Information icon.svg Our Community Standards are under review. Your comments and inputs are welcome on the relevant project talkpage.

RationalWiki talk:What is a RationalWiki article?

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>

Articles on living persons[edit]

I would like to see this expanded. I would like to see

  1. No real names of internet personalities, even if they freely give their real name. An exception is allowed if: a mainstream news organization uses their real name, or if their real name is their screen name
  2. Notability criterion. We don't need an article on every idiot with a youtube channel
  3. A focus on concepts and organizations over people. For example, an article on OpenPsych and hereditarianism might make sense. An article on Emil Kirkegard is far less necessary

Thoughts?--Hastur! (talk) 19:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Changed #1--Hastur! (talk) 19:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. I especially appreciate the focus on concepts over people. We have far too many articles on random internet people. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 19:19, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I've got no problems. Sounds like a good idea.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
We have to bear in mind, numbers 2 and 3 may well result in the deletion of a good few articles--Hastur! (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Suggesting rewording 1 to use "reliable sources" instead of "mainstream news". I think that's more in-line with the rest of our article talking about sources, and sometimes this relevant information might not neccessarily exist in just mainstream news. For point 2, I think we should figure out a clear way to properly define this. We can list rules for specifics sites, but we can't easily do sweeping statements, this might be something to consider for a new article dedicated to notability. With point 3, I do think we need an article on Kirkegaard specifically, given he appears to be notable enough given his ownership of multiple crank things, but I do think we could perhaps use less of a focus on say, Joshua Connor Moon on our page on Kiwifarms, since his presence barely adds much to our article on the neonazi den that is KF. Basically, if they have views notable enough to be relevant to our mission, then they can be kept. If they're just a random loon with no audience, we don't need an article on them.
Not disagreeing with the spirit of these rules as you're proposing them, but I think they need some work. I will also say that this is a good time to also add that we should consider giving people the option to request removing their real name if they are primarily known by their handle instead. This would also tie in with setting up an official policy around deadnaming (we kinda already forbid it on RW:BLOCK, but codifying it in the BLP instructions would be a good deal), which is a somewhat related concept to all this. Again, I think these are good ideas, just think they need some time in the oven to word it into proper policy. Sirius (dog star / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 19:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Oh yes, everything I said is up for debate and needs to be elaborated on. I hope to hear more opinions from the community, if you don't mind putting up a sitenotice, please--Hastur! (talk) 19:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Okay, I have put the sitenotice back up now that we're funded for another year. In spite of the dates, this discussion never ended. Inputs and comments very welcome. Sirius (dog star / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 22:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I still like Hastur’s proposed Three Points of Peace. Pumpkin pixel glow.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoTry our pumpkin spice lasagna! 00:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
So... would the first one apply to the dreaded master villains Michael Coombs and  K e n  D o l l ? If so, looks like we'll have a lot of work to do... And also, I disagree with the "notability" part of number 3; we have never been about notability. --Goatspeed. Stalk meCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee my latest prototypes 02:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
I broadly agree with everything Hastur proposed. The only part of the proposal that's really anything new is the avoiding using real names of people known by internet pseudonyms part. We long ago decided that we couldn't cover every crank and shouldn't try.That's because there are just too many of them. But we should try to cover every crank idea. Ideas and organizations are definitely more important than individuals. We shouldn't just have articles about people with silly ideas. We should have articles about people who convince tens of thousands of others to believe in those silly ideas too. And it may well be time for the Second Great YouTube Purge. At the time of the first one, we agreed that we should only have articles about YouTubers with at least a thousand subscribers. I thought that was a very low bar to set at the time and it could probably do with being raised now. Spud (talk) 05:52, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Kenny's page would remain the same as per our general mothballing of CP related pages (which means we're mostly