RationalWiki:Chicken coop

From RationalWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Brxbrx)
m (Protected "RationalWiki:Chicken coop": Pointless bikering about nothing ([edit=moderator] (indefinite) [move=moderator] (indefinite)))

Revision as of 01:33, 10 August 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 moderators are expected to take some action.

Contents

Marcus again

Complaint and discussion

Despite his one month ban, I see he is still trolling and still adding his filth to the site.[1][2]

He has shown no remorse for his actions and continues to use RW as his own little sandbox.

I propose that his ban be increased to infinite, with the same to apply to all IP edits he makes and all posts made by him are to be reverted immediately. He has shown he cares nothing for RW, why should we care about him? PsyGremlinSermā! 14:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I was about to bring this up over at the mod's page, but probably best to do it here. An infinite ban will generate epic debate, and I think it says as much about us an our inability to not feed the troll as it does about Marcus and what a horrible person he is. While I reserve judgement about infinitely banning MC until there's been some discussion, I think we're gonna have to live with the anonymous edits -- infinitely banning ips won't fly, and shouldn't. Years ago, when some TOR troll was going nuts, I suggested getting rid of ip editing altogether and was pretty much shot down. That would make the present situation a little easier to deal with. But permabanning ips is a step closer to range blocks. No way. P-FosterThe Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire. Discuss. Moderator 14:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
(EC) Infinite bans on his IPs will do us no good, he can just reset his modem and come back with a new IP. Just revert and block for an hour or so. -- Nx / talk 14:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I'd say just revert and ignore. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 14:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Of course, we shouldn't be infinibanning IPs. I do think that we should ban him forever, though. I guess he can keep up the random IP abuse like any vandal might - we have to put up a few of those already. But how entertaining can it be when we just revert it and block for three days each time? It's not hard to reset your modem, but after the tenth time maybe he'll realize how pathetic he's gotten.
Ban him forever, block his IPs, wait for him to get bored.--ADtalkModerator 14:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
The behavior under discussion.--ADtalkModerator 14:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Then his account, at least, should be permanently banned. Or for 2 years, under the TK protocol. PsyGremlinHable! 14:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I'd hate to start this whole debate up again, but I figured I'd state the obvious here: just ignore the bastard. That way, no blocks are needed, he doesn't get the attention he doesn't deserve, and we don't even have to revert him. Just ignore the bastard. Trust me. Thank you for your time. The Spikey Punk I'm punking my punk! 14:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
With all due respect, you're not the one being called a racist cunt. PsyGremlinTal! 14:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, DFTT doesn't work, never has. -- Nx / talk 15:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
TK protocol indeed. TK was actively plotting with numerous people to destroy this site from inside and out. He lived and breathed hatred for us. MC, not so much. So MC gets off on pushing buttons. I'm sorry he found Psy's. Psy's obviously not racist against black Africans. We knew that. But he's a horrible bigot against New Zealanders and Texas and that's unforgivable. Let's come up with a policy that anything remotely obnoxious can be reverted on sight, including posts from people who took the bait and got their buttons pushed. We will never succeed in banning MC from RW and even attempting it's only going to make things worse. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 16:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
No one is proposing that. This proposal is barely even a change - we're just extending his block, because even while temporarily blocked he kept up his behavior.
The fact that anyone even opposes this is frankly pretty mysterious to me. I mean, the community blocks him for a month, and he spends that month putting long tirades of abuse on people's talk pages and telling the Saloon Bar "FUCK YOU ALL"... and people think there should be no consequences?--ADtalkModerator 01:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
We started doing this because that approach doesn't work. Seriously.
2 years, I agree. It feels tiresome, but I guess we should vote. Let's make it fast unless there's opposition so this doesn't drag out again.
Proposed: that MC's ban be extended to two years, and his further IP edits be reverted and blocked for a day each time. Vote to run one day, simple majority, three-week-established users eligible. Any objections?--ADtalkModerator 14:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
A day is too short (not for the blocks, for the vote). Also, should be announced on intercom. -- Nx / talk 15:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I have doubled the time for the vote. Adding it to the intercom is a good suggestion, I'll do that.--ADtalkModerator 15:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I object, but I'll take my objections to the ballot box. The Spikey Punk I'm punking my punk! 14:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Agree. PsyGremlinSpeak! 14:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I concur with RSN, the only reason DFTT doesn't work is because people insist on feeding them titbits. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD memberModerator 15:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I wrote this in response to WfG's vote, but Genghis insist I don't reply in the voting section:

But that's exactly what we're voting on: revert and move on. We need this vote, otherwise every time we'll have a HCM over whether we should revert his comments or not. -- Nx / talk 19:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Let the "vote" run a week at least. That way all the kangaroos can chime in. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

