RationalWiki:Chicken coop

From RationalWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
m (BAN MARCUS CICERO: I forgot to sign! Tish and pshaw (you're all assholes))
m (Unprotected "RationalWiki:Chicken coop": No need to over-react)

Revision as of 16:02, 3 July 2011


This page is automatically archived by Pibot
Archives for this talk page: Archive list

The chicken coop is for the avoidance, containment and resolution of cases of Headless Chicken Mode (HCM). Despite the name, this tends to be serious business.

This page can be used for reporting cases of administrative abuse (abuse of sysop or Moderator abilities such as blocking, page deletion, or user rights management), general abuse (such as trolling, wandalism, and personal attacks), and conflicts which cannot be solved through normal talk page discussion (such as longstanding edit wars or article content disputes).

Please try to resolve conflicts with other editors directly through discussion on their user talk page before reporting them at the chicken coop. If you do report an editor's behaviour here, please leave a message on their talk page to alert them to this, so that they have a chance to discuss their actions here.

All editors are welcome to comment on the cases raised here, and to try to reach a consensus on any action to be taken. If no consensus can be reached, and the HCM seems to be escalating, the case may be referred on to the Loya Jirga for further deliberation.

Contents

Mark Antony

I move that Mark Antony should be promoted from sysop back to regular editor for being an obvious and self admitted troll. He should not have been demoted in the first place, after only 7 edits and 4 hours. Those edits included an insult to Human for no apparent reason, the formation of a political party (on his second edit no less), another gratuitous insult of Human and yet another attack on Humans integrity.

Since demotion his contributions have consisted almost entirely of insulting and edit warring with Human, Marcus Cicero, announcing his retirement, and admitting that he is here to troll.

I cannot think of a more open and shut case of a guy who should lose his sysop powers.

I also think that his original demotion seriously brings into question either the competence or integrity of the person who originally demoted him, Nx. DamoHi 09:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

I cannot think of a more open and shut case of a guy who should lose his sysop powers. I can. Are we going to bring into question the competence or integrity of Human, Nutty, P-Foster, Eira, etc... as well? -- Nx / talk 09:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

And Nx, the hater with an agenda that overrides all other commentary. ħumanUser talk:Human 07:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Wow, you just had to come here and take a swipe at me and brxbrx long after the discussion was over. Who's the real hater? -- Nx / talk 07:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Never saw it before. And you named me, not me you here, so fuck off. ħumanUser talk:Human 07:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
We are currently discussing Mark Antony. Lets keep the comments germane huh. --DamoHi 09:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
This is just a Stellvertreterkrieg, so little chance of keeping it germane - as you did with your little aside: I also think that his original demotion seriously brings into question either the competence or integrity of the person who originally demoted him, Nx. larronsicut fur in nocte 09:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I have to agree... if someone wants to bring Nx to the coop, then one should bring Nx to the coop, not through one of his socks. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 10:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Again, Mark Antony is not my sock. -- Nx / talk 10:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Right... sure... anything else you want me to believe while you're at it trying to convince me that he's not your sock? Do you have a bridge that I can buy? --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 10:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Like I said, you had your chance. I have nothing to hide. -- Nx / talk 10:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Of course you don't have anything to hide... because you have server access, you could perfectly hide your tracks if you wanted to... --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 10:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh wow, you're paranoid. -- Nx / talk 10:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps, but you are worse. You are consciously aggressively hateful and unconstructive, and you use the server rights Trent gave you to fight for your causes. ħumanUser talk:Human 07:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I use it to fight for my causes, which is to make RW a better place, one where trolls like MC are not welcome, and drunken bullies like you won't drive away useful contributors. -- Nx / talk 07:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
It's worse than that: the repetitious accusations aren't even funny ;-) larronsicut fur in nocte 10:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
The fact that it's not funny anymore is precisely why it's funny! lol ... plus, Nx overreacting is pretty funny as well... --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 10:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I should make clear that I am not bringing Nx to the Coop. I am just following the procedure to get Mark Antony promoted back to regular user. I have my suspicions about who M.A is a sock of, but that is immaterial to the case of whether he should be promoted or not. DamoHi 10:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes

No

  • Because if we demote Mark Antony, then Nx will get upset about us harassing his sock. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 09:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Mark Antony is not my sock. You had a chance to see that for yourself, now shut up. -- Nx / talk 09:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Now, Eira, you've been told. Careful, Nx might 403 block your IP. (It's about the only thing he hasn't done) --Scream!! (talk) 09:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Hey, that's a great idea! -- Nx / talk 09:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Zomg, you're right... I bet if this vote actually succeeds, then he will be so upset that I pointed out his sock that he would abuse his server access to 403 me... you know, like how he deleted all the user rights, and installed checkuser... --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 10:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
It's a good idea. --85.78.55.247 (talk) 10:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Goat

Marcus Cicero and similar trolls should not gain powers. In fact, I would rather like to see them in the vandal bin (for the literalist: let's rename it trollbin - or trollandvandalbin) larronsicut fur in nocte 09:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

MC is not a troll. ħumanUser talk:Human 07:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes he is. -- Nx / talk 07:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Silly Nx, that was clearly his brother. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 13:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Then why are you abstaining? If you think that he should not have sysop powers, then you should vote for his sysop powers to be removed (am I missing something here?). --DamoHi 10:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • The coop is already defunct, and while we're still working out the details of a new moderation system, I see neither the point nor much of a chance in passing judgement in this manner. That said, It's still idiotic to resort to trolling and abuse of privileged server access just to make a point. I also don't think that MC or other trolls should be sysops, but it's not like that status helps them in being disruptive either. It's a minor issue that definitely does not warrant another HCM. Röstigraben (talk) 10:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Dismiss this nonsense already

