Lumeniki talk:Community Standards

From Lumeniki
Jump to: navigation, search

Voting (comments) eeearrrum clarifications if I may, Sir[edit]

Due to the problem of sock puppetry the voters must be identified with picture ID or the votes are weighted according to lumenist clout, unless the Goblin Takeover occurs sooner. The Lumeniki1 wikiforum is a interim meritocracy until Lumeniki can be established by technocracy (goblins) or meritocracy (lumenikilu policies).

So you are saying we don't get a say so in the community standards? Pi 01:44, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
Not saying that. sympathy vampire 20:56, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
You mean you don't intend to allow the users to decide all site policies by voting for them?--Hitman 08:24, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
Not saying that. sympathy vampire 20:56, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
This is clearly unlumenocratic. I am hoping we will not need to use force and that this will be a peaceful revolumenation, but we are ready to fight for our basic lumen rights. Lumenous 17:13, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
How is this unlumenocratic? sympathy vampire 20:56, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
What will you fight with? sympathy vampire 20:56, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Vote enforcement[edit]

We need scripts to be able to implement this. There is only one bureaucrat and they are not technically inclined. sympathy vampire 16:53, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

That can be easily rectified. Lumenous 17:09, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
Can this be rectified without that Lumenos' consent? ~ parasitic techni-phobe attempting-to-be-bureaucratic moderator 07:30, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Commenting or signing in articles[edit]

What about this page?[edit]

Shouldn't we move this to the talk page since we are commenting on it? meme contractor 21:11, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

This is not an article. Lumenous 21:15, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Identifying comments[edit]

Is there any more to identifying comments than the MediaWiki signature, or that it might be written in the first person form?

Should we comment in articles?[edit]

Should we comment in articles, or do we just not sign our "comments" and make them look "encyclopedic" (without sources)? The Managment 01:32, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

  • Yea (meaning we should provide sources, if we don't have a more original source we should sign our claim which may make it appear to be a comment, or it could intend to be a comment. But we don't have to sign every unsourced claim unless it is something important.): The Managment 01:32, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
  • Nay That would be an incomprehensible mess of opinions. Your sarcastic veiled criticism of RationalWiki's articles is also noted. Lumenous 09:50, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
Comment on the vote resnark remark: Veiled criticism? Do you know of a wiki that isn't full of unsourced/unsigned content? If they enforced signatures when reliable sources are not provided at Wikipedia, I'd say it would be highly more accurate wiki. ~ parasitic techni-phobe attempting-to-be-bureaucratic moderator 07:39, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Enforcement or meaning[edit]

If we wish to honor the vote we will:

  • Put it on this Community Standards page and follow our own "standard" (obviously).
  • Move comments found in articles to talk pages?
  • Yea:
  • Nay:
  • Comment: I probably don't mind others doing this in most cases. I might move a few if there seems to be a need. The Managment 01:32, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Enforcement against editors[edit]

(Besides suggesting it) do we attempt to deter rouge lumenati from blemishing our articles with comments? If so, would the appropriate techniques include:

  • Blocking:
  • NAY!!!!:
  • YAY:
  • Blocking may become necessary, but only as a last measure. Lumenous 09:58, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
But if you have a foe who knows, don't you have to resort to range blocks if they persist? ~ parasitic techni-phobe attempting-to-be-bureaucratic moderator 07:46, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
  • Page protection:
  • NAY!!!!:
  • Yea: If it is like really bad/vandalism otherwise maybe relocate somewhere in "article". Related question: Does "Lumeniki" have "articles" as you know them? The Managment 01:32, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Import Community Standards from RationalWiki[edit]

Would it be easier if we just import the Community Standards page from RationalWiki? Why don't you start with that one and remove anything you don't like from it? founder/parasite 12:23, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Or from CP --Ostrum 17:25, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
You don't actually like many of those rules do you? How about starting with chunks of Wikipedia's policies? ~ parasitic techni-phobe attempting-to-be-bureaucratic moderator 07:25, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

"Hijacking" Recent Changes[edit]

A proposal that there shall be no specific rule against "hijacking" (spamming) Recent Changes, but that this would regulated by:

  • The propAd ("spam") policy.
  • An etiquette policy on making the first edit right so it doesn't have to be corrected.
  • Lumeniki inclusion policy. So long as the subject is otherwise lumenotable and lumevolent, I see no reason to make a specific rule against hijacking Recent Changes.

sympathy vampire 09:05, July 1, 2010 (UTC)