User:Bicycle Wheel/RationalWikiWiki:space

Block policy

RationalWikiWiki block policy is based on several half-formed ideas, chief among them that we will avoid committing the same mistakes that RationalWiki has perpetrated and, instead, invent new mistakes of our own.

Who can get blocked?

RationalWikiWiki reserves the right to block any user that is actively disrupting the wiki. This includes:

• Spammers
• Anyone attempting to whitewash articles.
• Anyone involved in an edit war.
• Anyone attempting to drag RationalWiki drama over here. (This includes you, Hans Johnson!)
• Known RationalWiki trolls that have decided to set up shop on this site, too.
• Anyone posting inappropriate personal information

How long can the block be?

User rights#Police are generally left to block for the length of time they consider appropriate.

This is a small wiki, and it always will be—small enough that there are only about two police present at any given time, and they will always disagree with each other. Therefore, first come, first serve. If the other police doesn't like how long the block is, they can whinge on a talk page, and, if enough people weigh in that disagree with the block length, or that the blockee was blocked at all, the block may be changed or removed.

Suggested block lengths

That being said, absurd blocks will be challenged a lot more than reasonable ones. To minimize the drama, here are some suggested block lengths for particular offenses:

• Whitewasher: 1 day
• Edit warriors: 1 day
• Drama warriors: 1 day
• Spammer: However long you think appropriate.
• Known RationalWiki troll: Long enough to make them fucking go away.
• Inappropriate personal information: 1 month minimum.

Bureaucrat duties

So someone has seen fit to make you a bureaucrat. Well, sucks to be you. You still can't get away with editing your own article, and now you have the tedious job of promoting people. You can do that here. You may or may not be expected to occasionally do something constructive. People are much more likely to complain at you. Your inbox will likely fill with whiny emails. Still, sometimes there are perks. Exactly what they are has yet to be determined.

Like all crats here, you are expected to maintain an enormous drawer of socks.

Community standards

Introduction

RationalWikiWiki aims to provide both a way to document the history of RationalWiki and a way to discuss, critique and comment on the history and current goings-on of RationalWiki. To better achieve this goal, we ask that everyone follow these community standards.

Our content

The types of articles we endorse are as follows:

• Articles on prominent RationalWikians, former and current. This is largely restricted to important moderators and officers of the RationalWiki Foundation, with a few exceptions.
• Articles on major events on RationalWiki—ones that wouldn't, and shouldn't, be forgotten a month later in RationalWiki's insitutional memory.
• Articles on significant aspects of the RationalWiki community and infrastructure, like social dynamics.

Tone and POV

Articles should strike a balance between being too snarky and too dry. We are free to be critical, but not overly so; essentially, don't be pointlessly antagonistic. Articles should not consist of "liveblogging" what's going on at RationalWiki.

In addition, we discourage the use of personal information in our articles, regardless of whether this information may be public elsewhere on the internet. Only information relevant to activities on RationalWiki should be included.

Conflicts over articles

It is preferred that only those not involved in a conflict edit any articles about that conflict. If you have a vendetta with another user, don't edit that user's article or other articles that have to do with him or her. Do not bring your conflict into any articles.

If you believe any of our content which concerns yourself or your persona on RationalWiki should be removed or altered, you can begin a discussion with the sysops and bureaucrats on RationalWikiWiki:Redress of grievances. Please only bring valid concerns there, concerns which are not valid will be dismissed and archived. Naturally, if it's content which does not involve you or your RationalWiki persona, you are free to edit that content and it will be handled in standard Wiki fashion.

Community policies

User rights

RationalWikiWiki has three bureaucrats: Hans Johnson, Punky McPunkerson, and Ty. Bureaucrats are selected by the site owner, User:Punky McPunkerson.

Sysops are a few more than bureaucrats, but are also carefully selected; this is unlike the freewheeling system present on RationalWiki.

Trolls and vandals

In the event of a vandalism attack, we will not hesitate to take whatever measures are necessary to stop it. This includes, for example, turning off IP editing.

We deal with trolls on a case-by-case basis. Any action, including blocking, is not off-limits. We request that editors not feed trolls; if you do feed a troll, your standing in bringing the troll to justice is severely diminished.