I am amazed you people can't see that this is just an attempt by an attention starved brat to get people to notice him. There is nothing in the evidence that comes close to warranting any action from the Coop. This is just trolling from a guy with nothing better to do than throw the whole place into HCM for his own amusement. Ace or someone similar should blank the page like he did with the last ridiculous and spiteful Coop action that Damo brought (and Damo should grow up). --PsyGremlinSprich! 10:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Nx is bored. PS, Psy, are you still lying about me on your tragic blog? ħumanUser talk:Human 07:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
PS, Human, are you still spreading the lie that you were declared innocent by the mob? -- Nx / talk 07:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
At least now we know whose sock this was. And Nx, I was declared "not guilty" by a majority vote of some sort. If you disagree, you are wrong, and if you continue to insist I was not, you are a vicious liar. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Human, you ignore Nx's contention that your absolution came with a firm rebuke. Trying to make this into an either/or thing is dishonest, since the people who voted yes, no, or goat, each had their opinions and reasons for voting.--"Shut up, Brx." 04:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
And in the end I was declared "not guilty". The voting system, flawed as it was, did not allow for +.75 -.25 type votes. yes, people often gave reasons or other comments with their votes, but the votes were either "yea", "nay", or "abstain". You are simply wrong here. ħumanUser talk:Human 06:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
No. In the end the mob decided not to punish you, even though many of the "nay" voters also agreed that you were guilty. -- Nx / talk 06:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
No. You are simply wrong. I was acquitted, so no punishment was required. Your rewriting of history to fit your imaginary view is getting irritating. It's called "lying" and RW frowns upon people lying about facts. I was acquitted. Check the records. There was lots of commentary, I agree, but the votes were either "yea", "nay" or "goat". There was no provision for allowing commentary to carry any weight. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Also we are way off topic. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
The vote was whether to de-crat you, not whether you were guilty. Several of the "yea" voters cast that vote on the condition that the de-cratting not be permanent. That condition was agreed to. AD, Genghis Khant, Senator Harrison, EVDebs, Rabbitxhamster, PACODOG, Clickbot, and Lefty (roughly a quarter of the "nay" voters) stated specifically during the vote that you were guilty but should not have your rights removed. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 05:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Reckless Noise Symphony

Unilaterally blocking me, and wheel-warring when I unblock myself. Ironically, I was trying to do something constructive when he started chiming in tonight. DMorris2 (talk) 02:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

While I think there is no case as DMorris is a sysop and can unblock himself thusly, I think, should I be found in the wrong, I should be locked in a closet, tied up, and whipped in the back until I scream out "DMorris!" The Punk Symphony of Noise Your mental puke relief 02:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I haven't been watching this but here is my solution. How about RNS stops blocking DMorris, DMorris stops doing what ever it is that makes RNS want to block him and we all behave like adults for a change? - π 02:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Works for me. The Punk Symphony of Noise Your mental puke relief 02:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Except I don't see what I'm doing that makes RNS so hostile. While I don't mind an occasional joke block (that't the norm here I see), when RNS reverts my edits, bins me, blocks me, repeats the cycle over and over again, and even admits he's in the wrong, there's a problem. See this for example. As far as I'm concerned, this case can be closed as long as he's not going to continue to bully me or anyone else; no use in starting an HCM. DMorris2 (talk) 03:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I guess the joke blocks are going to just take some getting used to for me. DMorris2 (talk) 03:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I'll cease my hatefest against you. The Punk Symphony of Noise Your mental puke relief 03:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
If I had any respect for a RatWikian other than Rob, it would be you, Ty, or Human. I'm trying to find some common ground, and to be a little more constructive. DMorris2 (talk) 03:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
*feels left out*--"Shut up, Brx." 03:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
So shut up if you aren't involved/included? ħumanUser talk:Human 06:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Ace McWicked

Ace McWicked (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · vandal log · block log)

Repeatedly vandalizing my user page [1] [2] and talk page [3], deleting/hiding my comment on his talk page [4] [5] and attacking me on my talk page. -- Nx / talk 08:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I should be punished. Ace of Spades 09:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Let him dangle. Nutty Rouxnever mind 14:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
"Pistol him, pistol him!" --OompaLoompa (talk) 14:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, maybe Ace could try not doing this for a while? What do you say, Ace? TrickyDickTurpis (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you could stop trying to look like you give a fuck and know better when you're just as drunk, angry, and stupid as the rest of us. Nutty Rouxnever mind 16:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm. Maybe I could. Although right now I'm sober (check back in about 10 hours), and I'm not nearly as angry as half the people here seem to be these days (what's the deal with that anyway?). As for "stupid", well, I won't comment on that. TrickyDickTurpis (talk) 16:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
You better turn right around and check your motherfucking attitude before you set foot in this house again, mister. Nutty Rouxnever mind 16:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
You're not the boss of me, Mom! I didn't ask to be born into the website you know! TrickyDickTurpis (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
We should sacrifice him and feed him to our gods. MarcusCicero (talk) 16:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
s/gods/goats/; # FTFY -- Sunny256| 16:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to use any of the ad-hom invective that others might, but I'll just say this: it seems the best thing to do is to make sure Ace knows that he shouldn't vandalize user pages in bad faith, and consider further action if he continues. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 17:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

