RationalWiki talk:Community Standards

For meta-discussion on rules and guidelines see Archive1 or Archive2

For guidelines and their discussions that passed see Passed1

For guidelines and their discussions that did not pass see Superseded1

Strange Names

I propose that all names longer than 24 characters (for example) be truncated without warning.--Bob^{bing up} 15:05, 9 December 2007 (EST)

Seconded! (But 20 letters like racehorses?) Susan^{purrrrr ...} 15:13, 9 December 2007 (EST)

27. --Signed by Elassint the Great ^Hi!

I suggest 21, since it's a Fibonacci number. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 15:21, 9 December 2007 (EST)

I don't think it should go any less then 21. --Signed by Elassint the Great ^Hi! 15:22, 9 December 2007 (EST)

If that's too low, maybe 23, a prime number? --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 15:26, 9 December 2007 (EST)

That would work i guess. --Signed by Elassint the Great ^Hi! 15:28, 9 December 2007 (EST)

User:kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk actually, thats still a bit to short.

I agree as long as it's enforced by software, not by hand. I suggest 26 characters. 26 is a theologically significant number, the number of dimensions required to satisfy bosonic string theory. --Jeєv☭s^{Your signature uses all my CPU time...} 15:47, 9 December 2007 (EST)

I propose that we require user names to have a minimum of 17 characters. human 16:27, 9 December 2007 (EST)

I propose that usernames should not be allowed if they do not interfere with the wiki-markup in some way. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

Shootings on WIGO

It is a fact that CP is going to make hay over any school (or out of school) shootings that are going to happen from time to time. Harping on this fact in WIGO, I sense, is liable to be counter-productive to RW in the long haul. So, I'd like to propose that reaction of CP reaction of such stories be limited in WIGO. CЯacke® 16:17, 10 December 2007

Please Discuss

I basically agree. It's hard to make any comment on these things without virtually doing the same thing - trying to make political hay, even if second hand. human 18:04, 10 December 2007 (EST)

I agree that continued posting in WIGO is unnecessary, but I think there's value in keeping track of the CP reaction to those events, if nothing else to document the sheer number of times that the political cheap shot card is played. Maybe they could go on their own special cheap shot page separate from WIGO. I guess it could be argued that RW would be playing the second-hand cheap shot card too by just having that page, but it'd do a better job of showing CP's mentality about this sort of thing than a bunch of WIGO posts.--Bayes^update 16:25, 7 January 2008 (EST)

How about a classy article on the topic, written when there are none of these killings in the news? human 16:48, 7 January 2008 (EST)

That would increase our total number of classy articles to 1, up from the current total of zero. I don't know if I'm prepared for that yet.--Bayes^update 16:56, 7 January 2008 (EST)

Another bit about online communities

Meatball Wiki [1]. Right now, its downish (can still poke about it in google cache [2] [3] etc... ah ha! the one I was looking for [4] given the retirement template). Googlecache is rather inelegant, but it works. Once its up again I strongly recommend people to browse it - there are many gems hidden in there that are useful to read in understanding what is going on here and there. --Shagie 18:08, 14 December 2007 (EST)

Was downish when I looked then. Is nice and happy now. Here are the refs I linked to above - http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?GodKing http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?WikiLifeCycle and for those putting retired on their page http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?GoodBye --Shagie 04:48, 15 December 2007 (EST)

New sysop guide

I just started a rough version of RationalWiki:Sysop_guide. Please to all and sundry to make it a mob project and not just "my" ideas. human 18:21, 20 December 2007 (EST)

Added some at my user page for discussion

Please discuss there, since they're a couple different guidelines, and then if any one seems workable we'll move them over here. The link is user:AmesG/wikilawyering.-αmεσ (ninja) 02:00, 23 December 2007 (EST)

Premature archiving? Naw, no one but me does that, right? --TK_/MyTalk 02:13, 23 December 2007 (EST)