Block policy

If an editor is judged to be harmful to RationalWikiWiki, he or she may be banned. Generally, a warning is given; if the warning is disregarded, the user can be blocked.

Specific things that can get you blocked apart from not following anything else in these standards include: vile trolling, racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, et cetera.

Talk pages

Talk pages are, in general, community property. This includes user talk pages. However, while you are not entitled to delete comments on your talk page (excluding comments which are explicitly spam, wandalism or libelous), you are free to archive comments at any point.

Community standards development

Purpose

In order to further our goal of de-RAification and transform into a web community, this page has been created for the development of and voting on proposed community standards.

Proposal

Follow RW's policy on talk page comments, which reads:

Talk pages (including user talk as well as article talk pages) and other discussion pages, such as debates or the Saloon bar Treehouse, are community property. They must not be deleted, nor protected, although they can be archived periodically. Similarly, users should not delete or change another user's comments on a talk or discussion page.

Please sign all talk page comments, by typing four tildes at the end (~~~~). This will leave your signature and a timestamp. Please also indent your comment using colons (:) at the beginning (one more than the comment above) as this makes discussions much easier to read.

Occasionally discussions may be moved from one talk page to a more appropriate location, by copying and deleting it from the original page and pasting it at the new page. It is important to provide a link to the new location, which can be done using the "movedfrom" and "movedto" templates.

Obviously, we lack a saloon bar, but the treehouse serves the same purpose. We also lack the move templates.Ty 23:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Made the obvious change to the above, and copied the templates from RW. I assume copying the templates is OK, licensing-wise. Someone maybe needs to edit their doc, to remove the RW-specific examples (e.g. Saloonbar or Conservapedia WIGO Talk) --Maratrean 23:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes

• Ty 15:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
• Conficker 15:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
• --Brxbrx 16:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oui! Rrose Selavy 19:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
• Maratrean 23:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Qualified Yes

• The first role of a sysadmin is to stop disruption to a site. As long as deliberate trolling can be removed in keeping with this responsibility, then I vote Yes. SuspectedReplicant 23:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

"Removal of deliberate trolling" is not mentioned in the above proposal, so arguably would not be permitted by it. Are you proposing a change to the proposal? The problem with removing "deliberate trolling", is how do you define trolling, and how do you determine what it is - the whims of a sysadmin? some process of community discussion? some committee (like WP's ArbCom)? --Maratrean 23:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

"Disruption to the site" is a quite clearly defined criterion and is always a valid block reason. SuspectedReplicant 23:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree "disruption" is quite clearly defined, I think it is a vague term which could have lots of meanings - disruption is in the eye of the beholder. If you are going to propose that "disruption to the site" is a valid reason to revert talk posts, then you'd need to (1) clearly define what disruptive means (2) specify the means by which that definition is applied (whim of individual sysadmin? some community process? some committee? etc.) --Maratrean 23:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Disruption is when somebody like you appears on a site, with no intention of improving any articles, only desiring to be a pain by bringing up irrelevant points on talk and debate pages. SuspectedReplicant 23:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, I have improved some articles. Look at the edits I've made to Armondikov, Cheerleaders, Sterile, MarcusCicero, none of which anyone has complained about - the only article edit anyone has complained about has been you complaining about my edits to Nutty Roux - and even they are still there, in a different form from the original. And look at some of the work I've done to try to improve this page too, like flesh out the proposal above, copy over the move templates from RW, etc. I think you are disruptive with your vendetta against me. --Maratrean 23:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh you're far too kind! I'm far from unique - many, many people have vendettas against you! SuspectedReplicant 23:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree. It seems to be just you and Nutty. Everyone else is reasonably nice to me - not perfectly so, but close enough. --Maratrean 23:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Far more than that. You have set a new benchmark for being an irritating little tit who always needs to have the last say. Now here's a lesson in the application of power. STFU or I block you for annoying me. Nobody will miss you and the site will be a load more pleasant. SuspectedReplicant 00:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

You are proposing, as an administrator, to make a block which is not permitted by the block policy. If anyone seems to always want the last say, it is you, since I am happy to continue the discussion, but you insist that the conversation ends but you get the last word at the same time. No, if you don't want to continue the discussion, you don't get the last word. --Maratrean 00:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

This is gay and you people need to lose your virginity and stop creating policies for websites with less than half a dozen members.