veterans think they can just get away with whatever they want, and they turtle up every time we try and tell one of them off. This is not your circlejerk anymore (really need to find a less antagonistic word than circle jerk...).--"Shut up, Brx." 17:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Be quiet. The grownups are talking. P-Foster (talk) 18:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Brxbrx is more mature than the "grownups" here. -- Nx / talk 18:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Agree with MM. ТyTalk. 18:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Also, using 4chan terminology here instantly loses you all credibility. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 17:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Whatever, I'll be at the pub. Ace of Spades 17:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
No point-making coop indictment will be enough. Punishment won't suffice. His rights must be removed forever and he must be driven from RationalWiki in order to make room for Brxbrx and his non-circlejerk circle jerk. Down with the veterans and their self-appointment! Rationalwiki is now a place for people who signed up a few months ago to express strong opinions about site policies, talk smack about those nasty veterans, and use the word "we" a lot. Make it so, Brxbrx. You are our only hope. Nutty Rouxnever mind 22:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Removing talk page comments that are not "obviously vile" is a breach of the community standards and editing a protected page for no purposes other than his own amusement is obvious abuse of his ability to edit protected pages. Yank his rights for three months. -- Iscariot Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012! 22:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

What would that actually achieve? €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Nothing, really. ТyTalk. 22:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
So, he should get away with it with a "eh, whatever"? Right, this is why this page, and the community standards are a joke. -- Nx / talk 06:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree. That's why this was pointless. ТyTalk. 11:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I disagree, it's another example for why we need moderators. -- Nx / talk 12:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Or at least a reason why you enjoy having unelected powers to protect your castle from edits you don't like. Nx, you really aren't thinking this through. You are the only remaining trent-empowered ubermensch, and you drag Ace to the Coop for doign something you were able to completely suppress? ħumanUser talk:Human 05:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
You really are an obnoxious idiot. They're not edits I don't like, they're vandalism, and in the case of my talk page, disruption, because he removed the lqt tag from the header. I reverted the first edit and made a sarcastic remark on Ace's talk page. I took it in good faith, in the spirit of RW, blah blah. But then he did it again and again, even after I asked him nicely to stop being an ass. And he feels this is justified because "I'm an awful person with shit for brains". This kind of abuse is why I don't feel like doing anything useful on this wiki any more. Your loss. On second thought... you don't care about the wiki, you only want to have your little playground. Fuck you. -- Nx / talk 07:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Someone that wasn't a tech user would not have been able to prevent the vandalism, and Ace should not have vandalized the page to begin with--"Shut up, Brx." 13:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
How are you disagreeing with me agreeing with you? ТyTalk. 12:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I disagree that this was pointless. -- Nx / talk 12:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Ah. ТyTalk. 13:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I dunno, seems like no big deal considering you desysopped him without discussion. Also, this place has a long-time tradition of messing with people's user pages and such. Keep in mind Trent's mantra... "it can be fixed with one click". ħumanUser talk:Human 04:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. This page is being way overused. It should be a last resort for figuring out how to handle people/situations causing serious grief to the community, not handing out weighty punishments for petty squabbles & minor transgressions. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 06:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
He vandalized my talk page and my user page repeatedly, even after I asked him to stop. And it wasn't just a joke as Human suggests. Also, his vandalism of my talk page rendered the talk page useless since it uses liquidthreads and he removed the tag to display lqt threads on it. It seems that the only reason he stopped vandalizing is that I locked the page and the talk page header at the moderator level so he couldn't edit it. -- Nx / talk 06:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Funnily enough I stopped before you locked your page. I didn't know you had locked it down. Anyway, do as you wish you mindnumbingly pedantic, asshole gouging, semen raking, ham-walleted banshee. If it makes you hard I say do it. Ace of Spades 07:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
"Funnily enough I stopped before you locked your page" - That's what he said; obviously you couldn't vandalize the page after he had locked it.
The standards will continue to be a joke until someone starts enforcing them, which I hope will be these moderators. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 11:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I protected only my user page first, then a couple hours later he vandalized my talk page header again, so I had to protect that too. So no, you only stopped because you couldn't do it any more. -- Nx / talk 12:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
So you did right thing, by taking temporary action to prevent further damage. As A.McW doesn't seem to be doing further harm now, it's probably safe to leave your page unprotected, & I see no point in reprisals unless this incident is part of a longer pattern of behaviour by Ace, which you haven't presented any evidence for. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree that any punitive action would be pointless, but I was only able to stop Ace because I am a tech user, and because we have the moderator protection level and don't have any bureaucrats. Under the old system I would've had to desysop and decrat Ace to stop him, and then this section would be titled "Nx", not "Ace McWicked". -- Nx / talk 12:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
True, so what do you suggest we do? ТyTalk. 13:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Also, without liquidthreads I wouldn't have been able to protect my talk page - the only option I'd have then is to desysop and block Ace. -- Nx / talk 12:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, you did the right thing by bringing it to the coop, then, though admittedly the effectiveness of the coop is, at best, questionable. Hopefully within the next several weeks the new system will be worked out. In the meantime, if we give Ace the benefit of the doubt that he's had his puerile fun and is done with his frotting I think it's safe to unprotect your pages. I think we can take this as a warning to Ace that "don't be a dick", while not a rule exactly, is certainly advice we should all try to heed. Wandalising others' pages can be passed off as basically harmless pranks if done once or twice, but repeatedly doing it is just obnoxious and exacerbates the already fucked up situation that has been encompassing RW for several weeks. If he does do it again, then would be the time for more concrete action. TrickyDickTurpis (talk) 13:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
1 more day until nominations... ТyTalk. 11:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

