RationalWiki's 2019 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2020.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $2200Goal: $3000

RationalWiki talk:Community Standards/Superseded1

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This page is for archiving discussions of Guidelines that did not move into community standards because they were either superseded by other guidelines, didn't reach consensus, became a part of the zeitgeist of rationalwiki through natural social evolution, or became antithesis to the zeitgeist of rationalwiki through natural social evolution. If you disagree with the archiving of a guideline here then unarchive it!

Archived July 5th 2007 by User:Tmtoulouse[edit]

Your Mom[edit]

2. Profanity: is its use frowned upon or encourage?

  • I vote that, to encourage traffic, profanity used in context is great; as general cursing, to be avoided. For instance...talk page comment of "My f'ing god!" ok, article saying "The f'ing unbelievable comments of YECs" not so much.PalMDtalk 13:37, 18 May 2007 (CDT)
I don't think we should have a policy on this though personally I'd prefer if there were not a lot of it. In the end it says something about the user and people will make up their own opinions. So I'd say if people want to use it then let them. Having said that, I'm now going to contradict my selfn and say that it probably shouldn't appear in encyclopedia type articles.--Bob M 14:44, 18 May 2007 (CDT)
  • Allowed but only on discussion pages. -Icewedge 14:47, 18 May 2007 (CDT)
I agree. To ban words arbitrarily is juvenile at best, a Schlaflism at worst. But at the same time they have no place in an actual article unless it is a quote. Airdish 06:12, 22 May 2007 (CDT)
  • I agree with the above. Only in discussion pages. --TK /MyTalk 04:36, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

We Play Well With Others[edit]

5. We have a firm policy of forgiveness and tolerance here, even vandals are our friends. We have no enemies.

  • wonderfully progressive. agree. Zero 14:38, 18 May 2007 (CDT)
Yes, though I think this one may be subject of some testing.--Bob M 14:46, 18 May 2007 (CDT)
I think, to be true to ourselves, this might have to be an important guideline. Think, "what would TK do?" Then, do the opposite. I'm going out on a limb here. I'm an atheist, but I think jesus was cool. What would jesus do? Include, accept, address. Right? Tolerate, and laugh if it's funny. human 23:35, 19 May 2007 (CDT)
Hahah..WWTKD?..Asking yourself that is liable to get yourself beat down.Prof0705 08:05, 22 May 2007 (CDT)
  • The ad hominem attack above on me, another poisoning of the well here, is a good example of why some kind of general guideline is needed. Otherwise bullies will drive people of talent away.--TK /MyTalk 04:41, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

Wandalism[edit]

8. Vandalism, while not encouraged, will usually be saved for posterity (with user name or IP). Especially if it is funny.

Maybe a feature that let's a user search in "vandal pages" only (equivalent to searching in talk pages or userpages in the current system), then users can type the name of a subject and find a page that has archived all the vandalism for that subject/page... MiddleMan
Yes, that is good - how about a similar subpage of "talk" for every article that needs it, called "vandalism"?

Here is my idea for vandalism, we do something similar to what happens when we archive a talk page. You set up a sub-space under the article heading that lists all the various vandalized versions of that article. You can then link to that sub-space on the talk page. If vandalism is entertaining, funny, or worth saving, copy it to the vandal sub-space and revert the main article. If its not very interesting or worth keeping just revert it.

Yes, that's basically what I meant. Although, it should be a subpage of "talk", or it will be listed in the mainspace, come up randomly, etc., right? If someone would go vandalise Nation magazine I'll experiment with a format? humanbe in 12:10, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

I also do not think we block for vandalism in general, but stupid vandalism maybe is blockable? No point having a vandal around that doesn't make us laugh or entertain us. It sets the bar higher than "mike is the gayness." Tmtoulouse 12:01, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