See? THIS is trolling. I archived everything OLDER THAN 19 NOVEMBER. Chill. Do you remember the conditions of your ban being lifted? I think another 1 day may be in order soon... technically you've already used your second 1-day fibonnaci block, but, maybe we should have mercy.-αmεσ (ninja) 02:16, 23 December 2007 (EST)

Since the earlier ban (thanks for using the right term, instead of block) wasn't legal under RW Community Standards, your attached conditions have no weight or value. You, like Andy, another Lawyer, just like to intimidate. Some of those discussions, like the ones about check user, shouldn't be pushed aside, without good reason, is what I was saying, and some, I am sure, have been gone, or missed the later November discussions. Think of this as me trying to point out, when to archive is subjective, so bashing people for it, really isn't living up to the spirit here, eh? Pity you consider any disagreement from anyone you hate, to be trolling. Human, as a Bureaucrat, isn't trolling posting on my page, about something there is ample proof to support, his mis-stating my intentions, eh? You just go ahead and block away, Ames. Keep calling me names. Every time you do that, it only diminishes you (and RW), not me. --TK_/MyTalk 02:25, 23 December 2007 (EST)

Still going at it, eh guys...

Premature archiving? Naw, no one but me does that, right? TK, that is sort of similar to the snarky comments that you often receive and are irritated by. It could be interpreted as an unhelpful comment and a veiled accusation. Now I don't think it was, and I'm not accusing you of such! Personally I think AmesG overreacted a bit, there wasn't really a reason to accuse you of trolling. But on the other hand, TK you also seem to... overreact a bit to these sort of commments sometimes. It's understandable due to bad past experiences with editors here, you feel a lot of comments are made out of spite... but you take a lot of things as insults that might normally be brushed off. Not that you should have to, but these things really don't matter all that much, and for the sake of moving on...

And I know everyone can point to a previous edit or comment and say "There, look what they did, I was justified". Or they can say "I know from emails and past discussions that they are really like this". And I know that this stance seems infinitely reasonable and rational to the person doing so, considering the circumstances, the history, emails, discussions, etc, etc... but none of that is helping!

I'll be blunt - but I'll also assume the benefit of the doubt.

TK, please stop acting like a martyr. Not everyone likes you, but that doesn't mean they don't want to move on as well. AmesG, Human, whoever else... please stop treating TK like a prisoner on parole. Not everyone doesn't like him, and he wants to move on as much as you do.

Does everybody hate me yet? Uchiha^KATON! 03:20, 23 December 2007 (EST)

Thanks for the effort, Uchiha, I over-reacted, as you said. Sometimes it's hard to discern the innocent from the nefarious. I am totally okay with the above being nuked. --TK_/MyTalk 03:44, 23 December 2007 (EST)

Mainspace articles

I have changed our mainspace article description from "any topic" to the mission statement. Please revert me if you think this is a mistake.--Bob^{bing up} 14:37, 7 January 2008 (EST)

Looked good to me, so I whitewashed it for ya. human 15:46, 7 January 2008 (EST)

Additions without community discussion......

I noticed that the following changes have been made without discussion, by administrative fiat:

"In egregious cases, some users may be subjected to an accelerated block policy, but only upon agreement of most of the sysops." was added here by AmesG, apparently in a bid to silence anyone some admins do not like.

And here Point number three was "amended" and the new text I have put in italics: "Personal information about other users that is not volunteered by that user should not be posted on this site. This includes IP addresses, and even where an IP address is volunteered, discussion of the user's geographical location, place of employment, or other private information (even if publicly available) is frowned upon."'