to leave them untouched as relics of a past era). Coombs remains notable since he's appeared on a couple of reliable sources as a loon, as well as with his interference in places like Rightpedia/Metapedia and as a Daily Stormer contributor. This is more about cutting pages and renaming pages about people like James I. Nienhuis, who besides clearly just being a random creationist crank with no audience, has the page mostly talk about his blog rather than him as a person, which makes it weird that our page is named after the person rather than the blog. There's multiple of these pages around, and there's currently no established policy for this kinda junk. It's also about things like the current state of our Kiwi Farms page which has a complete section about Joshua Conner Moon, while Moon's literal only presence in the media was when a few outlets criticized him for calling New Zeeland a shithole after Christchurch. KF is one of those sites which is highly relevant to our mission, so they're worth keeping an article on, but we don't need a section on Moon to explain why KF sucks. (I'd say that the doxxing and general harassment the site actively encourages does that more than enough). Sirius (dog star / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 07:31, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to see an explanation of why we need these rules, so we know what we're discussing and why. I'm not sure what the reason for the no real names policy is, except where someone has intentionally hidden their name. If a youtuber or blogger publishes a book under their real name, or appears on TV/podcasts/videos under their real name (not necessarily news TV, but if a food blogger goes on a cooking show and uses their real name) would that be grounds to name them? And if they're widely identified by real name but wished to remain hidden (as happened e.g. with Brooke Magnanti)?
It sometimes makes the site more readable to have articles on people rather than drier articles on concepts (e.g. Laurence Fox rather than attempt to pen an article on populist anti-black-lives-matter activism in the UK, Graham Linehan as well as TERF, and not just shove Michael Bloomberg in an article on corporate centrism). Since people tend to be active in more than one field, you need both Microsoft and Bill Gates, and Elon Musk is more relevant than Tesla Motors. Articles on prominent TERFs, bigots, media personalities, etc, indicate how these individuals are formed and manipulated. Ideally we would cover concepts and notable people within them, if the people are unique, important, or widely covered for doing relevant things. If someone is one of 100 essentially identical figures, then they don't need an article, but if they help explain a concept or phenomenon, then they should have an article.
Some requirement for a person to be notable is reasonable, but how do you frame it? YouTube views/subscribers are one thing, but not easily extensible. Wikipedia's guidelines aren't directly applicable. I'd like to know something is possible before I commit to it. --Annanoon (talk) 13:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
With the exception of the first change(which I support) why do we need a new policy for these things? We already have a notability guideline. Hastur has not suggested changing that-he merely says we should have something we already have. As for the third rule, that should be judged on a case by case basis-sometimes a person who, say, led an organization can leave it and do other prominent things on their own while their organization continues(Steve Bannon and Breitbart come to mind). Sure, users who don't know about various site policies may create articles on obscure youtubers. In that case, just nominate them for deletion and inform said user of the rule. If you win the vote, congrats, if you lose, too bad(though if it is that bad an article I don't see why you would lose). Why do we need an official change in site policy to address this problem?-Flandres (talk) 13:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Oppose on 1, particularly 'even if freely given' part. Agree with 2 in general, but that pretty vague, would like to see a little more detail what that means. No opinion on 3 in either direction.--NavigatorBR (Talk) - 06:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
I actually especially like 3, because it might curb the horrible “laundry lists” of mainly contextless quotes and snippets (effin’ Twitter!) that are far too prevalent in the various “internet whacko” articles, as I highlighted two years ago on Talk:Laura Loomer (that being just one example of the “genre”). Some variant of 1 seems fairly prudent, but although I like 2 in principle, it’s something we’ve been over before (cf. Talk:The Golden One and Talk:Lady Checkmate) and I doubt that it will make much difference in practice. ScepticWombat (talk) 04:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
I would add that maybe a good metric for notability may be whether or not mainstream news outlets talk about them. For one, that would mean we have more properly sourced articles. It would also decrease the amount of youtuber articles we are all finally admitting that we hate--Hastur! (talk) 05:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Not that I’ve made much of a secret of my sentiment, but Good post!. ScepticWombat (talk) 13:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