I am rather nervous about the power of that Block button ;) I had thought that, at least as my own personal guideline, I'd do something like exponentially incrementing blocks starting at 1 minute (then 2,4,8, etc. minutes). I'd love to see block reasons like "vandalism not funny enough, try again in 8 minutes". humanbe in 12:10, 22 May 2007 (CDT)
Maybe a fibonacci sequence of increments (1,1,2,3,5,8,13,...) :) and definitely for a "vandalism not funny enough" style thing.Airdish 12:37, 22 May 2007 (CDT)
Perhaps we could have a /vandal page (much like a sandbox) for every article that gets hit. then put the diff in with the date time and vandal name in the heading. perhaps the comedy rating could go in there too? or is that too much work? Airdish 12:41, 22 May 2007 (CDT)
Would be nice to see a flame of the week page just to get a cheap laugh out of the err, less creative vandals. Truly funny stuff should be saved for posterity though. Trashbat 12:44, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

OK, here's an example. At liberal talk radio, GL added Rush Limbaugh to the "personalities" section, and I just deleted it. Then I realized today, "what good practice!" So I created a vandalism file under the talk space, and copied it there with cites. The vandalism page is linked at the bottom under "see also", as I saw no point in "highlighting" it at the top. Comments, questions, criticism? humanbe in 13:49, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

No idea who Rush Limbaugh is, but I love human's idea; it seems very workable. I personally think that vandal times of 2^n are appropriate, and the messages "not funny enough" should be used; however', I do think if one of them is actually amusing, we ought to be able got step back with a message such as "Vandalism quite amusing, block time reduced to 8 minutes" or "ROFL - You are hereby reprieved, vandal" to turn the clock back to zero. Fibonacci won't work as the ratio of terms converges to 1.6, and it takes forever to get to a decent block time; however, in 10 edits, a vandal would be on a 1048 minute block, which is getting on for a week.--CatWatcher 12:45, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
1. Do you folks realize we are discussing block policy in three places on this file?
2. I agree the 2^n makes more sense
3. Minor correction, 2^10 = 1024, which is almost exactly 17 hours.
4. The whole block policy thing needds to end up in two places - community standards (so users know the deal) and a sysop guidelines page, so sysops know how to apply the "rulz".
5. I also don't think it has to be too hard and fast. The sysops are also a mob, and if only one thinks someone shuld be blocked for a week, another will unblock them. Heck, anyone can petition for someone being unblocked, and probably get results. humanbe in 14:02, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Abuse[edit]

8(a) After seeing TK claim he was being abused and/or harassed, I'd like a policy for allowing users to archive such abuse they've received. It would make things easier to investigate and more transparent. As I said on the page perhaps a User_Talk:xxxx/abuse or something similar. Though the more of these things we have the messier it gets. Just a suggestion to hopefully get the ball rolling. Airdish 03:33, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

  • Abuse of users, anonymous abuse, is a matter for the individual user to handle, with the authorities or not. Abuse here, I think Colin already changed the main page to say:

Any editor, regardless of past actions, is welcome here with a clean slate. No user is unwelcome! Personal attacks and threats will result in punishment. Any users with problems may contact Colin at webmaster@rationalwiki.com. --TK /MyTalk 04:47, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

I support Airdish's proposal. --jtltalk 13:43, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

Goats[edit]

Goats are to be used at all times. Any user not using/misusing his or her goat is to be chastised. Also, insulting of said goats can result in blocking for a time period up to fifteen seconds. GodlessLiberal 11:24, 9 June 2007 (CDT)

Original Work and Copyright/left/wrong[edit]

9. Do we want to go the WP way and insist on no original work? Or allow more freedom on this? Obviously, if it's a parody, then I suppose it must be original.

  • I have no illusions to make it a new WP, just a place for refutation, etc. So original work, properly labeled, is a good thing. Maybe a "rule" to not edit someone's original work, but to encourage discussion on the talk page.PalMDtalk 12:00, 19 May 2007 (CDT)
Have you guys checked out other wiki projects that predate wikipedia? A lot of them use almost a conversational style, where someone posts an essay, and then underneath that someone can post basically a response essay. Its like a talk page but much more rigorous. Tmtoulouse 12:02, 19 May 2007 (CDT)
I say yes, we allow it. That's most of our point. The art is to make it obvious what is quoted or cited and what is "deduced", etc. Do we use sigs in that case on articles, or just talk? human 12:30, 19 May 2007 (CDT)
I agree. Allow it. It encourages original and unique thought. --TK /MyTalk 04:49, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
Definitely allow it. Isn't it time this was moved to the accepted guidelines seeing as every one is doing it?