While I agree with the addition about personal information, I do not agree that it is in the best interests of RW to allow major changes to blocking policy to be made without community discussion, which seems to me to be the hallmark of RW from the very start. Many of us who can never agree on anything political do agree that this blocking business is getting more and more punitive and subjective. Others, members of the administrators seem to be moving more and more toward a totalitarian outlook to silence anyone they don't agree with. I wonder if all the members of this community really want to cede that much authority to the janitors? And don't our rules demand changes in community standards at least be discussed before major changes are made? Are we going to be told no major changes have been made? Shouldn't the revised passages at least be removed pending discussion? --TK_/MyTalk^{"Lowly" editor} 22:15, 14 January 2008 (EST)

Perhaps the first new edit should be removed pending discussion, however I feel that the second is just making things a bit more specific and not actually adding anything new, and therefore should stay. Just my 2 cents. Pinto's5150 ^Talk 22:19, 14 January 2008 (EST)

I totally agree with adding the more detailed information about personal information, Locke. However, policy should be adhered to in all cases, no? Without a proposal to change, discussion and community agreement, doesn't that bring Rational Wiki down to being like Conservapedia? I have said mostly in jest that some Admins are beginning to act more and more like Andy, but things done like this make it seem like its coming true. What is so different about here if we allow administrators to change the rules to make it easier for them to block members of the community? Isn't this place supposed to be about being tolerant? Tolerant even when we 100% disagree and hate what is being said? If this is where things are going, and Bureaucrats are fine with acting like Andy, they might as well shut this place done, IMO. --TK_/MyTalk^{"Lowly" editor} 22:26, 14 January 2008 (EST)

So Vote!

Apologies, I considered the first (no private information) to be agreed upon; I also considered the second (special block sequence) de facto agreed upon, and a mere codification of what you're already subjected to, TK, but it might be best to leave that unwritten. The diff is this, I'll remove until discussion is complete.-αmεσ (ninja) 23:55, 14 January 2008 (EST)

What I am already subjected to was implemented, like these changes, AmesG, by you. Not by the Community. I am not the Community. You are not the Community. Everyone together, deciding is. The whole point, if one reads the history of RW, was to avoid the crazy-ass blocking and arbitrary running off of people. Supposedly this was of great importance, and debated at great length when RW 2.0 came along. Supposedly the users here wanted absolutely no blocking that even smacked at how they do at CP. I can understand draconian blocking for outright vandals, but to block a user simply because some hate them, is really anti-intellectual bullshit. --TK_/MyTalk^{"Lowly" editor} 01:41, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Nice, I am now prevented from editing or voting. Good work! --TK_/MyTalk^{"Lowly" editor} 00:21, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Uh... I don't follow.-αmεσ (ninja)

Read the history...I detect some wiki glitch. --TK_/MyTalk^{"Lowly" editor} 00:26, 15 January 2008 (EST)

That was weird to say the least. Pinto's5150 ^Talk 00:28, 15 January 2008 (EST)

o_0 This is fucking bizarre...!! Uchiha^KATON! 00:33, 15 January 2008 (EST) (P.S. I reverted myself to avoid totally wamboozling the page)

TK, it's sweet of you to blame us, but it's not our fault. I've added your votes as I saw them in wikihistory. Try restarting your computer...-αmεσ (ninja) 00:36, 15 January 2008 (EST)

It's not just TK having problems, look at what happened when Uchiha tried to edit the page. Pinto's5150 ^Talk 00:38, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Ames, btw, reading from the page history TK attempting to add an "Aye" vote (correct me if I'm wrong though). Uchiha^KATON! 00:44, 15 January 2008 (EST)

But only "aye" to privacy.-αmεσ (ninja) 00:45, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Ah, ok... So... I'll put that one back then? Uchiha^KATON! 00:47, 15 January 2008 (EST)

My votes have been added correctly, thanks for doing it! AmesG--can you at least admit your own bias? I never blamed "anyone", and in point of fact said I detected some unknown wiki glitch. "Good work" was only me alluding to stupid wikimedia....sorry my comment was taken for something it wasn't, all. --TK_/MyTalk^{"Lowly" editor} 01:39, 15 January 2008 (EST)

I added the privacy issue; I consider the blocking policy addition DOA.-αmεσ (ninja) 12:27, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Privacy