So....what the fuck? Are we done here? What is my punishment? Am I to be raped by leviathan or must I eyeball fuck somebody? Ace of Spades 04:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I think your punishment is "don't do it again". And aural sex with Karajou. TrickyDickTurpis (talk) 04:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
"aural?" like through the ears? does Karajou have big ears?--"Shut up, Brx." 04:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey, did I indicate who was pitching and who was catching in this scenario? Besides, we all know Ace likes it in the ear (unfortunately the photographic evidence seems to have disappeared). DickTurpis (talk) 05:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Don't do it again? Man, that's fucking wussy. Ace of Spades 7:24, Today (UTC+2)
Well, it's the Chicken Coop; we're basically impotent. DickTurpis (talk) 11:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Nothing learned

Apparently "don't do it again" wasn't enough of a punishment, he's done it again and again and his justification is apparently that since there's no way to enforce any kind of punishment, he can keep doing it if he wants to. -- Nx / talk 12:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Not a good example for someone who wants to be a moderator. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 12:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. I'd hate to say this, because I consider Ace a friend, but he needs to stop or some sanction needs to be imposed. This is getting old. The Punk Symphony of Noise Your mental puke relief 12:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I concur. I like Ace, but that doesn't mean he can't be a dick. He's been given a warning, and it apparently hasn't taken. However, until the moderator situation is settled we're sort of in limbo here. Nor am I completely sure what actions would be effective. Stripping him of his admin powers temporarily (or even, I guess, permanently) can't stop him from some of this behavior, though it could serve as punishment and deterrent. DickTurpis (talk) 12:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I did itto both Nx and Human because they were acting like fucking muppet, both of them. No malice was involved - just trying to lighten them both up. Might I add it appears as if Nx is stalking human around in order to insult him and carry on with his on personal vendetta? Which is worse? Me blanking a page in jest or Nx following Human around with nonstop insults? Ace of Spades 20:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Did you fuck with my user page too, you bastid? Lol, I didn't notice! I feel honored. Nx, quit whining. ħumanUser talk:Human 07:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh, it was in jest? So, when you called me an awful person with shit for brains, was that in jest too? Sorry, sometimes it's so hard to tell. And I'm not following Human around with nonstop insults, I only confront him when he's being an asshole to someone else. -- Nx / talk 20:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
No, I do in fact think you are an awful person. But no one has given you the title of policeman over what Human does and you seem to enjoy jumping on him whenever he does wrong so stop pretending you have some noble cause of protecting others. Ace of Spades 20:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
And your point is? -- Nx / talk 21:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
That blanking both your and Humans page to get you both to chill the fuck it out is nothing. And that your behaviour towards Human is arrogant, high handed and part of a personal vendetta. Ace of Spades 21:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I've asked you not to vandalize my user page repeatedly, and yet you continue to do so, so I can only assume that you're trying to provoke me - I doubt that's the best way to get me to "chill the fuck out". As for my behaviour, so what? That's not what this coop case is about. -- Nx / talk 21:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
As for my behaviour, so what? Yeah, about what I expected from you. Ace of Spades 21:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
What are you going to do about it? -- Nx / talk 21:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I can't change your behaviour, if you wanna be a dick that's your choice. I can only call it when I see it. Ace of Spades 21:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Cool. Try to do it without vandalizing my user page or talk page. -- Nx / talk 21:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Maybe. Though if somehow elected as a moderator then I will cease for good. Ace of Spades 21:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Nx vandalized my user page after Ace improved it. Nx, leave my user page the fuck alone you asshole. ħumanUser talk:Human 07:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Ace McWicked...again

For blanking an vandalising the chicken coop. Ace of Spades 07:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

meh--"Shut up, Brx." 13:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

JimJast

Making sexist remarks against Eira as well as falsifying her signature. I've desysopped him, and think it's the very least he deserves based on the false signing offense. The Punk Symphony of Noise Your mental puke relief 00:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

