RationalWiki talk:Community Standards/Revamp, January 2009

As a point of decorum, please use the [+] tab above when adding a new section, and the appropriate [edit] tab when commenting within an existing section. This will minimise the incidence of edit conflicts. New sections must be added at the bottom of the page. Thank you for your attention.

ARCHIVE

The Vandal Bin & Blocking

Earlier parts of this section are in the archive.

We definitately need to block chronic vandals. The vandal bin doesn't work. I've seen FD make two edits within a few minutes. It's not working. We should just ban the idiot. --"ConservapediaUndergroundThermistor^Goatspeed! 21:32, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Gee, two edits! I bet they almost broke the wiki as we scrambled to roll them back, too. CUR, do you understand that blocking serves no purpose with someone determined to use proxies to simply create new user names? May I make a gentle suggestion to you? Perhaps you could join a few other wikis that do use turbobanners, and see if they'll sysop you so you can fulfill your apparent desire to wield teh mighty banhammers of Thor? ħuman 21:39, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Conservapedia already accepted me as Karajou. Still, it's a real problem. FD can make as many edits as he wants. If we block him, we can at least slow him down, and maybe even stop him. If we just vandal bin him, he'll have 30 tabs open at once and make as many edits as possible that way. We need a better solution. --"ConservapediaUndergroundThermistor^Goatspeed! 21:45, 20 January 2009 (EST)

As it is we've got you making 1.5 zillion stupid edits a day. Should we block you?  ^(Crumpets) _and butter 22:12, 20 January 2009 (EST)

CUR, I am in the process of trying to recover from block-happyness. Give it up. EVERYONE on site is a sysop. His edits take a few seconds to reverse, and its done. If you don't like working that way, this may not be the place for you. Perma-ban his 30 names, he'll make 30 more in a few days. Nothing else to discuss.TheoryOfPractice 22:19, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Yet another draft

To try & get this moving forward towards completion, I've started putting it together again here. I'm only halfway through yet, so it's not the full page. I've put it in (hopefully) a more sensible order, and made a few changes to the text (marked in green), most of which reflect things discussed already, & discussions which seem to have ground to a halt. You can make further changes or additions to it, but please make it clear what you've done (e.g. different color text, clear edit comment or both) & if you object strongly to a change I've made, discuss it on the talk page (there or here). Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:34, 16 January 2009 (EST)

I don't like the lack of the "side by side" comparison with what we had before. Can you pleez lend me a cheezeburger until Monday? I will gladly pay you Friday! ħuman 22:15, 16 January 2009 (EST)

Although, it looks fairly good. Must mull on this. Of Kintyre. ħuman 22:17, 16 January 2009 (EST)

The problem with side-by-side is that you get no real sense of what the finished document will look like. Also, with this page weighed down with numerous discussions it isn't easy to readily see which bits a consensus has (more-or-less) been reached & which are still heavily disputed. Hence putting together what I can & highlighting what it still uncertain. I've marked my changes in green so it's easy to spot which they are. I'll add a link to this page, so that it only takes a click to jump from my draft to the side-by-side sections & discussions. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:24, 16 January 2009 (EST)

I agree with your approach, in general (consolidating what has been agreed upon here), but the side-by-side show the changes - deletions, additions, and rewordings. Perhaps your sandbox can be an updated version of what seems to be coalescing here? ħuman 22:55, 16 January 2009 (EST)

Petering out

If the discussion is petering out then that should mean we can start moving forward with actual changes, no? tmtoulouse 15:06, 18 January 2009 (EST)

Yeah, if people don't have many objections left, they may as well get updated pronto so we can be done with it. It'd be a shame to just let this come to nothing as it has been a very serious attempt to sort the rules out here. There's nothing to say that we can't bring up other issues in the future. ArmondikoV^sshole 15:40, 18 January 2009 (EST)

I'd still like to sort out our policy on abuses of power. Phantom Hoover 15:45, 18 January 2009 (EST)

