RationalWiki talk:Community Standards

From RationalWiki
Revision as of 18:24, 18 June 2010 by Lumenos (talk | contribs) (Advice when writing articles: this is probably wrong, but just to get the ball rolling)

Jump to: navigation, search

Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, (new)

Revision history

Please do not archive this section

For guidelines and their discussions that passed see Passed1 .

For guidelines and their discussions that did not pass see Superseded1.

For the rewrites and their discussions during January 2009, see the revamp and its talk page and archive, an early draft here, and further discussions here, plus the voting discussion.

Revamp, June 2010

Following the mess of conversation here, I have decided to try an forge some kind of consensus on the major issues by doing a mini-revamp of the sections in contention.

The discussion is divided by subject, to allow for individual issues to be addressed one at a time.

Because the revamped version on the right is being constantly revised, to avoid confusion please make a note that you have changed the text in the relevant discussion section.

Happy fighting. - π 10:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Vandal bin

Old community standards

RationalWiki has a special feature called the vandal bin. Sysops and bureaucrats can put vandals into a special list which limits the frequency of edits they can make to once every half hour. Users in the vandal bin also lose the ability to relocate pages. This allows RationalWiki to restrict the abilities of vandals, while still allowing them the opportunity to protest their punishment (something blocks, by their very nature, do not allow).

And to reiterate, assume good faith, and if and when that faith is betrayed, don't panic. A few edits by vandals does not a crisis make, so don't flip out and rampage over anyone who strikes you as maybe being a vandal. Wait until they make an edit or two, and if they are clearly vandalism, then put them in the vandal bin. Additionally, if an edit by a new user is questionable but not blatant vandalism, ask them about it on their talk page before assuming they are a vandal and vandal binning them.

Proposed revamp

Vandal bin discussion

The main point of contention with the vandal bin seems to be the fact that we are indefinitely binning people, including non-vandals, and they still shit all over the place twice an hour. Are we better off just blocking for short times like before? Is the bin working? Or is this system all good? - π 08:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The vandal bin is for vandals. People damaging my wiki - not your ego. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 13:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I think the vandal bin is only useful with accounts. With IPs, as the troll said, we end up imposing an odd limit on the poor random guy who may be picking up the IP address in six months time. 1-9 hours block for trolls/spammers, vandal bin only for accounts? ConcernedResident omg ponies!!! 09:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
That seems fairly reasonable. - π 10:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
So the bin will be used if and only if the vandal has an account? Seems pointless. Just make a new account or don't log in. Vandalism should be responded to with IP bans of increasing lengths. Fuck the bin. Maybe keep it around as an historical artifact, but never use it. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 14:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Bin is good. It gives supposed vandals a way to appeal against being called vandals without letting them wreck the place. Only the most determined people will bother to keep making new accounts, and there's probably no way to get rid of them anyway except waiting for them to grow up. Don't indefinitely bin IPs though - a short block might be better.-- Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 15:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Or maybe binned IPs could see a message saying 'if you're binned and don't know why, someone else might have vandalised from your IP. Please post in such and such a place to get this sorted out'.-- Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 15:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
How often does that happen? How hard is it to make a case that you're just a noob and not a vandals whether or not you're blocked or in the bin? I think the bin is pointless and infuriating. It fails to address the 2x per hour shits that persistent people take on the wiki, which are enough to send some of us into hysterics, and I'm otherwise unaware of a single good faith editor contesting being binned (I'm not saying it doesn't happen). IP blocks are fine as long as email isn't disabled and the blockees can edit their IP talk pages. ÑR/Señor Admin/Hablar 18:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


Old community standards

Blocking is generally only used on known vandals. Sysops should limit most blocks to an hour or two. Blocks longer than this should be discussed first before implementing.

Some sysops issue "joke blocks" on their fellow sysops, lasting a few seconds to a couple minutes in length (although overuse of two-minute-plus blocks, or blocks against sysops in the middle of editing, are not always appreciated by the blockee).

Other times, a user may request that their IP be blocked to force them to log in, or simply block it themselves.

Sysops should exercise caution when issuing blocks. The purpose of the vandal bin is to avoid the problems of blocking (specifically, that if the blockee is not a sysop, they have no way of protesting it), and it is especially important to avoid mistakenly blocking innocent non-vandal editors, particularly if they're newcomers.