In defense, I offer this: One, he may have been referring to Eira's Pussy, as in the cat pictured on her user page (referred to as Eira's Pussy), and two, he may have been using Eira's signature in sort of a Ken-esque fashion. Not saying it is true, jus' saying it is possible. Aboriginal Noise Oh, you want to hit people with garbage cans? 01:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
IMO, imitating someone's signature is ok if it's done for the lulz (although I wouldn't practice this here for fear of retribution). This was not the case, though. He merely used it to address Eira. As for sexist remarks, IDK the context and I don't feel like looking at it. We do, though, hope to curb trolling with all these reforms, and Eira and JimJast were trolling each other quite a bit.--"Shut up, Brx." 01:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't seem like he was false-signing, just using her sig to address her. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 02:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
It is more the sexist remarks I am concerned about than the forgery. The Punk Symphony of Noise Your mental puke relief ĴαʊΆʃÇä₰ sysop and 'crat! (does it matter?) 02:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
But that's what you base your desysopping of him on. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 02:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC) It's too early in the morning.
If we were to pretend we'd already elected moderators, I think we can pretend that both Eira and JimJast would have been reprimanded and disciplined for trolling.--"Shut up, Brx." 03:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
False. I haven't seen any trolling from Eira in this discussion. ThunderkatzHo! 03:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Reckless Noise Symphony is no doubt an agent of Opus Dei or bankrolled by the Templeton Foundation (and probably George Soros as well). Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
You are correct, thunderkatz. I was thinking of Eira v. Maratrean. In this case, she has been civil.--"Shut up, Brx." 04:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Trolling =/= incivility. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 04:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Both links above are to things a week ago which JJ has already been told off about at the time and since (see User talk:JimJast#Some comments of yours) and I think it's fair to give him a chance to show they won't happen again rather than mete out punishment suddenly so long after the event. He wasn't signing comments as other people, just copy-pasting their signature templates when addressing them, which I've told him isn't cool & says he won't do it again. Desysoping is a pointless punishment for punishment's sake, and does not remedy or prevent either of these transgressions which did not involve sysop abilities. This is needlessly draconian & heavy-handed. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 06:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty clear from the diff link, that the signature was not "forged", but used - albeit in a very strange way - to indicate he was addressing her. It's clear that he's speaking as himself, and not as Eira. If this was the grounds for promoting him, then it needs to be reversed. In addition, as much as JimJast is annoying people, the fact remains that he's been allowed to edit here and it seems as if we're suddenly conducting a witch hunt to remove people with whom we do not agree. --PsyGremlin講話 09:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
As much as Psy seems to hate me, he's totally right here. He wasn't faking my signature, he was just using it to refer to me. (Which Weaseloid appears to have told him is a no-no.) I think the grounds for "promoting him" are based on sexist comments though. (As least I hope so.) I personally don't think JimJast should have permission to edit Essay or Mainspace, and his Essays should be deleted, because I believe that crankery shouldn't be allowed on RW without direct debate. All of our other crankery is posted with a side-by-side. P.S. Despite what I think, my opinion isn't policy, and he has his rights to edit here as well. But sexism, racism, and hate speech against homosexuals shouldn't be tolerated here. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 06:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Not you sweetheart. Just your attitude. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 12:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
The sexist comment has been given the contempt it deserves. I think that's enough without any actual punishment or loss of privileges. "Crankery shouldn't be allowed on RW without direct debate" isn't germaine to the two offences mentions (copying sigs & sexist remarks) & should probably be discussed elsewhere unless there are examples of JJ doing harm to mainspace etc. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, this is why we can't have nice things "need" the moderator class of users

People running around telling Mom about how "he's doing it again" isn't conducive to a well functioning wiki. Someone got offended, on the internet!?, gods forbid!
JJ might have been a dick. Pfft, so what?
04:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Indeed, JJ is another RW crank but he's mostly harmless. If ever there was a storm in a tea cup then this is it. Jack Hughes (talk) 11:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
People seem overzealous to use this page; even when basically nothing's going on, people get dragged here for something trivial. The Coop could & should be a useful place for settling the real HCM stuff, not for creating new HCM out of nothing. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Dismiss this

This is the end result of me listening to Ty while drunk and running on two hours of sleep over a period of 48 hours. Thus, I move to dismiss this. The Punk Symphony of Noise Your mental puke relief 10:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Listening to Ty at all is its own worst punishment. --PsyGremlinTal! 12:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Aswh1