I would like to make the argument that this guideline is folded into existing guidelines all ready approved and is not needed as a separate point. Tmtoulouse 00:05, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

9A. Copyright - incoming. I would assume we stick to PD, GDFL, etc., except for fair use? Is quoting emails or IM/IRC sessions "legal" in this sense? (Since the other party owns copyright on their part and may reasonably excpect it to be private?)

9B. Copyright - outgoing. Will we use GDFL for simplicity (people are used to it from WP), or some other rule?

User Names[edit]

If applicable, please use a user name that you were well known by at CP - unless you are still active there and don't want to risk being banned by association with us! If you used several, do us all a favor and list your lesser pseudonyms on your user page, so we don't wonder what happened to our long-lost friends forever.

  • People who are still active on CP should use the same user name that they had at CP. According to CP, (See #15) they don't ban users for their comments on other websites. So users should be encouraged to use the same name. --Staple? 00:33, 23 May 2007 (CDT)
While I agree in principle, they don't, yet. It might be a while before participation here is not considered prima facie evidence of "anti project bias". humanbe in 11:48, 23 May 2007 (CDT)
Yes, I'm not sure that membership here (at lest for Non-Sysop CP posters)will not be a banning offense at CP. --Bob_M (talk) 12:05, 23 May 2007 (CDT)
  • No one will be banned at CP for merely being a member here. The members of RW 1.0 who were banned, blatantly posted here, in the closed wiki of their vandalism plans, their plans to disrupt. Now that all of that is in the past, according to the "leaders" here, that will not be a problem. If it is, come to me, and I will restore them. --TK /MyTalk 04:52, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

No Ass Pics[edit]

Please!!! I mean unless it gets voted by all members, gay, straight, male, female, as too hot not to post.PalMDtalk 23:47, 19 May 2007 (CDT)

Last time I posted there, I got a 7, not too bad for a crappy pic. --Kels 19:06, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
And you call yourself a Doctor... tsk, tsk... humanbe in 00:11, 22 May 2007 (CDT)
My eyes were bleeding, and had to be burned out. Thanks. --Linus(Plot evil tech)

I'm willing to agree to the "no ass pics" rule, provided that we simultaneously ratify the "Huey exception." Discuss. --Huey gunna getcha 18:22, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

By which you mean that Huey is forced to look at any and all "ass pics" the RW community ratify to show him, I presume. αιρδισΗταλκ 19:00, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
I agree with this rule if we can add a few exceptions. 1. unless they are artistic. 2. Unless they are necessary to illustrate a point in an article 3. Unless they are inoffensive. 4 Unless they are hot. With these minor additions I feel that we can rigorously impose this clear guideline.--Bob_M (talk) 02:26, 26 May 2007 (CDT)
So we're in agreement - my ass goes back up? --Huey gunna getcha 03:48, 28 May 2007 (CDT)
I can only see it squeaking by, maybe on Bob M's rule #2, that is, if it might be appropriate to illustrate an article, say, Andrew Schlafly?

Neutrality[edit]

I posted this elsewhere but I think it belongs here. I assume that we have (or will strive to have)a policy of neutrality?--Bob_M (talk) 04:57, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