Proposed revamp

Blocking discussion

There is no mention of the new talk page block feature. Also do we still support the blocking of your own IP address as that seems to get reverted these days? - π 08:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Loya Jirga

Old community standards
Two tumbleweeds rolling across the screen, from left to right.
Proposed revamp

Loya Jirga discussion

What is the deal with this institution, there are no rules for it, it is unused. Should we just sweep it under the carpet and pretend this fascist organisation never existed? - π 08:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It worked out okay last time it was used, and the rules behind it seem fairly clear. It takes some of the drama and makes it something that a small number of people have to deal with - as opposed to a larger group fighting over what should be done. It's just never going to be everything to everyone. It shouldn't become a shadow government, and it shouldn't be used to solve every little dispute that comes up. I see it as being more an arbiter used to avoid HCM, and I think that's how it's been operating so far. ConcernedResident omg ponies!!! 09:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
There are still no community standards regarding it. - π 10:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
We have it written up in various places, but yeah, it's missing from here. I can collect it all together this weekend and post it here. ConcernedResident omg ponies!!! 13:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Advice when writing articles

Old community standards
  • Please do your best to watch for and correct spelling and grammar mistakes.
  • Please list categories at the very bottom of the article, not spread among various paragraphs and sections.
  • Articles should be put in the most specific categories possible; avoid placing an article in numerous broad categories. For example, Richard Dawkins should be in category:atheists and category:biologists, not in category:people, category:atheism, category:biology, and category:scientists. Doing so aids the use of categories as a navigating tool and prevents the broader "parent" categories from becoming too inclusive and unwieldy to be useful.
  • Internal links should lead directly to the article, not a redirect.
  • Redirects are used to direct someone using the search function to the proper article. For example, someone searching for "Scientology" should be immediately redirected to the properly-named article, Church of Scientology.
  • When referencing another wiki (or any other collaborative website), please use static or diff links. Links to the more volatile "live" versions are likely to become outdated soon after linking. Diff links which are likely to be deleted, or web pages which are likely to change permanently, are best preserved by taking a screenshot.
  • External links to websites purely devoted to hate (Neo-Nazi, Christian Identity, Metapedia and so on) should be avoided per longstanding community consensus.
Proposed revamp
  • Don't link to mainpages of sites that are popularly considered white racist or white nationalist (in our mainstream culture), such as Neo-Nazi, Christian Identity, Metapedia, etc. Any links to those Caucasian racist sites or pornography, should have a warning (perhaps use a template). Islamism is fine because our readers are predominantly white and aren't likely to believe that shit. Most of us aren't offended by Zionism or American imperialism, so adding a warning there would just be... uuuh confusing.

Advice discussion

The main point of contention here is the fact that Forum:Should we link to hate sites? seems to be against final dot point. - π 07:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

That point was only added on 31st May 2010, by a user who did not discuss its inclusion beforehand, who was wrong about the reasons for such a policy, who may well have been wrong about how widely supported such a standard is, based on subsequent discussion, & might even have changed his/her own mind about it since, based on comments here. Hence I'm removing it for now. If there's enough support for such a statement, it can be added back in later. Discuss first, then make changes, is how it should work with the CS, not add things on the fly & then discuss whether or not they're supported. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk pages

Old community standards

Talk pages (including user talk as well as article talk pages) and other discussion pages, such as debates or the Saloon bar, 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 (- π 10:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)). 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.

Proposed revamp

Talk discussion

Also I have noticed that everyone is reverting talkpage comments. Has the community standards changed regarding this? - π 10:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The LJ decision allowed, in the case of trolls, reversion of talk pages for articles and our own talk pages, but not talk pages belonging to other people except in cases where existing guidelines allowed it. I'm not able to write this up now, but I can suggest some text here tomorrow. ConcernedResident omg ponies!!! 13:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
The only real decision they've made and it was a horrible one. Trolling is so subjective. Apparently, harsh criticism is also trolling. User you don't like? Trolling. Things you don't feel like responding to - trolling. The LJ gave you fascists a hammer and, surprise, everything is starting to look like a nail. This moved us more closer to CP-style censorship than ever before. You should all be ashamed. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 13:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
When did this happen? - π 14:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
RationalWiki:Loya_Jirga#Case_closed SusanG Toast 14:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Trolling is only subjective when you're an idiot. It's well defined as being 1) repetitive 2) needless and 3) direct. If I was to call, right now, Neveruse an idiotic moron (you forgot to proxy up and sign in as MC there), that wouldn't be trolling. If I did it repeatedly on this discussion and multiple pages, it would be trolling. If I directly called someone a "fat-fuck-cunt-of-a-cock-whore" on their userpage, unprovoked, it would be trolling. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 14:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
This is a non-issue. If you're taking offence at having one of your precious comments deleted, your priorities have gone mental. It just means that that person doesn't want to talk to you. It's still there in the logs for anyone who looks for it, so it hasn't been censored.-- Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 15:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
But in practice this new ruling has meant recent changes being flooded with endless reversion loops on multiple occasions. This isn't a good thing. If trolling is repetitive and needless, then how much more so is revert-warring against a troll for an hour or two? Also, if we really are adopting this, we need to decide whether users get their own choice of whether or not to revert troll comments on their user talk page (as some editors have suggested they should) or whether anybody can revert trolls on anybody else's talk page. If we leave this up to the editor whose page it is, then we need to rethink or rephrase the clause about user talk pages being community property, since we'd be giving users extra jurisdiction over their own talk page. But if we don't, it could get very annoying for an editor who is trying to get on with something elsewhere on site but bothered by constant "new messages" flash-ups because their user talk page is being used as a troll/revert battleground by other users. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)