He's a persistent vandal who was already binned back in February, yet kept using his few remaining editing opportunities to insert crap into articles. His kind of vandalism isn't always obvious from watching recent changes - he never changed major chunks of pages and usually added edit summaries to make them look like regular edits. While most of his edits were reverted immediately, some of his vandalism went unnoticed, making it necessary to regularly check his contributions. That's a lot of work just to deal with one guy who does nothing but vandalize, so I finally hit him with a three-month block in May. This block has now been lifted on grounds of being incompatible with the community standards. I realize now that the standards suggest there should be a discussion preceding long-term blocks even for obvious vandals, so I'd like to get confirmation for reinstating the three-month block. Röstigraben (talk) 06:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I would also ask for the ability to re-block for up to three months without further discussion if Aswh1 begins vandalizing again after the block expires. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 06:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Most of that looks like funny/not-unfunny vandalism rather than anything harmful. Vandal bin is fine for keeping it in check. I don't see why a long block should be necessary. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Are you volunteering yourself for putting the bell on the cat vandalism cleanup, then? Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 07:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
What're you talking about? He/she hasn't edited in seven weeks. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Being blocked prevents you from editing. -- Nx / talk 12:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I didn't check the block log before commenting. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
This is really a community standards issue. Specifically about this point. --BobSpring is sprung! 09:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
That's what I thought at first, but then I saw that the current standards do already allow for blocking vandals longer then a few hours, provided that there's been a discussion. And cases like this one are rare anyway, most vandals give up once they've been stopped from doing lots of damage in a short time. Röstigraben (talk) 09:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't see why this user is even a threat. He/she obviously has a Snarky POV , which is one of our things, & at least some of those edits could really have been incorporated rather than reverted. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but look at the log of things they've, more or less, spammed our mainspace with. I've deleted more than a few "articles" they've created that other users would've been binned for as "vandalism" or "spam". And this was after (if you look at their talkpage) I warned them numerous times. The Punk Symphony of Noise Your mental puke relief 12:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Here's the POV from the fascist who wants the trains to run on time: If he has been blocked before, and is currently vandal binned, and still carries on vandalising (note: vandalising does not mean "saying something I disagree with") then I think anybody is well within their rights to send him to the Eastern Front show the offender the door, without going this route, or an HCM. --PsyGremlin講話 12:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the synopsis of the efficient railroads-wanting fascist dictator above me. The Punk Symphony of Noise Your mental puke relief 12:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I concur with the agreement of the gentleman with interesting hair. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
So, do we need to have a formal vote on this, or can I just re-block the guy? Based on the comments, we've got three people (me included) in favor of it, one opposed, and three wo think the discussion isn't even necessary. Röstigraben (talk) 15:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
That's not very many. & I think you can add P-Foster to the list of those opposed to banning, although he hasn't commented on this page. See his comments here & here. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Rodent. I do favour long bans when people break the fourth wall and get creepy/stalkerish or for using our blog as a forum for hate speech -- but for silly wandalism, the brake is the way to go. P-Foster (talk) 17:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Alright, so that makes it six-two. Still, this is an open-and-shut case of vandalism, the user hasn't even bothered to appeal, and there's no guideline about how many editors need to participate in a discussion in order to reach a conclusion. Let's give it until tomorrow, but if there aren't enough other objections to even the tally by then, I'm going to reblock him. Röstigraben (talk) 19:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
This is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. He hasn't edited since May, and even then it's usually once every few days. He's just a low-level prankster rather than a genuine troublemaker. Click undo when he edits and move on. Real first name and last initialTalk, talk, talk skim my contributions 10:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
See above - they haven't edited since May because they have been blocked almost continuously since then (minus the wheel warring of the last three days). I think, if an editor isn't making any substantive contributions, it is fine to ban them. If they decide to come back and be constructive, there is nothing stopping them from creating a new account to do so. Zack Martin HolyMaratreanSigil.png 11:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────And if they decide to come back and continue to be a wandel, they can do THAT too. Then they will. Then we can banhammer them again. Then every wandel will become "icewedge" and we'll be overun with wandels. Let us circle the wagons now and just require "substantive contributions" from editors. That'll fix everything! 12:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Here's a novel idea: let's wait and see if they return BEFORE we block them for an extended period of time. Seriously, what places like Wikipedia don't get when they permablock vandals is that the odds of a vandal waiting out a block are very slim. Even though Aswh1 is a vandal of some kind, the fact remains that we are imposing sanctions on somebody who hasn't even been around. If we are going to do that, then I also think we should block HeartOfGold for vandalism and trolling he committed in the past but hasn't committed yet. In fact, we could call is psychic blocking! The Punk Symphony of Noise Your mental puke relief 12:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
The reason Aswh1 hasn't been around is that they've been blocked, for three months, because they kept inserting nonsense into mainspace despite being binned and warned repeatedly not to do it. Then someone decided to unblock them because of the old "we don't block vandals" bullshit. -- Nx / talk 12:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Lol, you call it "bullshit", but some of us remember the founding principles of this site. That you don't like them because they run you the wrong way does not mean you can do whatever you prefer as a psychotic tech-rights person. No, Nx, we strive to not block users at all if possible. Trent and I used to race each other to empty the "current blocks" list, and it worked well for years. Years before you joined. ħumanUser talk:Human 07:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps, but the facts remain the same. They haven't been back, and unless they return, re-blocking them for vandalism they might do on the odd chance they return after being blocked (even though they haven't returned yet) is nonsensical to me. The Punk Symphony of Noise Your mental puke relief 12:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree that reblocking is pointless unless they return, but I also think that the original block was justified and should not have been undone. -- Nx / talk 13:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh, by-the-by, I've unblocked Aswh1, in case anyone feels the need to reblock her to keep us all safe from her terrorising us all with useless wandelism. Tsk, who the fuck cares? I mean, really cares, revert and move on, (it gives teh noob's something to do). 12:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ
After further review: How's about this, we reblock infinite but sysop the guy so's he can undo it....if he's got powerz perhaps he'll go easy on us the wandelism.
I also get the feeling that Ashwh1 (is this some leetspeek for asshole?), is someone's sock, purposely wandelising to shake things up and see what the community will do.
13:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ
Meh, I'll stick to my guns here and say that, unless they return, we're making a mountain out of a molehill and should just leave the account alone until or unless other action is needed. The Punk Symphony of Noise Your mental puke relief 14:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
You've got to be kidding me. We're not only supposed not to block vandals, but should give them sysopships? Interfering with vandalism will set us on the slippery slope towards CP-style authoritarianism? Let me describe the situation again: this guy did literally nothing but spam articles with idiotic non sequiturs. He did not voice dissent, make comments or interact with anybody else in any manner. This is not a free speech issue. I blocked him because the vandal bin was not working. Having to manually check his contributions was extremely annoying, and the end result was the same as if he'd been blocked - none of his "contributions" stood, it just required more effort on the part of serious editors to get there. Why the hell should we be expected to do extra work just so a vandal is not inconvenienced? Do the community standards say anywhere that we are not allowed to block others regardless of what they're doing? So I'm going to reblock him once more, and let's switch this around: if anyone cares, I mean really cares, about this guy being unblocked, then revert, but post a coherent reason why you think the rights of vandals are more important than the time and effort of normal editors. And regarding Goonie's point - no kidding, this is indeed getting way overblown. But what's the reason for that, the understandable desire to relieve ourselves of a persistent vandal, or the repeated unilateral removal of a perfectly reasonable block without majority support? Röstigraben (talk) 14:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Röstigraben, you've been here since, what, 2009? We don't block people for simple wandalsim. That's always been how this community rolls. Why get your panties in a knot over something that can be undone with a simple click of the mowse? P-Foster (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Because it was not "a simple click of the mouse", because - as I have now explained three times - some of it was overlooked and made it necessary to regularly check this guy's back log. The fact that I haven't dragged every vandal I've encountered to the coop should be evidence enough that I also think the brake works perfectly fine for most cases, but not in this one, simple as that. I also asked for a coherent reason why I'm supposed to put in the extra effort just so this guy can keep vandalizing, not "that's how it's always been", especially when that's not even true. Check the relevant section of the Community Standards and tell me where it says that vandals are not to be blocked, ever. We're supposed to have a discussion in such cases, so that's what I started, and there's a narrow, but steady lead for the sentiment that the block is OK. And calling me a noob because I've only been here for, like two years? Seriously? Röstigraben (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
When Proxima turns up, it seems like I am the only one doing the work of checking every one of her edits. Some are good, and some are pure garbage. Yes, it's not as easy as a "mouse click" - it's work separating the wheat from the chaff. Should I block her for her awful edits so I am spared the task of maintenance? NO. I will continue to do the work I have been doing since I encountered her first article here. And why? Because some of her edits are good. I forget the topic. Oh yeah, whining about checking edits. ħumanUser talk:Human 08:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
She's not a vandal, and nobody has suggested binning her. I've got no doubt that she sincerely tries to make articles better, it's just that she's either a legasthenic or can't be bothered to pay much attention to style and spelling. I know it's frustrating to clean up after her, I've been doing the same thing. But when I'm doing it, at least I feel like I'm working with another editor, instead of against an obvious vandal. Aswh contributed exactly nothing of value, PC has brought a few good references and new points to the articles. Röstigraben (talk) 08:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
1. I wasn't calling you a noob. Just the opposite -- I was saying that as someone who's been here a long time, you should know we don't block wandals (...and that there's a difference between wandals and vandals). 2. From the community standards: ". Sysops should limit most blocks to an hour or two in case of vandalism. Blocks longer than this should be discussed first before implementing." we're discussing -- my take, we don't need to block this guy for any longer than a couple of hours. If he's not a sysop, he leaves a red exclamation mark in Recent Changes. Part of a sysop's job is to patrol those obvious edits, so if the sysops do their job, nothing will sneak through. P-Foster (talk) 15:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
OK, sorry for taking that the wrong way. What you're proposing would work, but only if people bothered to actually patrol edits by IPs or non-sysops. Unfortunately, they most often do not, and neither do I, admittedly. This guy was also low-profile and sneaky enough that not everyone was aware of his past vandalism. I usually don't check edits by named users very often, and I guess the same thing goes for most others. If something slips by, it has to be dug out of the edit history, and that work will fall on the few people who had an eye on this guy. I started this discussion because I wanted to explicitly avoid the kind of unilateral action and wheel-warring that sparks HCMs, but at some point, there needs to be a decision. Most others can't be bothered to weigh in on this, and to be honest, if I didn't have a personal responsibility in this matter, I wouldn't either. By my count, the supportive voices are still in the majority, 8-4, so it's simply unjustified to unilaterally remove the block again, as Cracker did. As I said, as soon as there's a serious argument for unblocking him, I'll be happy to oblige. If this is about revamping the Standards to either rule out long-term blocking altogether (or reserving the ability for mods, perhaps), or, on the other hand, allowing editors more discretion in this, that's something that we'd have to tackle separately. Röstigraben (talk) 15:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Alright, you've made your case. I try to patrol all the exclamation points I can. I wish more people would, too. If you hit him with a block, make sure dude can still edit his talk page so's that he can appeal our unilateral fascist undermining of his internet freedoms if he ever comes back. P-Foster (talk) 15:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I usually try to avoid editing while "under the influence", but am I correct in assuming that we have decided our vast legion of sysops should be capable of dealing with this intermittent editor? Or does he/she/it represent such an existential threat to the site that extraordinary measures and changes to our standards are necessary? --BobSpring is sprung! 21:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
But why should "our vast legion of sysops" be forced to deal with this editor? Just because of our irrational desire to not use blocking ever? Also, the answer is no, this edit, for example, was only reverted a day later. -- Nx / talk 21:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── How fucking hard is this? He's a wandal. A tedious one. Cleaning up after him is a schlepp. Block him but leave him with talkpage access. If he comes back and wants to be a good lad, unblock him. If not, well fuck him. MtDPinko Scum 21:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