• 86.46.180.101 19:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey BON, I have a Wiki with only one member (moi), and even it has policies! And stop calling things gay, that is rather homophobic of you. --Maratrean 23:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I too have a wiki with only myself and my socks editing(sorry local host only), and I have policy! Ty 23:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Ty, open your firewall and tell me your IP, and I'll edit your wiki! --Maratrean 23:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

No, because I am plotting things. I posted a screen shot of it here somewhere. Ty 23:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Found it - and couldn't resist commenting on your glorious hat in the process. Are you wearing it now? --Maratrean 00:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

But Marcus, I thought you liked policies. How are you going to concern troll without policies? -- Nx / talk 06:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Nx: As a person who might have inadvertently identified the Marcussocks by one means or another , how many of the posters on this page are Marcus? (I'm not asking you to ID them.) --Honey 16:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

How I found RationalWikiWiki

Use bullets, try to keep it brief and sign your entry!

• I saw the voting stuff happening, and like the idea of having a sock named Thor. It's a powerful name. . --Thor 20:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• I saw 'RWW' mentioned on RationalWiki and thought it was a joke; to my great delight it's not! Keep up the good work. DeltaStar 07:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
• I was reading Playboy which had a very interesting article about RationalWiki but I mistyped the name because, a) I was typing left handed and b) I was drunk. Signed: Deep Throat. (AKA False Flag)
• I was invited over from RationalWiki soon after the site was started. For some reason, the mysterious owner of the site made me a sysop. I blocked a wandal here once. ħuman
• Followed RationalWiki link, joined (using the name of an Uncyc sock of mine) when I saw Icewedge needed rectifying. For unknown reasons I continued editing. Hans Johnson as in "keep ya hans off my" ^{(cover your eyes!)} 04:57, 16 March 2008 (EST)
• I saw a note or RationalWiki and joined. The mysterious owner offered me sysop based on my RW credentials.--Bob^{bing up} 15:08, 19 February 2008 (EST)
• Where am I? What's going on? I've a feeling I'm not in Kansas anymore--158.143.165.215 15:06, 2 March 2008 (EST)
• Ugh... oh shit... my head... 206.248.159.65 23:36, 4 March 2008 (EST)
• Teh. Complete misjump [1]. Rolled a 2 on 2D6, failed the jump initialisation throw, rolled 1D6 for misjump direction, then rolled 3D6 for number of parsecs [2] off course and ended up here. And I was hoping to get to the Spinward Marches [3] to catch up with some of those mind-reading Zhodanis [4], too.... Spica 20:04, 15 March 2008 (EST)
• Turned left at that phone shop, tried to double back up a side street, er... Totnesmartin 13:31, 25 July 2008 (CDT)
• Dunno, somewhere on RW. Sterile 14:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Google search on the Gang of Four. Javascap 15:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
• I edit random articles on RationalWiki and the article for this site popped up. Francine 12:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• I went to the second star to the right and straight on till morning, turns out your starting location is important. 192.43.227.18 03:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
• I found this Wiki when its RationalWiki page showed up in the "Recent Changes." I have joined to get my Wiki-fix during RationalWiki's outage. ListenerX 23:54, 6 January 2009
• I mistyped "Rationalwiki" after drinking too much fermented goat's milk. --SpinyNorman 00:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
• I turned over a big stone at the bottom of my garden and there it was, amid a swarm of hectic startled woodlice. weaseLICIOuS ^{Bite Me} 12:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
• I saw a link to this site at Rationalwiki many months ago, then forgot about it until I saw it mentioned on a RW members page a couple of days ago, so I came back to take a look - and found a page all about meeeeeee! :D I love the cute little 'walking brain" logo! Refugee 19:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• I found the article on myself. And edited it. Whoops. --ConservapediaUndergroundResistor 01:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
• http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/User_talk:Tmtoulouse#http:.2F.2Frationalwikiwiki.org ^{— Unsigned, by: 216.118.68.193 / talk / contribs}
• I live and work at RW under a different username, and I picked this name because I was reading a book about Stalinist Russia *hic*--Лаврентий Берия 20:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
• Having paid attention while watching cartoons, I actually remembered to turn left at Albuquerque. This is where I ended up. -Redback^Bites