My take: yes and no. Neutrality, in terms of not engaging in, say ad hominem attacks or brushing aside dispute. But not, I think, in the WP NPOV sense of presenting all sides to mind numbing depth. Then again, I may be wrong. Why not, after all, let the YECs write their own Creation article pretty much however they like? After all, it will be here, and be linked to refutations at the very least. Why not let "them" (yes, I'm still stuck in ex-CP speak!) do here what they wouldn't let "us" do there? I think this definitely needs more input and commentary before we can be sure what we think should be the guideline. 11:25, 23 May 2007 (CDT)
OK - but then you could have, for example, YEC views contrasted with scientific fact, which then could reasonably be contrasted with OEC which could be contrasted with pastafarian views etc etc. Some more views would be nice.--Bob_M (talk) 12:01, 23 May 2007 (CDT)
In the case cited above, YEC, the normal view of life should take precedence. The YEC POV can be given a sub head, fairly and concisely written, totally without bias. Same for Evolution, Creation, all the other hot buttons. That fair? --TK /MyTalk 04:56, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
I suppose YEC comments could be usefully in furthering our objectives which include: # Refuting and analyzing the anti-science movement, ideas and people. # Refuting and analyzing the full range of crank ideas. AS YEC posts would certainly fall under the headings of both "anti-scientific" and "crank" I suppose they could be useful.--Bob_M (talk) 05:02, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
Not to mention it would be the "fair" thing to do, eh? Intellectual discussions contain even those things that we believe to be untrue, because it sharpens the discourse. --TK /MyTalk 07:38, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
I think other views should be allowed, but in a separate article. One thing I really disliked about CP was that many articles didn't even cover what the topic was before YEC or biblical issues were brought in. Jrssr5 08:25, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
I agree, Jrssr5. Some of us have suggested even an insert "box", but still waiting for that one.--TK /MyTalk 08:39, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
There is an ad absurdum possibility here...that is, YEC is worthy of notice because of the noise it creates, rather than its merit as a "theory". It would be good to have a refutation article, but I'm also not in favor of banning pro-YECer's stuff. I guess I don't want to lose the idea that YEC is basically no more scientific than the Flying Spaghetti Monster, et al. and one way to represent this might be to present absurd ideas together, that is "critics of evo, blah, blah, blah, including YEC, FSM, Celestial Teapot, believe..."--PalMD-Talk 11:02, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

Socks[edit]

Users are restricted to no more socks than they can remember! Etaroced 22:19, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

Users are welcome to use as many socks as they can keep washed, but if they expect to be remembered they might want to at least have a "theme". humanbe in 22:28, 23 May 2007 (CDT)
It would be nice to have a list of one's socks posted on their user page or similar. Also, once voting on issues begins, one real person=one vote. ColinRtalk 22:37, 23 May 2007 (CDT)
Good point Colin.--Bob_M (talk) 03:03, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
I agree with Colin. People change their socks, but they usually smell and post the same. --TK /MyTalk 04:57, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
Users should be compelled to maintain at least one sock on RW? αιρδισΗταλκ 12:04, 14 June 2007 (CDT)
This is a silly rule guideline. Will socks also be required to maintain at least one sock? Where will it end? Please transport more goats to the mothership, or we will be forced to blow up your miserable, stinking planet etc etc. Lur 12:25, 14 June 2007 (CDT)

Conflict of Interest[edit]

Anyone can edit any article, but when making edits to an article that personally involves you, you must include a full and detailed edit summary, or post on the discussion page.

Or somesuch. Perhaps spork it from WP? This is mostly to prevent CPers from coming on and 'tidying up' pages about them. --Wikinterpreterwoo!

Something along those lines would be a good idea.--Bob_M (talk) 10:53, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
I like it, move for rapid inclusion, with one small change in wording (to keep easier to find track of process):

Anyone can edit any article, but when making edits to an article that personally involves you, you must post a full and detailed description of your changes on the discussion page. humanbe in 13:49, 14 June 2007 (CDT)

How's about this, to be explicit: "Anyone can edit any article, but when making edits to an article that personally involves you, you must post a full and detailed description of and reasoning for your changes on the discussion page."? αιρδισΗταλκ 14:09, 14 June 2007 (CDT)
Seems good (better, actually) to me, yes. Can we get a few people to stop by and comment before "promoting" it? humanbe in 21:29, 14 June 2007 (CDT)

Sysop guidelines[edit]

Just as a precautionary measure, do we need any sysop guidelines?