Aye αmεσ (ninja)

Aye Pinto's5150 ^Talk

Aye --TK_/MyTalk^{"Lowly" editor} 03:34, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Aye Genghis ^{Does this really need to be voted on?} 02:23, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Aye --Bob^{bing up} 03:16, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Aye -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 04:56, 15 January 2008 (EST)

No/nay (unanimity is boring, isn't it?) Ed @^{but not the Poor one!} 06:10, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Aye --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 06:16, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Yarr --NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 06:52, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Aye -- Edgerunner76

Aye -- People don't necessarily know their IP tells where they live. human

Block Sequence

Aye αmεσ (ninja)

Undecided Pinto's5150 ^Talk

Nay --TK_/MyTalk^{"Lowly" editor}

Aye Genghis ^{De facto policy} 02:24, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Nay should be: "In egregious cases, some users may be subjected to an accelerated block policy at sysop discretion." If people feel they are being badly treated they can complain publicly at at RationalWiki:Administrative Abuse--Bob^{bing up} 04:50, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Neigh Hark! I hear horses approaching! -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 04:57, 15 January 2008 (EST)

No (sorry I don't understand this ayenay archaic english). We are RW after all. Ed @^{but not the Poor one!} 06:09, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Nay, prefer Bob_M's version. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 06:17, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Nay --NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 06:53, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Aye -- Edgerunner76

Neutral for now. We already leap from hours to days if we feel it is justified, and at the day rate, blocks get long fast. If this "policy" is not clear, then I vote Aye to make it clear. human

Apathetic Voters

Meh Voting is just so very hard. ^{— Unsigned, by: Radioactive afikomen / talk / contribs}

Me too - living in two countries, haven't voted in either since 2002 or 2003. Ed @^{but not the Poor one!} 06:12, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Goat --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 06:17, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Diebold stole my vote and fed it to the goat.human

Indifferently apathetic on block issue as it doesn't really seem to add anything.--Bob^{bing up} 12:14, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Death of TK

Moved to RationalWiki talk:Community Standards/TK.-αmεσ (ninja) 12:34, 16 January 2008 (EST)

Don't forget to go there and click on "observe" if you want to continue to follow the discussion. human 12:41, 16 January 2008 (EST)

Indeed! Further discussion of the action should be had on that page; however, I anticipate that we should probably refine our bannination standards, in the wake of that massive failure, on this page-αmεσ (ninja) 12:42, 16 January 2008 (EST)

Learning from our Mistakes

First, this is an extremely important landmark for us. TK is the first real dissent or user problem that this Wiki has ever had, and it's very important that we manage this well, and enunciate our principles clearly and strongly, balancing our own protection against our commitment to tolerance, equality, and other good liberal virtues. Currently, I believe we've reached the right decision, but we need to all agree, and we need to know why we agree.

Whether and how we deal with persistent abuse and trolling goes to our most basic principles. We've committed ourselves to tolerance and courtesty, as a result of our negative experience at Conservapedia, and vowed not to make their mistakes. One of our early statements of these principles was to disavow permanent bans, since we view these actions, in general, as manifestations of everything wrong with Conservapedia. In dealing with TK, we have to come to terms with both our general princple of tolerance, and the outgrowth of that principle, the injunction against permabans.

Clearly, infinite-banning TK goes against our "no permanent ban" idea, but I don't think that's the end of the inquiry. If we adhere blindly to "no permanent ban," I think we tie our hands. Clearly there are times when a permanent ban would be justified; persistent, non-funny vandalism (say, by a neo-Nazi, as we've had beffore), would be cause enough, since the only reason our "no permanent ban" idea works lately is that vandals go away. But suppose they didn't; I doubt many would disagree with a permanent ban in that case. To force ourselves to turn the other cheek, would be to let our reason for being eviscerate our... being. I don't think we can blindly follow "no permanent ban."