• I was walking through the woods one day when I came across a cow. I pet it on the head and offered him some of my beef jerky, but for some reason, it wasn't interested in cannibalism. So it knocked me over and gave me a few good kicks to my head until I passed out. Next thing I knew, I was tied up to a barrel in a barn, in which I was gagged to the throat with cow manure. The cow handed me a laptop, and told me in his cow-ish voice to go to this site known as "RationalWikiWiki". He himself couldn't do it, as he merely had hooves to use a keyboard with, but he had always wanted to go there, for whatever reason. Unfortunately, the place had no internet connection, so as a result, I couldn't comply with him. I spent the next few years in their dungeon until I finally escaped via a tunnel I dug out with a a mouse's skull that I had killed with my bare hands. After walking through the blistering heat and the frigid cold and getting my daily-needed nutrition from eating the hind legs of the great Titanus giganteus, I got back home. Of course, since I am one to be curious, I decided to see what this RationalWikiWiki was all about. So I did. Is that how I found this place? No, but the truth is more boring. ~SuperHamster Talk 04:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• I found RationalWikiWiki through...RationalWikiSeveral ingredients 06:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
• I found this splendid website via the splendid RationalWikiWikiWiki. DeltaStar 22:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
• I just followed the smell. Ed Wig 17:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• A fairy http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/God fairy told me all about it ColbertFan 18:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
• Not being able to find intelligent life in RW I asked Scotty to beam me up. It seems that Scotty was not quite sobber and couldn't find me on his list. So I was asked to register again, which I did and landed here. Actually I was looking for ħuman so I'm gald she's hiding here (I hope she's the same ħuman that I'm looking for). JimJast 18:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
• Avida Dollars sent me here. Rrose Selavy 16:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
• Well, I've been here a few months, but I think it was from one of human's userboxen. Ty 12:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
• I was checking out the help page on how to be übercool and i read to come here and read gossip about myself and others, so i checked to see if there was any and there was =) ø_ºØk^ünstlerin 04:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
• There was on conversation on the saloon bar about this site. --JC
• Something about Headless Chicken Mode... Socal212 07:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
• ...I was summoned upon. Still quite not sure on what though. Why am I here again?만두 12:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
• Ooh, I have been here for several months now, never saw this page! Can't remember exactly... oh, it comes back now... I Googled myself and found there was already an article about me here :) Maratrean 11:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• The article on RationalWiki. Mbwun 22:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
• I saw a headline on Fox News (O'Reilly, I believe) about the site. Nembus 22:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
• Article on RationalWiki. --Seth Peck 20:26, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
• Article on Rationalwiki.Stick Boy 18:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
• The above. Copperhead 02:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
• Article on RationalWiki. --SupernovaExplosion 09:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
• Link.TheCurtlyKnave 17:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
• I was looking for a wiki about burgers, found one and it mentioned this site. Rennie McGreet 20:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
• I am keeping a very close eye on Rennie McGreet, somethings wrong with him. Yup, he's coming to check me out, he's got something in his hands, I don't know what his deal is. TheLegit 21:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
• I don't remember how I found the place, but it was because a page was created on my RW account, Abd. So, now I need to create a sock so I can edit my own damn page? What? --AbdLomax 03:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Lock policy

RationalWikiWiki lock policy details our policies on locking pages to prevent editing and other changes by other editors. This article is intended for general use; for sysop-specific instructions regarding how to lock, see the Sysop guide.

Protocol

Due to an incident of pagemove vandalism which damaged certain pages beyond recovery, all existing pages have been move locked (Lock policy#Kinds of lock) to prevent the further loss of articles. Any new pages created, including talk and non-mainspace pages, must be move locked for an infinite period of time.

Actions that merit locking a page are:

• A RationalWikian has repeatedly attempted to whitewash their own article.
• Spammers attacking a particular page.
• Spammers creating a particular non-existent page that will never be needed or used.
• A vandal or troll continuously creating a malicious page that is otherwise off-mission or is libelous as defined by United States legal code.

If the censor or edit warrior in question is an IP, only a partial lock (Lock policy#Kinds of lock) may be applied.