Yes! What they should be? I've no idea. Maybe no infinite block without consulting at least 2 other Sysops? General offense:ban-lengths? Airdish 10:54, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
Perhaps people could consider things they did not like at the other place?--Bob_M (talk) 11:35, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
The only reason I can think of to ban a user would be in the case of somehting like Icewedge's attacks on CP. A user that can't be reasoned with, who posts and posts and posts without comment or responses to comments on their page. Even then, a day would be fine with me--not an outright infinity + 2 ban, like CP. IMHO Flippin;-) 12:23, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
On another point. Do we need any guidelines to control sysops? Any public impeachment process?  :-) --Bob_M (talk) 12:27, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
First offence: Tar and feather. Second Offence: Stoning. Airdish 12:28, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
First offense: no desert. Second offense: forced to play magic the gathering with a weakened deck. Third offense: detention. Flippin;-) 12:32, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
  • The reason CP, and many other sites (like MySpace) use open-ended blocks is to allow a cooling off time, and see who emails in, apologizing and/or explaining their actions. Now before someone rushes to post, I didn't set the block increments, mediawiki did. Over the years, sites have found that casual assholes and vandals, they expect to be perma-banned, never write in, and are on their merry way. Mostly good users who screw up unintentionally, or those who just sometimes like to push the envelope, but really want to remain with the site, and those who Admins screw up with, they mostly tend to an email. Since the blocks are so easily reversed, most sites don't consider "Infinite" as necessairly "bad", but just a means to make sure really bad people are not forgotten about, and get back in. That's the reasoning behind it. Not mine, just what a half dozen or so other sites I have been an admin on think.--TK /MyTalk 12:34, 24 May 2007 (CDT)


Actually, mediawiki has drop down increments, and a box where you can type whatever you want. And it understands, so if I type "one minute", it ends in one minute.
I propose a fibonacci sequence (mentioned elsewhere) starting at 1 minute. So, in minutes, blocks run 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34,55. At that point, switch to hours. After 21 hours, switch to days. After 34 days, switch to months. humanbe in 13:25, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Clean slate[edit]

I see that a "clean slate" policy seems to being developed. Perhaps we should formally put this in the guidelines? It is possible that I may have contravened this policy and if it is adopted I will edit one of my posts.--Bob_M (talk) 04:05, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

  • Colin seems to have posted it on the Main Page tonight. --TK /MyTalk 04:58, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

What does "clean slate" mean in our context. Does it mean that we never acknowledge that person as having an identity outside of RW? Does it mean all past transgressions are not only forgiven, but taboo to speak about? Tmtoulouse 11:58, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

I’ve been wondering about that too. Forgiven but not forgotten. Forgiven and –by some monstrous effort of will – wiped from our collective memory? Or, as you say, taboo? On an associated point. Let’s postulate that, for example, a CP sysop starts a conversation about CP Syspos. If that conversation subsequently turned to such a sysop’s behaviour at CP, would such a sysop then be able to hide behind “clean slate” and claim harassment? --Bob_M (talk) 12:10, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

I will paste below, Trent, what Colin told me to tell people here, Trent. Perhaps it would be beneficial to all concerned, if you at least consulted with him before you go posting about this matter all over. Just my opinion.

ColinR|away: hear's what i suggest: talk to any user who has posted information that "degrades" you�, (cp degrading info that includes you but isnt attacking you is not necessarily subject to this), and tell them that you are here with a clean slate and feel that what is posted doesn't fit with the spirit of things and that Colin agrees.

ColinR|away: i agree that derogatory information about you should not be posted, however, if it's on the user page, i do not support them (RW admins) removing it. all i can suggest for user pages is telling them that the community standards suggest refraining from ad hominem attacks and you would kindly ask that they remove it. i left a note on the front page, if you have anymore problems, email me. it might be a while before i can do anything about it, but i will as soon as i can.