While RW is not Wikipedia, I figured I'd take a look at what Wikipedia has to say on this issueWikipedia because they've been around for longer and have more detailed policies in this area.

Privacy of personal information and using primary sources
With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, many people regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public. If a subject complains about our inclusion of their date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year, provided that there is a reliable source for it. In a similar vein, articles should not include postal addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons, although links to websites maintained by the subject are generally permitted. See § Avoid misuse of primary sources regarding the misuse of primary sources to obtain personal information about subjects.
Privacy of names
Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value.
The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, former, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. However, names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced.

So basically they only publish names if they're in reliable sources or if the subject has publicly given out their name. Also, what counts as a "mainstream media" source here? — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 15:53, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

My comments on the proposal at the top:
  1. I think it's reasonable to report someone's real name if that's who they say they are, and we are able to cite them for that.
  2. We already had a purge of YouTube nobodies, and I agree with that. The rationale was not to promote people who were exceptionally obscure, giving them a greater platform than they deserve. The purge was based on a cutoff for number of followers. I don't see any reason to change that.
  3. I think Emil Kirkegaard was a really bad example for someone to remove from RW. Kirkegaard is a public figure and has a public existence outside the Openpsych journals that he founded. He needs to be covered as a separate entity. I think it would be worthwhile for people to read FuzzyCatPotato and Reverend Black Percy's Essay:Why notability is stupid and I hate it before making notability a criterion everywhere.
Bongolian (talk) 05:28, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. Everyone connected to OpenPsych's dodgy journals deserves to have a separate article from what I can tell since they're notable pseudoscientists and have toxic online reputations so are infamous, see for example the amount of sources on Noah Carl who was sacked from Cambridge University after publishing Islamophobic papers in OpenPsych. (talk) 19:55, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
I reject Hastur's idea to "focus on concepts and organizations over people". The outcome of this is that thousands of biographies would be deleted on this website. I have debunked a lot of anti-vaxx/low carb crackpots on this website and put countless hours in creating articles. Why would we suddenly choose to delete valid articles on pseudo-scientists but focus on organizations only? Makes no sense. Johns (talk) 21:08, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Maybe some clarification is in order. Apologies if I have misunderstood, but the idea to start deleting loads of articles rings alarm bells to me. There are a lot of well sourced biographies on this website. Johns (talk) 21:15, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

The "no real names" proposal - is this actually about Scott Alexander? Actually naming pseudoscience promoters, woo pushers and similar scammers is a valuable public service, and should not be hampered - David Gerard (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Emil Kirkegaard[edit]

I can't help thinking Kirkegaard has been in recent contact with Hastur. Seems odd he was singled out for page deletion. Kirkegaard has spent 4 years harassing the article creator and still is fixated with trying to get his RationalWiki article deleted (he tweets about RationalWiki almost every week). A few months back Kirkegaard was in communication with RationalWiki sysop D/Judge Dredd - who lost his tech rights after he was leaking Kirkegaard IP data. Kirkegaard is totally obsessed with trying to remove his article and likely is in email communication with other sysops or mods here. Kirkegaard is also active (on sockpuppets) on the unofficial RationalWiki discord, requesting to remove his article. Does RationalWiki really want to give in to the demands of someone as notorious as Kirkegaard and remove his page? (talk) 20:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

In my view the above accusations towards Hastur are unverified conjecture. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't know about these claims, but to see how Kirkegaard operates see here:
The above was an article written by a psychologist a few days ago criticising Kirkegaard's views on race and intelligence (see screenshot on tweet). Kirkegaard got the article deleted within 24 hours after sending emails complaining to the website. He cannot stand someone criticising him (in my view that points likely to some form of personality disorder) and has managed to delete virtually every page critical of him excluding the RationalWiki page which is why he hates it so much.MrYellow (talk)
I agree that it is suspicious using Kirkegaard's article as an example out of thousands and thousands of others he could have mentioned but we should assume good faith. I am interested in why this debate was started. What brought this all on? Johns (talk) 21:08, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I searched around on other wikis to see where Kirkegaard got articles about him deleted: 1. Wikipedia: in January 2018 after a few editors started adding critical sources on his article he showed up whining and the page was deleted; his account was later banned. He also whined and complained about the description of him added by admin Doug Weller (who is also a RationalWiki sysop) on the London Conference of IntelligenceWikipedia article - that was removed after Kirkegaard kept pestering Weller and the current page now only briefly mentions him as an attendee. 2. Encylopedia Dramatica: had an article on Kirkegaard in 2019, but was deleted after Kirkegaard (or someone working with him) showed up on sockpuppets claiming it was libellous. Normally ED don't remove pages but I noticed Kirkegaard is friends with an ED administrator, so his page was flushed. 3. Conservapedia: article deleted in November 2018 (no logs of page, but I expect he showed up and whined to get it removed.) MrYellow (talk) 22:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