(EC) I already started putting together something approaching a final draft - follow link above. It's only about half of it yet. Feel free to edit it, or add on the remaining sections; just make it clear what changes you've made (e.g. clear edit comment or comment on talk page). There are still a few things that seem to be disputed (or rather the disputes have petered out without any kind of resolution): largely blocking vs vandal bin, & disciplinary process (e.g. promotion). Probably the best thing is finish the rest of it, then nag everyone with an intercom message or two to sort out the remaining issues & try to agree on final changes. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 15:47, 18 January 2009 (EST)

Privacy policy

This is an important issue that seems to have been left out of the rewrite so far. The old standards included a policy about other RW users' personal information, but most of the controversy recently has been about disclosing CP users' personal details. So I think we need to set some fairly clear boundaries on what is & isn't fair game. Also we now have the 'hide revisions' function exclusively for burying edits which breach privacy, so we should at least define a general policy on it. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:38, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Can we start with a reworking of the one you wrote over at RWW? ħuman 18:40, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Any news on this as I was going to alter the "what can be deleted" section to say "infomation not volunteered by an individual directly on this site" which would cover people going to other websites and tracking down infomation but would also ban us using the words Andrew Schlafly, we'd have to stick with his username "ASchlafly" to get away with it. Adding an exception "excpet for common knowledge" is too vague. So I decided against it and wondered whether a full and separate privacy policy would be needed instead. ArmondikoV^sshole 10:08, 21 January 2009 (EST)

That would severely hamper our activities in commenting on Conservapedia, which is a fairly major part of the site. I think information volunteered at any wikis is fair game really, or on individuals' own websites & blocks if they have linked to them from RW, CP, etc. I would draw the line at following users onto social networking sites, anything that comes from a private email, or using IP addresses to trace people. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 10:34, 21 January 2009 (EST)

But some people have been against following them to their WP accounts too. Obviously, IP stalking and accessing social networking sites is out, that's creepy if nothing else. If someone has linked to a site that contains their personal info, I think that'd count as "published on RW" so that definition can still work. If someone else does it and specifically points out "THIS IS WHERE YOU GET THEIR INFO", this is wrong. ArmondikoV^sshole 06:02, 24 January 2009 (EST)

You could of course, make exceptions for "celebrities" which I'd define as having a solid mention on WP. That gets us around mentioning Andy. ArmondikoV^sshole 06:03, 24 January 2009 (EST)

I would also add that if the information is in the public domain, for example taking a look through Political sites to see who Andy donates money to, and who donated money to his candidacy is in the public domain via campaign financing laws and should be acceptable. SirChuckB^{Whatever happened to Skip It?} 18:34, 26 January 2009 (EST)

Implement

There is a lot of really good work coming out of this, I am really excited to see changes actually implemented. Where are we at in this process? tmtoulouse 17:05, 26 January 2009 (EST)

I put the first half of it together here a week or so ago, but haven't got round to expanding it, & I'm not sure whether I will now. So anyway there it is, if anybody wants to pick it up & finish it. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:19, 26 January 2009 (EST)

I'll gladly help if you want to tell me what we need. Z3ro^h3ro 17:21, 26 January 2009 (EST)

It is going to be 41C so I will do it this afternoon so I can stay at uni in the air conditioning. - User $\scriptstyle 4\sum _{n=0}^{\infty }(-1)^{n}(2n+1)^{-1}$ 17:28, 26 January 2009 (EST)

It's just a matter of looking through discussions on this page, copying the proposed bits of text & making any necessary changes (i.e, stuff which seems to have been agreed on), plus putting it in a reasonable order. If anything is still heavily disputed, make a note in red or something, so that once it's all together we can see which bits are still outstabding. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:33, 26 January 2009 (EST)

I was going to do, red delete, green change, blue or something disputed. - User $\scriptstyle 4\sum _{n=0}^{\infty }(-1)^{n}(2n+1)^{-1}$ 17:41, 26 January 2009 (EST)

Does anyone actually pay attention to these?