The above and his entry on the Main Page seems pretty clear. --TK /MyTalk 12:15, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

Again you fail to understand the way things work around here, we do not "discuss" things in private, but out in the open, "admins" do not make decrees from on high. Its up to the community to decide these matters and I am putting it before the community. Tmtoulouse 13:43, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
I see no need for a policy on this, as time goes by. The "clean slate" was wiped on 5/21, the past elsewhere does not matter. Going forward, behaviour here on RW2 is how we "know" who each other are. My .02, is all. humanbe in 13:50, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
  • Trent, I would then remove Colin's piece on the Main Page as he promises punishment. That doesn't seem to fit withy your statement above, eh? --TK /MyTalk 23:14, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

Don't feed the troll[edit]

If I post here, am I being ironic, or naive? Flippin;-) 12:32, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Blocking policy[edit]

I propose the following idea as far as handling the issue of blocking users. This site is VERY tolerant, but the thing that is most important here, more important than anything else is the community. Having a vibrant, open, and fun place to exchange ideas. Users that are here only to poison the community will ultimately have to be removed for the safety of this site. But how to handle it? I propose that there be two stages, if a user feels that another user is disrupting the community he can create a page under the rationalwiki namespace to discuss it. There must be a pattern of this disruption and abuse, not merely a few isolated cases, if the community as a whole agrees that the person is being harmful and disruptive two things happen. First, the user is warned that the community views their actions as harmful, and is linked to examples so they know what they are doing wrong. Second, the community as a whole tries to come together and collectively does not feed the troll. After a period of time, if the user is still being disruptive, they can be nominated for blocking. Again a page is created under rationalwiki, and if the community feels that users transgressions AFTER their warning merit a block then the user is blocked from the site. Tmtoulouse 11:20, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Sounds quite generous - perhaps too generous - but I don't have any better suggestions, so it gets my vote. For my part I have resolved to embark on a personal troll starvation policy anyway.--Bob_M (talk) 11:40, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
I agree with Bob on all points, and shall endeavour to stop feeding our most obvious troll forthwith. But we should start a page for him as soon as this policy goes into effect. --Kels 11:47, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
Seems undemocratic to make a new rule and apply it retroactively, IMO. --TK/MyTalk 11:57, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
Are you talking about blocking or banning? humanbe in 12:28, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Ah yes, good point. I had imagined that at the end of this process the user would be banned, but reading the text again I may have misunderstood.--Bob_M (talk) 12:31, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Retroactiveness and democracy are independent of each other; whether or not it si fair to invoke legislation retroactively is another matter. <rant>What is undemocratic is giving a single SysOp the power to ban a user without having a discussion, a fair hearing, without consulting others in the community, or even allowing the user to make a case.</rant> - sorry, forgot for a minute; thought I was on Conservapedia. --CatWatcher 12:33, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
While in theory this sounds very good, i think the temptation to block a user that is intent on not-so-subtle disruption is great, in my opinion. I am thinking here of something along the lines of an Icewedge (sorry, buddy) style defeacing of pages. Wouldn't there be an acceptable reason to block the user for a short duration with a warning and THEN a call for comments? Again, I am not picking on Ice, but if we get a bunch of edits in a short period that just blank or disrupt pages, I plan to warn, block (if necessary), and ask for opinions before I would ever ban. Maybe this is common sense to people who've been around wikis longer than I, and that's fine, but I would like to hear if this is a professional way of moving forward. Flippin;-) 12:38, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
Ok Flippin, but I think we're talking about two different things. Your talking about vandalism. As I read it the note above is about trolling. Still I suppose we need guidelines for both.--Bob_M (talk) 12:42, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
Misunderstood, sorry. Thanks for the clarification. Flippin;-) 12:51, 25 May 2007 (CDT)


<===Maximum block should be three months. After three of these, it should be uped to one year. After three of these, inifinity. HeartGold tx 13:00, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, I'll never forget that rule. ;) I would rather see something pretty simple on this topic. Though no fan in real life, 3 strikes makes more sense. Two warnings and bounced for a week. I really don't see blocks longer than that as anything but clutter. Flippin;-) 13:30, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
See what I said above (?) under sysops, re: blocking. humanbe in 13:51, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

<===Not a bad idea either, Human. HeartGold tx 13:53, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