The main reason given for deleting the WP article was lack of notability, which is not inherently a criterion for deletion on RW. Furthermore, Kirkegaard is quite notable in te HBD/racialist sphere. Based on the the link to ED, yeah I'd say that page was potentially libelous. Here's an archived copy of the Conservapedia page:[1] Bongolian (talk) 22:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
@MrYellow Quit it. No one disputed that Kirkegaard tries to get his shit taken down. What was disputed was to unsubstantiated accusations of conspiracy. @Johns How is it fucking suspicious? Would any of you fucking twits care to provide more than paranoid conjecture? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Kirkegaard got mentioned because this conversation started when we properly confirmed the bans of Smith and Abd, since Smith had gotten his arse in trouble by using us to complain about Kirkegaard or something. It doesn't go deeper than that, stop being stupid and thinking in conspiracies. Sirius (dog star / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 23:06, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Kirkegaard filed a lawsuit against the article creator but lost and was humiliated winning no damages. But because Kirkegaard filed a lawsuit some other RationalWiki users here seemed to have crapped themselves recently in fear he or someone similar might file against them. All this nonsense about making amendments to articles seems to be in response to potential legal threats from nutcases who get angry if someone says something mean about them on the internet. MrYellow (talk) 23:20, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
@MrYellow So all you have is conjecture, or, at most, tenuous speculation. Congratulations, you have given me the exact thing I told you I didn't want. I'm going to dismiss your concerns now, because I don't see any reason to take them seriously. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Kirkegaard's mates such as the double trouble Winegard brothers have recently been complaining about libel on their articles, so has Nathan Cofnas and A New Radical Centrism. So I think some RationalWiki editors have become scared and hence the decision to change article policy. All I can say is grow a pair. Kirkegaard, the Winegard's and Cofnas are the sort of people who scream libel at anyone who merely disagrees with them and criticises their views - I covered this well on Cofnas' article. There's really no need to change RationalWiki article policy and delete articles.MrYellow (talk) 01:00, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Deleting the Kirkegaard article is probably not a good idea - he's an active purveyor of particularly pernicious pseudoscience, and squarely in our ambit. I link the article a lot - David Gerard (talk) 19:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

By side[edit]

I'm not sure exactly where I stand, but I think it would be helpful to formulate my thoughts in each direction in a more structured form. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Arguments for the policy[edit]

  • It's increasingly well understood the doxxing is a form of attack on the internet. Combined with dogpiling, any amount of personal information can blow up and be incredibly harmful to a person. This requires a sense of awareness from any place that publishes information, whether they are contributing to the problem. Real names are often a good starting point for identifying more information about people.
  • It's all impossible to gain informed consent. At least not in a format that will be credible in a talk page.
  • Often it adds little to no useful context to the article.

Arguments against the policy[edit]

  • It makes it harder to properly identify a single individual for a single article who use aliases. For the majority of the personalities we cover, this isn't an issue, but there are some notorious sockpuppetty, constantly self-renaming exceptions.
  • It's unnecessarily restrictive. If we have a clear sign that someone put their own name to the public, it's reasonable to understand it's not private information.
  • It sometimes gives undue protection to people who don't deserve it. Nazi online types often use their relative anonymity to escape notoriety and very deserved reputation loss for their actions. (On the other hand, if the aim is explicitly do antagonize it's definitely doxxing.)
  • The information may be relevant from time to time, someone seeing a public speaker at their university, looking them up, and not finding them because we only list them as "TheEarthIs6000YearsOldStupid", might debilitate the aims of the wiki at providing a resource for skeptics on the go.

On pejoratives[edit]

I just thought I'd mention that very often editors have a habit of inserting pejoratives in biographical articles without reference texts of any kind, perhaps with the idea it is snarky to do so. As a matter of style, I believe it would be good to at least suggest to our editors that when they express snarky opinions that amount to very basic name-calling, that they attribute that opinion to a third party. e.g., "Ben Shapiro is an insufferable asshole." If some media personality is really deserving of being called an asshole (like Shapiro), then someone has already done it. Ariel31459 (talk) 19:56, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

No - David Gerard (talk) 19:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Just a suggestion.Ariel31459 (talk) 21:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

The Time Cube dilemma[edit]

Whilst I'm sympathetic to the idea of more stringent notability requirements, I'm struggling to see a formulation that a) solves the problem of an excess of shit articles about YouTube nonentities, and b) leaves space to cover obscure, but hilarious / fascinating, cranks like Gene Ray.

  • Did his Time Cube proselytising cause any direct, immediate harm? No.
  • Was it likely to lead people towards other anti-science / conspiratorial ways of thinking? No.
  • Was there any wider coverage beyond the sceptic community's pointing & laughing? No.
  • Would the sum total of human knowledge be noticeably poorer if Ray and his ideas disappeared without a trace? No, but...

I raise this mostly because people can become dogmatic AF when it comes to these periodic exercises in flushing out the bilges of the wiki, and I've seen perfectly good (and really fucking funny) articles nuked because a determined band of editors are on a crusade to Improve Things Around Here.

So, whatever notability criteria are eventually agreed, I'd like to see a final test applied before people start leaping on an article for deletion:

  1. Does it relate to the mission?
  2. Is it well written?
  3. Is it funny?
  4. In terms of batshit wtf?, where does it stand on a decimal scale of 0-1 Time Cubes?