That's about the only thing I agree with on this page, Human. Good call. Some of my good friends are among them so I regret saying that people who let MC get their goat aren't doing it right. You've got thinner skin than the fat atheists objecting to Ken's wise observations about the causal relationship between atheism and obesity, lesbianism, murder, communism, pederasty, mental retardation, and suicide. A community ban might work with someone who doesn't have a 4 year history of IP editing, who you can trust to honor the community's wishes, and who hasn't expressly said he has no intention of going quietly. It's not going to work with Marcus. You guys are only making things worse for yourselves; he'll continue making good sport of some of you and you know it. He correctly judged that he could get the community to go apeshit over a small number of edits, perhaps because everyone's still got sore nerves from May. If nothing else, this mob is predictable in that regard. I'm awfully sorry you guys aren't instead discussing a policy permitting users to immediately remove disruptive comments. Aside from stuff that gets you all into such a lather, which may or not even be a substantial proportion of what he does here, I view Marcus as a complicated and conflicted delight and I'll miss him popping up. Too bad you can't ask this mob to slow down and do some real cost benefit analysis after the snownall gets rolling like this. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 14:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm awfully sorry you guys aren't instead discussing a policy permitting users to immediately remove disruptive comments We already have the LJ's decision, look how much good that has done us. -- Nx / talk 06:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's just go ahead and let everyone draft up a list of everyone they want to be permabanned, and get this all over with, rather than dragging this out. If we ban everyone who is offensive to someone (or even everyone) we are only silencing ourselves. When the whole reorg crap was going on, MC was constantly expressing serious worry that the new rules were going to make him the first target of a coordinated plan to kick out all the trolls. Congratulations everyone, you've made MC right. When MC receives his permaban (or 2 year ban, which is like a 50 year sentence on the intarwebs) it will now become acceptable for RW to ban people whose speech people don't like. We will become an oppressive authoritarian community, from whom your opinions must all be filtered lest the thought police throw you in jail to rot. "When they came from MC, I didn't care, because I wasn't a troll..." --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 21:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Free speech doesn't mean "I can say whatever I want whenever I want and damn how it makes anyone feel." Communities have standards for what is appropriate when. This is why you don't ask Granny to fuckin' pass you the goddamn peas you old bitch at Thanksgiving, even if you hate her. This is why you don't tell your friend that her teenage daughter is a hot little piece of ass. Look at some of the incredibly foul, misogynistic and racist language that MC used with virtually every edit he's made here recently, and ask yourself if that kind of abusive behavior is something that we should welcome. P-FosterThe Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire. Discuss. Moderator 22:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Actually, it does, really. So MC called PG a "racist". Aw, poor PG. Get the fuck over it, PG, no one is honoring MC's naughty little post by believing it. However, PG, I do believe you are a lame ass nasty cunt, for your hate speech you spew on you blog about me. See how this works, P-Foster? PG is making a "complaint", yet impugns the honor of board members on his personal hate site uninterrupted. PG should be blocked for two years and MC welcomed with open arms. I will unblock MC until you strip me of the right, and then appeal to the Modernators. ħumanUser talk:Human 06:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Eira, have you ever considered setting up a Rationalwiki Tea Party? You have the same fear of creeping control that the TP has. "Today they're banning assault rifles with extended mags and grenade launchers, but tomorrow it'll be handguns". "Today they're banning self-acknowledged troll MC who's had more chances than a cat has lives, but tomorrow it'll be an honest member who swears". EddyP Great King! Disaster! 22:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I've already seen certain people, who hate other people, bring frivolous issues to the coop calling for bans or whatever. Honestly, if all you fucking assholes kick MC, I might just pick up the mantle and make a shit fest over it. If you want to call me a fucking "Tea Party" activist for wanting to protect free speech, then go fuck yourself. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 22:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)4
Do you mean to say that you don't think there's a difference between free speech and simple trolling? EddyP Great King! Disaster! 22:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Did you read my quote below? Freedom speech can either be free, or we muzzle trolls. If we muzzle people just because they're being offensive, then that's not free speech. Can free speech be abused? Yes, it can be, but we cannot stop the abuse without stopping the genuine rights to free speech. Poe's Law applies analogously to distinguishing between "simple trolling" and honest social commentary. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 06:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Actually, free speech DOES mean "I can say whatever I want whenever I want and damn how it makes anyone feel." (Excepting: calls for immediate lawless action, and false defamatory statements.) However, subsets of communities have expected social mores about what may be said and what may not be said. If I told my Granny to "pass the fucking goddamn peas you old bitch." Sure she might be upset, and I might never attend another family dinner, but I can't be put in fucking jail for it. Don't like MC? Don't play. Simply revert, and move on. Ignore him. Banning him for 2 years is over-punishing him. (And did you ever think that maybe the escalation in his vitriol is proportional to the escalation in punishments that you all are handing out?) --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 22:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Jebus, a troll gets banned and all of a sudden we're paraphrasing quotes from the founding fathers and the Holocaust? Really? I'm tempted to make an MC script that spams everyone's talk page with "ASPIE FASCIST AUTHORITARIAN CUNT CUNTY CUNT I TROLL U LOLOLOL!!!" and then whine about fascism and "OH NOEZ JUST LIKE CP!!! U CANT BAN MEEE!" when I inevitably get cooped. Free speech, yo. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