But, I do think it's acceptable and reconcilable with the spirit of the Wiki to allow permanent bans in exceedingly rare circumstances. I see "no permanent bans" as an iteration of the deeply-rooted RationalWiki policy of courtesy, respect, and second chances. So, let's look higher up the funnel of abstraction: will there ever be cases where a permanent ban will not violate our principles of respect?

I think the answer is yes, although the examples will be rare. Assume a neo-Nazi who, banned for days and days at a time, keeps coming back. He has to be done away with permanently. Assume a user who harrasses and threatens users in public and privately, seeking to divide the Wiki against itself, who, after repeated warnings, keeps coming back. I think that's justified, and in fact mandated. This is to say, in short, that tolerance and courtesy only mean tolerance and courtesy so long as no objective cause to the contrary exists: if there's an objective reason for kicking a user, for endangering our ethics and mission, and the mob rallies around it, I think a permaban is fine.-αmεσ (ninja) 13:26, 16 January 2008 (EST)

I think it's moot - a one year block, say, is almost the same as "permanent". Especially since that is longer than the wiki has even existed. Heck, even a one month block creates a lot of breathing room. So "no permanent bans" is a fig leaf if we do occasionally resort to very long blocks. So to me, the question is more like "How long and for what might we permit "long" block periods?". Alternatively, "What are the criteria for shifting up time periods in the Fibonacci sequence? (IE, hours to days, days to months, months to years)" Just my .02 human 14:08, 16 January 2008 (EST)

That is correct; however, there is a significant symbolic difference between even a maximum-length temporary ban (however long that is) and a permanent one. Even though functionally they may be the same, the latter sends a much stronger message. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 14:18, 16 January 2008 (EST)

I've been looking over TK's contributions and he definately comes off as the (not so)master manipulator. I, however, had been having the "we're as bad as CP" feeling, but just looking at how much more discussion we've put into this than the CPers ever would makes me feel that we have done the right thing. --PROMHQEUS ^{- FORETHOUGHT} 14:18, 16 January 2008 (EST)

Crisis of the Mobocracy

Are we having one? What should be done to fix it?-αmεσ (ninja) 13:35, 16 January 2008 (EST)

Are we having one? Yes. TK's banning - which seemed to be justified in the most part to things going on "behind the scenes" that the rest of us had to take others at their word at speaks to a new phase in RW's evolution and a definite shift in the way things are done around here. I still maintain the TK being difficult of the talk pages is less of an issue than the Metapedia crowd - or people who keep coming back to the libertarian and NWO pages to fuck with our content. What should be done to fix it? I dunno - admit we're fucking up and find a way to make this place fun again. I know that aside from this, I'm staying away from RW's internal politics and trying to concentrate on what brought me here in the first place; goats and making fun of Schlafly. PFoster 13:41, 16 January 2008 (EST)

Actually, the nazi and GW and NWO vandals are easy to deal with - about four clicks and the junk is gone, along with whatever rude user name they rode in on. A divisive editor rucking up things on talk pages is more difficult. The "fun quotient" here has almost paralleled TK's activity level for ages - at least, from how I see it. That might be a made up "Human Statistic" so take it with a grain of salt! human 14:11, 16 January 2008 (EST)

The mobocracy most certainly has a crisis. As I see it, it has revealed itself to be an anarchy - and I'm not talking about the cool and revolutionary type, or even the nice and cuddly peaceful and utopian type, but just the embarrasingly inefficient and indecisive kind. Basically, we've been pussyfooting around the TK issue on and off for over six months, and then when things finally come to a head, the best thing we can do is run the most chaotic voting process I've ever seen. Clearly, none of this is ideal, so I think it's obvious that we need to drop the mobocracy in favour of clearly documented and legitimized rules and processes for handling these matters. I also think it's important that we don't just rush into this, but rather take the time necessary to discuss and work these things out. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 14:27, 16 January 2008 (EST)