Doesn't look like it. --"ConservapediaUndergroundThermistor^Goatspeed! 18:36, 26 January 2009 (EST)

Perhaps that's why they're being redrafted.Klapaucius^{Esteemed Constructor} 06:33, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Actually quite a lot of attention is paid to the standards. Whilst they're guidelines, not rules, and we're pretty anarchic, they come in to play whenever Headless Chicken Mode happens. Stick around for a while and you'll find out. Silver Sloth 07:04, 27 January 2009 (EST)

They are only important when people disagree. We tend to agree with each other, since our scientific snark appeals to a generally similar kind of person. Most asses get run off by incredible levels of sarcasm, although some stick around. These standards will also play a big part in resolving the occasional conflicts between some of the most prolific editors here.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 09:53, 31 January 2009 (EST)

Too much change?

My impression is that we're getting too bogged down in trying to create policies that haven't been road-tested yet or solutions to hypothetical situations that might not arise.

The point of these standards, as I understand them at least, is that they're supposed to be a reflection of how things are already done, just written up as a general guide for everyone. It's good that we're rewriting them now, as a lot of things were out of date, & making a few new suggestions is always good. But committing ourselves to complicated systems of voting & suchlike which we haven't even used yet could well be a mistake, and it doesn't seem to me to be in the spirit of mobocracy to be making untested rules for future use.

Wouldn't it be better to just finish the standards based mostly on existing practices, & shelve the other suggestions until situations come up when we might try them out? Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:32, 30 January 2009 (EST)

That seems like a decent idea to me - incorporate the changes we seem to be having a strong consensus on, and perhaps fork some of the discussions (like on voting) to a new page to keep them alive? ħuman 20:02, 30 January 2009 (EST)

(EC)I don't think so, because such things need to be worked out and in place before they are needed. A voting process is not something you can work out on the go. Besides, there's nothing complicated about this at all. You call a vote, people vote for a set period of time, you count the votes. It can't get much simpler than that. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 20:04, 30 January 2009 (EST)

If it was as simple as that, it wouldn't've taken us two weeks of discussing it to get to a point where we're still arguing about the details. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:09, 30 January 2009 (EST)

We are first and foremost a mobocracy, if we define the voting too much we will end up getting nothing done as we will have to wait for votes and the wikilawyers to stop grandstanding. - User $\scriptstyle 4\sum _{n=0}^{\infty }(-1)^{n}(2n+1)^{-1}$ 20:12, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Gentlepeople, this is not a voting process we're engaged in at present. This is consensus building - and, I might add, consensus building of the truest kind rather than the faux version they have at Wikipedia - and these by their very nature take time. But can you please explain to me why it is in any way preferable not to have clear rules about voting? We're describing a procedure here. If we don't describe it clearly now, then we'll just postpone the discussion until we need to actually carry out a vote, or alternately keep on voting without a clear procedure for it. I don't see any advantages in either, only a lot of disadvantages. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 20:19, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Because you keep oversimplifying it. "You call a vote, people vote ..., you count the votes" begs questions that we have to decide very carefully how to answer - like the most obvious, "who are the people?" This place has done pretty well for what, 20 months, without such a process in place, we can surely think about it and discuss it for a few more weeks if we aren't sure how we want to do it. ħuman 22:20, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Well, that's interesting. If you think my suggestion is too simplified, while Weaseloid and Π think it's too complicated, then perhaps what we have now is actually a usable compromise solution? --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 13:53, 31 January 2009 (EST)

No, I think your description that I quoted is an oversimplification, the complexity comes in, I guess, when we try to do a good job of defining whose votes count. I'm generally ok with most of how it's written, but not comfortable with actually implementing it yet - in other words, it may be good policy in general, but perhaps not for this wiki. ħuman 17:03, 31 January 2009 (EST)

That doesn't really bring us anywhere, though. Do you have any specific suggestions or alternatives? --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 07:23, 1 February 2009 (EST)

Please continue the discussion at RationalWiki:Voting_Procedure. Cheers. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 08:53, 1 February 2009 (EST)