If they are a registered user, a full lock (Lock policy#Kinds of lock) is called for. On RationalWikiWiki, no lock may last longer than six weeks, except for the standard move lock, which should last indefinitely, and the spam lock, also indefinitely. Additionally, no pages (except userspace pages excluding user talkpages) should be locked beyond the "Janitor" level.

What locking is

Locking refers to a page being closed down so it may no longer be edited by User rights#Editor. While the page cannot be edited, it can still be viewed. The "edit" tab in the top part of the page is replaced by a "view source" tab. The "view source" option lets you view the wikicode of the page, as if you were editing, except you can't change anything.

The talk page of a locked page is still editable, unless locked in a separate action. If a talk page has been locked, then the article page remains editable unless locked separately.

A page can also be locked to prevent regular editors from moving the page, without restricting normal editing by anyone.

Who can lock pages

Only users with User rights#Police can lock pages. (For a list of police go here.)

Kinds of lock

• Partial lock --- Only IPs are barred from editing the page
• Full lock --- IPs and registered users are barred from editing the page. Only User rights#Janitor can edit the page.
• Move lock --- Normal editing by any user is unaffected, but IPs and registered users are prevented from moving the page. Only janitors can move the page. This has been applied to all pages on RationalWikiWiki.

Note regarding terminology

"Locking" is not an official MediaWiki term. The official MediaWiki term is "protecting", but we avoid calling it that, because "protecting" implies that it is some sort of salvation, as if the page has been rescued from abuses being rained down upon it by evil editors. The reality of "protection" is that it has historically been thoughtlessly, unilaterally, and unjustly applied whenever a particular admin felt like it. We call it what it is: "locking". As in, "Oh, crap, I just got locked out of my house."

Manual of style

This page was created by Phantom Hoover in response to major inconsistencies in style across the wiki. It was later rewritten by Rrose Selavy.

When writing for RationalWikiWiki, it may help to follow a few rules.

Page titles

Page titles should have lowercase letters at the beginning of each word except the first, unless there is a good reason to do otherwise, as in Gang of Four. In that case, a redirect should be created with lowercase initial letters.

Article content

A RationalWikiWiki article should be factually correct and properly spelt (as far as can be ascertained), with diffs as references. The title should appear in bold somewhere in the first sentence, unless that makes for an awkwardly written sentence or spoils a good joke. In that case, put it in the second sentence. All users mentioned in the article should be linked once, the first time they are mentioned (users' own articles excepted, obviously). There is no need to repeat information that appears in the stalkbox, unless that information is expanded upon in some meaningful way.

Articles about users

All users with more than a handful of contributions are notable, but don't expect anyone to take an interest in your beautifully-composed article on some geezer who signed up, corrected a few typos and disappeared forever. Articles about users should be helpful and informative. Please resist the temptation to come to RationaWikiWiki just to write a hit-piece on whoever you've been arguing with on RationalWiki. PLEASE add dates (month and year will do) for any event you write about; there is far too much lately and recently etc. in articles that are now hideously out of date. Personal information about users should be germane to RationaWiki and its activities, rather than included for its own sake.

Writing about yourself

And of course there is our golden rule: NO EDITING YOUR OWN ARTICLE in any meaningful way. You may fix typos, but any content should be whinged about, pitifully, on the talk page. WIGOing yourself is just sad. Don't go there.

Socks

Socks are best just redirected to the main username, with a simple mention that X is Y's sock. If sockism is suspected, then such can also be stated where appropriate. A few long-lived or especially noteworthy socks may have their own articles. Toast is a good example of this.

Articles not about users

As above, really, but you should make an effort to put some jokes and snark in the article as many non-user articles can be pretty dry really.

References

When adding references, make sure that they come after any punctuation, like this.