I don't think I have an opinion on the lengths of blocks, if any. I like the 'not funny enough' block reason for non-funny vandals. I generally like Tmtoulouse's overall suggestion. On the retroactivity issue, I agree it wouldn't be "fair" to block for behavior prior to the rule, but I think it's both fair and reasonable to use behavior prior to the rule in the first step: gaining community consensus that the behavior is unacceptable and explaining to the user what that behavior is. --jtltalk 18:13, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Templates for essay layouts?[edit]

Do you want to establish a format for the debunking of claims? For instance:

Claim: Evolution is unfalsifiable.
Counters:
Sources:
Publications:

Do you also want some generic articles for background information? For example an article explaining how Cl- can cause a cascade reaction with ozone to be used for debunking claims about global warming? If so then should we have a generic format for the layout of these pages?

--TimS 10:50, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

Article Naming[edit]

7. Article naming. If an article is essentially a commentary, rebuttal or refutation of an article on another site, it should have the same name, so our guests and editors can find it easily.

I think we should have tags, like "Essay:" and "Rant:"-AmesGyo! 17:06, 18 May 2007 (CDT)
How about something nice and subtle, like categories? (also, "parody", "rebuttal", etc.) Although I see nothing wrong with your suggestion, either. human 18:29, 18 May 2007 (CDT)
I like Human's idea above.--Bob M 02:54, 19 May 2007 (CDT)
If the names are consistent, a greasemonkey script to add 'this page at rationalwiki' and 'this page at conservapedia' tabs wouldn't be hard --Jtl 17:35, 18 May 2007 (CDT) (copied [[Articles_For_Development|from]] human 19:23, 18 May 2007 (CDT)

User Pages[edit]

I propose we only talk to each other on other user's talk pages, to keep things simple. humanbe in 22:37, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

So that means that this reply to you is in the wrong place?--CatWatcher 12:17, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
It is often called "ping-pong" posting. The reason I don't like it, is because I prefer all messages in front of me before responding, and hate flipping back and forth to another page. --TK /MyTalk 12:36, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
Here I think I agree with TK; I think we should have the discussion wherever the discussion starts, and carry it on there. However, if we do this, it should be established as a convention, and we should discourage people posting on other people's talk pages as well; that would get confusing.--CatWatcher 12:40, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
Can we also have all posts in chron order as well? Makes it much easier to read. --Wikinterpreterwoo!

If you would like to propose the removal of a guideline or modification of a guidelines please post here under the appropriate heading.

Proposed guidelines for proposed guidelines[edit]

I propose a guideline for the proposed guideline that meta-discussion about the procedure for proposal of guidelines should result in a ban of length determined by where one is at on the Fibonacci sequence. Tmtoulouse 00:00, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

If I remember correctly, one occurs as both the first and second terms of the Fibonacci sequence. Which one are you referring to?--CatWatcher 12:36, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
I should additionally like to propose a guideline in respect of guidelines which themselves affect guideline proposals to the effect that such guideline guiding proposals should themselves be covered by guidelines which affect this and any other guideline which may be deemed necessary by the guideline guiders.--Bob_M (talk) 12:05, 28 May 2007 (CDT)
I propose we move this discussion to "Guidelines for Proposing 'Proposed Guidelines for Proposed Guidelines' for inclusion in Proposed Guidelines for Proposed Guidelines". As a guideline, at least. And, of course, our detractors can refer to our block policy as the "Fibonazi Sequence". humanbe in 12:32, 28 May 2007 (CDT)
Those damn leftist Nazis! --Kels 13:33, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

How about a guideline for constantly moving pages, over and over, deleting them, blanking them, over many name spaces to hide them? Or Bureaucrats who remove information by deleting from the DB? Is that something we should cover? --TK/MyTalk 23:21, 14 June 2007 (CDT)