But then we'd be just as bad as Conservapedia!!!!one!!! -- Nx / talk 21:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
OK, I'm not going to get into a debate about this user. But as I as I said above this might need a change in community standards and perhaps other places.--BobSpring is sprung! 21:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Then let's do that. We don't normally impose long term blocks but if you're going to make a 5 star cunt of yourself, such a block can be arranged. With a little bit of thought I'm sure we can make this RW the repressive, terrifying place it so clearly needs to be. MtDPinko Scum 21:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm with Bob The Obvious on this. And Nx is clueless about how mediawiki works, obviously, and oddly. Sysops deal with red marks, they patrol edits, its their job, not something to protect them from. ħumanUser talk:Human 08:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I'd assumed he wasn't a native English speaker. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 08:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Naw Nutty is just a bit awkward, that's all. MtDPinko Scum 08:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Check out a few of his edits, for example the one Nx linked to right above. That's clear and obvious vandalism, not the result of language difficulties. Regarding changes to the Community Standards, they already allow for longer blocks provided that there is a discussion, although they could apparently use a clarification. If that would help avoiding massive discussions and wheel wars in such clear-cut cases, I'm all for it. I just wonder whether we shouldn't postpone it until after the mod elections. Röstigraben (talk) 08:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, you've got a point. When do those elections end? Tomorrow? MtDPinko Scum 08:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Tomorrow evening 7 PM EST. I'd also be in favor of reserving the ability to block for longer than a few hours for mods, but that would probably require yet another change to user rights or something. Röstigraben (talk) 08:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I am being bullied