Saloon bar

We need one of these. Now, first of all, we've got to get WIGO at RW off the ground. We also need to establish rules for it. I suggest the WIGO at CP rules. Now, I suggest that we browse recent changes to find incidents. High levels of incident-ness would be at the Saloon Bar. --ConservapediaUndergroundResistor 21:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I also am possibly going to repeal the No editing of own article rule. Discuss below:

Rule against editing one's own article

• Keep I favor keeping the rule against editing one's own article; removing it would be setting ourselves up for needless edit-warring. ListenerX^TalkerX 01:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Yeah, I really want to edit mine because nobody else will (damn you), but I don't because I think the rule is a good one to have in place. -Redback^Bites 02:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep I vote to keep the rule. Ace McWicked 04:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - it's the only thing that keeps RWW "honest", you silly mandibulous overlord. human 04:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
• Repeal It is the only way to save RationalWikiWiki by allowing people to write about themselves. Beside who knows you best? Remember CUR this is not a democracy, Nx left you in charge. 192.43.227.18 06:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

*Hem hem* Wisest harmonic Phantom! 15:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. People can write about themselves on their RW user page. They can write about themselves on their RWW user page. They can defend themselves on their RWW article talk page. There would be no point in having yet another page in the "RW family" in which people could write nice things about themselves. Criticism would disappear and every page could become either a battleground or a whitewash.--Bob M 08:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep or every page will be a whitewash and all the juicy goss will disappear. They all have their own page on RW anyway. Rrose Selavy 08:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
• KEEP. I had almost decided to give up on this place when RA/PH were imposing "their" will on it. If this goes through then I'm gone for good. What would be the point of people writing their own articles to report on themselves? The idea is farcical. Suppose Andy wanted to edit his article on RW? I wrote most of the original editor stubs here and they were meant to be irritating, slightly exaggerated, pointed criticisms which made people think about themselves. Take that away and you're left with, well, not much actually.--False Flag 15:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

As I pointed out below, I wasn't trying to allow people to edit article content, just to let them fix spelling and grammar. Wisest harmonic Phantom! 15:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. FF, I was fed up with people asking for minor fixes to grammar and code on the talk page; we only have a finite amount of time and editors. Wisest harmonic Phantom! 15:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep for everyone except me - I need to get CUR out of my article. Fall down 19:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Probably is a good idea, now that I think about. --Arthropleura 19:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Needlessly prohibitive, but a good idea (sorry, but that's it in a nutshell) My article consists of two sentences. I feel that you should be able to expand your own article, but you do not have mastery over it- If someone does not like your edits, revert with no questions asked(Unless, of course, it's factual info- then keep). Theemperor 00:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

That was pretty much the way I felt as well. --Arthropleura 02:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Although I've already edited my own article, as there as nothing there but the stalkbox, not knowing the rule was in place. Speakerface 14:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Repeal

I know you like the idea of having a play pen as much as I do CUR Crab-Thing/Millipede. It would keep you off the streets and out of trouble (though I think you should be on the streets and in trouble after all it was Mr. Boloaski that said "Boys and girls go out to play, on the busy motorway") however dont fuck with the classrics. Ace McWicked 04:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, Mr. Bolowski & his family... great folks. human 01:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Bureaucrats

CUR, we don't need six active bureaucrats here. I don't mean to suggest that the four you gave rights to were unworthy, merely that a tiny wiki like us doesn't need that many bureaucrats. @Human, Kcadber, Listener and Theemperor, you still have just as much say in site matters, just not the technical power. Wisest harmonic Phantom! 04:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

That's so in case one of us leaves, the project can continue. --Arthropleura 13:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Damnit. That makes two times I've had 'crat rights revoked for some shit reason. Oh no, we have too many 'Crats, so I'm just going to remove their rights and ignore them. Theemperor 19:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You have powah back. --Arthropleura 20:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Theemperor, I won't ignore anyone because they don't have 'crat powers. CUR, even in the unlikely event of both of us leaving Trent or Nx could make a new 'crat with server access. Wisest harmonic Phantom! 21:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

And this way we won't have to bother them. Look, no harm can come of this. --Arthropleura 00:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't need to be a crat here, in fact, previous discussions support the argument that's not a good idea. I am far too "influential" or whatever on RW to be in the upper administration here as well. All I should have is the ability to help by blocking vandals if I run across them. human 00:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