I suggest that, if the answer to 1) is yes, then a yes to 2) and 3) should be sufficient to save the article. If the answers to 2) and 3) are no (or whatever combination of yes & no), then consideration should be given to 4) as to whether the article should be flagged for improvement, rather than deletion.

And whilst it's obviously a silly, subjective scale, I'd argue anything at half a Time Cube and above is probably worth fixing and preserving. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 20:11, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Option 3[edit]

If we were to focus more on concepts than personalities, it might be easier if this was a "preffered guideline". What I mean by this is we would try to summarize a person's behavior into an article, (named or not, whichever is more useful) for example Lineham under transphobia and/or TERFs, and if that fails due to the nature of that person's behavior we allow a brief article on them, with the caveat that it be well written and sourced, rather than a listicle. This should allow some level of flexibility, while also pressuring people contributing more than lists or quotes, both of which are low effort and low information value. Thoughts? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:23, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Good post! Yeah, this seems like a good idea to me. Sirius (dog star / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 23:08, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
You know what, I'm going to say that not using the real names of internet personalities even if they have revealed their own real names themselves is a step too far. If they haven't revealed their own real names, however, we should only give them if there's a reliable source for them, like The New York Times, The Guardian or the BBC. And like I've said before, that was really the only thing that Hastur suggested that was completely new. Concentrating on ideas over people, not writing libel and not writing about nobodies were all brought up and agreed to years ago. And I'll say again that I would fully support revising our policy on which YouTubers get articles and would fully support a Second Great YouTube Purge. Spud (talk) 01:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Can you give a rationale for not using a citable self-revealed real name? Bongolian (talk) 02:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
@Bongolian Who? Me? I just said I think it's perfectly OK to use their real names if they've revealed them themselves. Spud (talk) 06:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Ooops. Bongolian (talk) 06:19, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

If there is a consensus to delete articles with a new article policy, what ones?[edit]

Is RationalWiki now deciding to delete articles on random trolls like Rome Viharo? What articles would be kept? Only notable pseudoscientists or political extremists? MrYellow (talk) 02:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I recently created the Nathan Larson article. Is that the sort of article RationalWiki wants? Or does it now want to remove these? MrYellow (talk) 02:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
There is no decision because there has yet to be a vote on a policy change. Bongolian (talk) 03:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
A policy change such as this will require a 2/3 majority of voters (RationalWiki:Community Standards#Common guidelines). So, unless it's a minor, narrow or compelling change, its likely to be difficult to get a change in policy. Bongolian (talk) 03:05, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't think the Nathan Larson article is in danger. Running for Congress, found guilty of making death threats against George W. Bush. He's a public figure. And if he was notable enough to have a newspaper story about him in Haaretz, he's notable enough for us. Spud (talk) 06:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
@Bongolian No two thirds rule is in application here. The 2/3rd rule pertains to penalty votes to do with users on our site. This page is subject to a regular policy vote, which is a simple majority. Sirius (dog star / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 11:00, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────From RationalWiki:Community Standards#Common guidelines:

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.

Both policy votes and penalty votes must last between seven and fourteen days.

Bongolian (talk) 19:32, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

user. People we have articles on are not our users. Sirius (dog star / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 21:43, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Bongolian. That quote from the CS doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 22:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
It seemed grammatically ambiguous to me. Bongolian (talk) 03:10, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Kind of agree with Bongolian here -- I think the line could be clarified. I had taken it to mean policy votes in general as well. (Maybe clarify to "In those that deal with a user's removal from the site (temporarily or permanently), both policy votes and penalty votes require that a positive option...") ℕoir LeSable (talk) 22:23, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I looked back at the discussions that resulted in that text,[2] and it seemed to me like people were considering policy votes as a separated entity, not specifically as they might affect penalty votes. The only 3 people who voted then who are now active are @Ace McWicked, @Hastur (User:Brxbrx at the time), and @Nutty Roux. Do any of you want to weigh in on what this means on the Community Standards page?

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.

Does this mean that the two-thirds vote applies to:

  1. A) Policy votes and B) penalty votes dealing with a user's removal —or—
  2. A) Policy votes and dealing with a user's removal B) penalty votes dealing with a user's removal

My understanding of the discussion was that it was interpretation A. If that's the case, I propose rewording the text as: "In policy votes, and in penalty votes dealing with a user's removal… If it's the second interpretation, I propose rewording the text as "In policy votes dealing with a user's removal, and penalty votes dealing with a user's removal…" Bongolian (talk) 18:03, 22 November 2020 (UTC)