโ€ could ever be clearly and objectively formulated, or enforced on a case-by-case basis. Your proposal also carries the risk of making the community standards too bureaucratic and consequently making sysops and moderators more akin to law enforcement agents (that is, rather than moderators), who are forced to intervene in circumstances that require no such interference.
This proposal seems to me to be a symptom of a larger pattern of self-defeating behaviour that has recently emerged on this website: the manner in which some users are unwittingly creating elaborate problems that are based upon their own choices, in the way they interact with certain users; problematic users that were at best a minor nuisance are aggrandised into major problems that require ATIM or the CC. The existent standards of this website, however, are more than suitable for dealing with these issues when applied prudently. To be sure, we have (for quite some time now) editors blocking people on whims, that is, without the slightest recourse to solid evidence to back-up their actions, and often, tellingly, there really isnโ€™t all that much in the way of evidence available; this lack of evidence ought to suggest caution and minimalism e.g. instead of infinite blocks use the vandal bin (infinite blocks are, after all, uselessโ€”the blockee can always use a different IP or make a different account.). Tolerance (within reason i.e. not of the oppugnant e.g. Nazis) is a major source of simplicity: instead of constructing elaborate tools or rules for banishing perceived undesirables; why not ignore, mock, or refute them? (and โ€œignoreโ€ is particularly suitable advice for certain users who have unwittingly engendered the problems that form the basis for our discussion here). Why not tolerate certain problematic users in the same way in which we tolerate the falsehoods of maths (1+1=3), self-contradictions (p .~p), and other absurdities?โ€”After all we donโ€™t require some elaborate rule for banishing 1+1=3; rather, the problems we discussing are still quite under-control if admitted like the absurdities of maths and Logicโ€”no banishing is needed! Tolerance of users we shouldnโ€™t care about is a major source of simplicity and also preserves the principles upon which this site was founded. LeucippusSalva veritate 02:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
If the short paragraph I suggested adding is too much rules, too much bureaucracy, then there is probably no possible addition which could avoid being too much. But I expect some may truly simply prefer the greatest minimalism, simply not adding more rules unless absolutely necessary.
You didn't have anything to say about my attempt to change the suggested text, but on its remaining vagueness, I tried to match the level of specificity and verbosity of the old CS text, which is very slim. As you know, the old CS text avoids using many words to try to nail down exactly what it requires from people (e.g. exactly what "civility" means), and I tried to keep the new stuff in the same spirit.
The old CS rules, too, could easily be used far more draconically than they are, if the people applying them were of that mind. I didn't bother trying too hard to avoid that type of openness in the new writing, because that would require way, way longer and more complicated text. It's impossible to avoid without being far more bureaucratic in the writing. I think that should really be fairly obvious.
Unless you simply want some words removed, such as cutting what's between the very beginning and the second sentence, but it doesn't sound like it.
Anyway, if most people don't want it, then so be it. But if more people than myself and Techpriest think that the idea could be worthwhile, then a fresh perspective on how to write it may be the most important thing if it's to go anywhere, since in that case I think I've not struck the right chord. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 04:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Fun:Humeur has a longstanding tradition on RW, so I am likely to oppose any attempt to rule-make seriousness. Bongolian (talk) 07:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
I've already pointed out, though, that a ban on humor is not the point. Actually, I think it would be just as silly an interpretation as taking the current CS text as a mandate for a blanket-ban on swearing. In both cases, the point would be missed equally much. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 07:57, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

โ”Œโ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”˜ Here's my 3rd last-ditch attempt at rewording things. I tried something different this time. The first sentence was not, in my mind, doing more than setting the tone and weakly presenting an ideal. The clarifying of what's unacceptable was/is all in what's after it, and that's the part I changed last time, but I got no feedback on that change. Below, the first part is reworded to more clearly separate mentioning an ideal from having a practical requirement. The rest is the same.

Finally, this wiki has a serious purpose or mission, ideally met with some minimum of straightforwardness and honesty, though this can't be technically required of people. However, a reasonable effort to be constructive can be expected. Refusal at length to have a clear and to-the-point exchange when something bothers people translates the assumption of good faith into a painful mess. Evasiveness combined with crazy-making over time is not tolerated any more than throwing slurs around in the moment is.

Some may think this is a big change, where I think it's mostly just extra words. Whereas I thought the previous change was clear enough, while to some it didn't change anything.

Anyway, if anyone wants any further discussion or even a vote on this, speak up. Otherwise, I'm done, as the general dis-interest is clear enough. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 15:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I like the "Refusal at length to have a clear and to-the-point exchange". I don't actually believe that the user who was responsible for this proposal being generated was actually acting in bad faith. They were (or are) simply unable to maintain a coherent exchange of views. But if we codify that an inability to really engage in conversation over an extended period will not be tolerated then I'm all for it.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:59, 1 March 2022 (UTC)