That's Trent, Nx, and me (if you ever get really desperate). My email is still enabled, I still have server access, and I still pay for and intend to continue to pay for the site's domain name. I may be effectively "gone" but I still have a personal and financial interest in seeing this site continue on. Hans Johnson as in "keep ya hans off my" ^{(cover your eyes!)} 03:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Eheh, by the way, what's been going on since I left? I stopped paying attention after a while (though from this page I gather that Fall down is now a janitor/policeman, CUR is bureaucrat, I apparently drove False Flag away, and Phantom Hoover here is as ambitious as I was at RationalWiki). Hans Johnson as in "keep ya hans off my" ^{(cover your eyes!)} 03:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Enthusiastic? I'm having a job kicking this lot into action. Essentially, Nx retired after everyone at RW did nothing when it was reported we were under attack, so he promoted CUR to take his place. CUR then promoted all and sundry, and then has generally been in the way since, requiring me to lock down the MediaWiki namespace. I'm currently thinking up a battle plan. Wisest harmonic Phantom! 18:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I'm currently taking a crash course in Lisp for an argument with my computing teacher. Wisest harmonic Phantom! 18:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

ACD

Right, we need to get our priorities sorted out. I think we should:

• Improve our articles on users, having more analyses of their character and actions, rather than just factual information
• Get WIGO RW up and running
• Make more articles about RationalWiki's events and social dynamics
• Get as many users from RW interested in here again
• Convince FF and/or HJ to return

Wisest harmonic Phantom! 08:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree totally. I am official starting a task force who will go on commando missions to find information. --Arthropleura 19:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

This bloody bureaucracy

It has to end. We've been sitting here navel-gazing for several days when we should be resurrecting this place. I therefore propose a "holiday", to last three days, in which no edits will be made. After that, I'm in half a mind to ask Nx to lock down all the MediaWiki pages and restore them to their pre-CUR state, and demote Fall down back to holyroller (seriously, who the hell thought that he had proven himself trustworthy of Janitor and Police?). Thoughts? Wisest harmonic Phantom! 07:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

No one's stopping you from improving this place if you want to. And I need my buttons ... Fall down 09:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Fall down, why don't you just go away? You don't "need" anything as far as I can see, except maybe a good slap upside the head. PH, no one cares enough to build this place. Wait, you're proposing a boycott of your own site? Weird. human 07:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I like this site and have some ideas for it, what I don't have is time. Sadly, my so-called "real life" interferes when I'd rather spend time on wikis or other endeavors. I hope someone will keep it going though, and I'll add a bit here and there as I can. Refugee 06:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

and as far as 'crats, I had high hopes that CUR would devote his energies into doing something worthwhile here, but sadly, he seems to be only using it as a test site.. I miss Hans RA Johnson, Nx and FalseFlag, PhantomHoover is still trying to give RWW some life, Go PH! I wish I had time to help out more. Refugee 06:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying. It's not that easy, you try! --Arthropleura 19:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

User rights

The following are the user rights on RationalWikiWiki.

Editor

Basic user. Editors can edit most pages on RationalWikiWiki and create pages.

This wiki is set so users cannot move pages or upload files.

Probably not vandals

Probably not vandals have autoconfirmed rights: they will bypass Captcha when submitting an edit, they can upload files, and move pages.

Current not-vandals

Power-tripping internet bullies

Bullies are entrusted with clean-up duties beyond normal editing. They can delete, undelete, move, and merge the revision histories of articles. They may also hide revisions individually within a page's history from the public (to be used in the case of someone posting personal information and to deny vandals any notoriety by hiding the changes they made and who did them).

Bullies can block other users (both accounts and IPs) and lock pages to prevent editing.

Note: A merge is irreversible, so please be certain you are merging the correct articles into each other. Additionally, while an individual deleted revision can normally be resurrected, if it is set to be hidden even from sysops, then it can only be resurrected if the entire history is deleted and resurrected. (There should be no real need to hide a revision from sysops, anyways.)

Current power-tripping internet bullies

Self-important internet fascists

Self-important internet fascists have the power to promote and demote other users into the various user groups. They can also rename users if they so request.

Note to fascists: Please refrain from adding more fascists. That is the prerogative of Il Duce as owner of the site.

Current self-important internet fascists

Techies

People who have useful technical knowledge but are too controversial to entrust with the full fascist package.

Current Techies

People we dont like

People we don't like have restricted edit rates. Enjoy.

Current people we don't like