Why, has that happened? Can you please provide links to this activity? And if yesterday's double (or triple!) moving of all the recipes and ACD's and their subsequent deletion from the mainspace is the issue, well, they are all still at their original names now. And any links or redirects were fixed. humanbe in 23:33, 14 June 2007 (CDT)
  • It has, Human, and someone has been removed as a Bureaucrat here over it. The whole process seems to smack of lesser things that occurred at CP, which you and others heaped lots of scorn on. So I suppose you will now be heaping scorn and derision on those moves being done without public explanation? Oh wait, its ok for you to do it, unlike at CP, because we all know everyone here is pure and trustworthy, unlike at CP! --TK/MyTalk 23:37, 14 June 2007 (CDT)
Facts, please, TK. Who was removed? And what moves were made? All I ask are simple directions to view these activities. humanbe in 23:52, 14 June 2007 (CDT)
  • Kels was removed by Linus this evening. Check your logs, Human. Surely you are not feigning ignorance? LMAO! See this is exactly why I say you are (sub)Human. You have been an active part in doing that, observed it, posted references to doing that, yet you post here in judgement of me, demanding "proof" of what you know is real. That to me, and many others, is just as bad, if not worse, than the way you and others were treated at CP. I am happy for you that your own self-image allows you to think yourself better than me, or some others, however. --TK/MyTalk 00:04, 15 June 2007 (CDT)
  • Kels? She was never even a sysop, let alone an admin. Not as far as I know, anyway. And what p[ages were moved without public explanation? I don't watch the whole site, only select funny parts of it. PS, you're tripping again. humanbe in 00:16, 15 June 2007 (CDT)

When all else fails, (sub)Human, marginalize, make out the person is nuts? What a class act you are.

Re: Breadcrum stuff I'm completely confused. What do you want me to do? ----Linus(plot evil tech) 17:04, 1 June 2007 (CDT)

Do you need the earlier posts as well, Human? Eh? Linus told me tonight in IM he had removed Kels. Check with him in the morning. What a mean and nasty prick you truly are. --TK/MyTalk 00:22, 15 June 2007 (CDT)

This is called a "link": [1] the last user rights change was on June 5, when subhuman was made a sysop. My comment re:you tripping was in reference to "You have been an active part in doing that, observed it, posted references to doing that, yet you post here in judgement of me, demanding "proof" of what you know is real." You seem to specialize in unsubstantiated, unlinked assertions.
Now. What is this "breadcrum" thing from June 1? What page is/was it on? Obviously, as a wiki participant, I value transparency and the edit trail. I realize that if a trail was somehow completely deleted it could no longer be linked to, of course. For example, my history, even my old user pages, are available on CP, since no one figured out how to kill the old file data before making the redirect (hint, hint, you could figure it out, I bet). Anyway, what's this breadcrumb thing? humanbe in 00:35, 15 June 2007 (CDT)
  • Let's answer first your penchant for making nasty, mean remarks to some people first, eh? "YOU WILL NOT BE MISSED" and things like that, shall we? No. Let's not, because all you do is make excuses for yourself, and palce the blame on someone else. --TK/MyTalk 00:58, 15 June 2007 (CDT)
Feel free to bring that up on my talk page, if you like. In the meantime, is your big page-move fuss over the recipe and ACD articles? Note that they are now mentioned on the main page... humanbe in 01:01, 15 June 2007 (CDT)
  • Just like what usually happens when something is questioned, (sub)Human. Why don't you answer the questions? You allowed me to be badgered the same way, and actually posted saying I should answer! Come on! Stop and smell the roses! Have some fun! This is all in fun, Human!
Copying edited to a new section, if you prefer to discuss it here humanbe in 01:22, 15 June 2007 (CDT)

04:37, 23 May 2007 Tmtoulouse (Talk | contribs) deleted "Conservapedia:TK" (shoot me in the morning, but can we wait till we get guidlines up till we go after individuals? )

Just fun, Human...like the above, clearly showing RW's intentions. Of course Trent only meant to protect me, right? --TK/MyTalk 01:13, 15 June 2007 (CDT)

That's what it looks like to me, yes. humanbe in 01:22, 15 June 2007 (CDT)

Regarding Kels, I'm pretty sure that what Linus was talking about was de-adminning her from the forum, just like most of the rest of us have lost moderation rights that we only had as a technical workaround. Also, knowing Kels, I'm pretty sure that she doesn't mind much. --AKjeldsen 05:20, 15 June 2007 (CDT)