Armondikov and others are ganging up on me and blocking me for 3 months. I humbly request that soemthing is done about this abuse of power. This never would have happened in RWs glory days, where once this was a decent website where ideas were discussed and debated. Here is the evidence;

  1. (show/hide) 11:40, 3 July 2011 Javascap (Talk | contribs | block) blocked MarcusCicero (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 31.41 minutes (autoblock disabled) ‎ (General persecution. ) (unblock | change block)
  2. (show/hide) 11:38, 3 July 2011 MarcusCicero (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked MarcusCicero (Talk | contribs) ‎ (STOP BULLYING ME)
  3. (show/hide) 11:35, 3 July 2011 Armondikov (Talk | contribs | block) blocked MarcusCicero (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 3 months (account creation disabled) ‎ (unblock | change block)
  4. (show/hide) 11:33, 3 July 2011 MarcusCicero (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked MarcusCicero (Talk | contribs) ‎ (piss off)
  5. (show/hide) 08:57, 3 July 2011 Psygremlin (Talk | contribs | block) blocked MarcusCicero (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 3 months (account creation disabled, cannot edit own talk page) ‎ (Repeated trolling, boring repetitive reversions to his trolling) (unblock | change block) MarcusCicero (talk) 11:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Aw! Poor widdle diddums. Here's a hint: For once in your life stop acting like the pathetic wanker you are and maybe people will want to keep you around. You were blocked for your repeated trolling, reverting edits and personal attacks. --PsyGremlinTal! 11:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Counter proposal

In light of MC's continued trolling, personal attacks and reverting edits, I propose he be demoted and barred from the site. He is as big a troll as TK or Rob, both of whom have been barred from RW in the past. He only uses us for wank fodder for his trolling fantasies and so can fuck off for all I care. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 11:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

But then WELL BE LIEK CONSERVOPAEDIAAEA!!! SJ Debaser 12:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Do with him what you will. I have long ceased reading his screeds, since they only seem to add what he thinks are big fancy pompous noises. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 12:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I have stopped caring about MC so long ago, so do what you will with him. The right to dissent is not the same as the right to call other members cunts. Also, maybe I have rose-tinted glasses, but when did the use of the world cunt become acceptable on this wiki rather than being viewed as offensive? I remember the glory-days this website was far more female friendly than the 4chan outlet we are now. - π 12:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Support. I cant stand this guy. RatMaster háblame 12:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, really brave guys. Not only do you desysop me and block me for 3 months, you then proceed to carry out a trial against me without even affording me the pleasure of an opportunity to defend myself. Well done, you've once again proven that gits like Psygremlin rule the roost here and the rest of you goosestep to their whiny, insecure neurotics.
The truth is this. Pys is a needy controversialist massive twat who every month or so has a mental breakdown and sprawls his angst ridden muck on this website. He already retreated to a blog where he bitched about the politics of this site. he promised to 'leave and never come back', a promise he has broken. Now he can't handle the fact that someone is telling him the fucking obvious - that he is an attention whoring brat who deserves to be held in utter contempt. I'm not surprised that an alliance of virgins and aspies have united in trying to get rid of me. But remember this; you can never kill off an idea, and MarcusCicero is most certainly a great idea. I will NEVER leave this site. Try to ban me? Then I'll unleash a fury of shit so profound on this place that not a single one of you will ever want to post here again. Come on. I dare you. Do it. Ban me. See what happens. Cunts. 86.45.239.9 (talk) 12:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Wow, almost had me there. RatMaster háblame 13:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
See, that is why he should be blocked. - π 13:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Noooooh! Marcus is the only reason I visit this site. His wit and wisdom are like flowers among thorns. He should be free to make a fool of himself in whatever way he feels like. Steven Kavanagh (talk) 13:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
The bow is bent and drawn, make from the shaft. I bet you idiots don't even get that literary allusion. Now get out of my sight. 86.45.204.60 (talk) 13:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
You have to laugh at the maggot's logic: "I really, really hate you all, so let me troll here, otherwise I'm really going to troll you." Marcus, take a break, go for a walk, smoke a joint, throw yourself under a train. Whatever floats your boat. Just grow up. You are sad and pathetic. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 13:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Support. The guy is a cancer. He spreads and grows and so far excising him hasn't worked. We need chemo. Permaban him. Or wait for the moderators to do so, idc. Block him, block his socks, and give temporary blocks to anything that resembles him. If he were a lulzy troll, we would tolerate him. But he is only annoying, rehashing the same tired "fascist!" cry and flaming editors. He adds nothing to the site. We hold fine discussions without him, articles are created without him, all he does is cause HCM.--"Shut up, Brx." 13:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

BAN MARCUS CICERO

I don't really know who he is, but I'm sure he's a cunt. He should be enbanninated. MtDPinko Scum 15:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Well maybe you're being a bit harsh Matty. Why not check out his posting history? MtDPinko Scum 15:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support