"Don't feed the bots!" ~ Kupochama[1][2] 22:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
ECAll I want to do is what Granny would do; not let him into the house for dinner because of what he did. Nobody wants to put him in jail, that's being over dramatic and you know it. We have standards. He doesn't respect them. Why tolerate his fundamental disrespect. Let him go play on 4chan with all the other sulking loners. P-FosterThe Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire. Discuss. Moderator 22:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Because banning him won't solve anything, and you all already have evidence of this. What did your 1 month or whatever it is ban accomplish? You got him to switch to BoNs, and then rotating IPs. Congratulations. MC is invested here, and he's not going to just walk away because we ban him. Your "average" troll will get bored and stop poking at things, but MC isn't the average troll. He's a house-hold name here, and he's being treated like a celebrity with this whole affair. OF COURSE he has come back and ban-evaded...
And now, we're essentially holding a trial in absentia for him, because he can't comment on this page and provide defense. With people above calling for "TK protocols", since when did we ever try to emulate CP's blocking strategy? Oh that's right... when all this became SRS BZNS! Have you noticed that I haven't been around? Have you noticed that I resigned from the Board? It's because this wiki is full of petty people seeking to erect an authoritarian structure on this wiki. We were running a social experiment, that authority should always be defied, and MC exemplified this. And now that the whole mind of the wiki has changed, and we've embraced this "we can censor our wiki!" attitude, so of course MC as the pillar of antiestablishmentarianism on RW is the first to fall. I stepped away from the wiki so that I could de-stress, because all the bullshit here had me depressed... and this whole kangaroo court action here is exactly a perfect crystallization of everything that I hate about what the wiki is turning into.
I frankly expect Psygremlin (or someone else; he just already hates me) will soon throw a shit fit and call for me to be blocked... you know, because I'm the pedantic bitch who refuses to sit down and be silent and eat the bullshit that others set in front of me, even if they do say it's filet mignon. Fuck you all, this is bullshit, it smells like bullshit, and it looks like bullshit. Muzzling people on this wiki was never the modus de operandi before... --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 06:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Of course banning his main account won't solve anything. Reverting his IP comments will starve him of the attention and drama he craves. -- Nx / talk 06:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Oh fuck off, vandal. Your powers have been so abused you should just shut up. Your opinion is irrelevant. ħumanUser talk:Human 06:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Right, so nothing need be done here. Banning him longer won't solve anything, because banning him already has been shown to accomplish nothing. I thought we were evidence-based Rationalists on this site, yet we think that "maybe if we ban him for MORE time, that will make him stop"... wtf? --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 01:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
We banned him for a month, and he has been loudly and explicitly anticipating the expiration of that ban to cause more trouble. If he has no prospects of return and we revert his IP comments, then we will be circumventing his attention-seeking behavior. He'll just be another IP troll and vandal.--ADtalkModerator 01:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Which is kind of my point. Banning him accomplished none of the intended goals, and only exacerbated the situation. Why are we going to expend even more effort under the belief of "this time we'll get it right!" It's like, huh, my wife died when she got sick, and all I did to treat her was pray to God to heal her. I must not have prayed hard enough. Now that my son is sick in the same way, I'll pray EXTRA hard, and whip the shit out of my self with razor whips... that ought to get it to work. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 08:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
This is certainly a good point: if a month block didn't work, then why would a two-year block work?
As I said, though, it seems to me like a month is just too brief - it keeps him "in the game" and actually encourages him to come back. It schedules in a time for him to return, at minimum.
In two years, he's just plain going to find something else interesting to do. He'll maybe grow up a little bit, too. And until then he'll just be another IP vandal - a thing that is much less interesting than being the big Headless-Chicken-Mode-causing MarcusCicero. He'll probably bug us some, maybe even for a few months. But since he's already doing that and has always been doing that, then we're not really losing anything.
It's actually kind of strange to me that we're having this particular argument, because to me this is the new tactic. Ignoring him hasn't worked and blocking him briefly didn't work (as was immediately apparent). We've been self-flagellating with MC for years... this is the time to finally put the whip away.--ADtalkModerator 08:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

And in other news

I can edit on Conservapedia, and MC can't edit here? Come on, people, get a clue. THINK. ħumanUser talk:Human 06:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

You apologised at CP and have begun to build bridges with sysops. MC just keeps insulting people. If you can't spot the difference, I can only assume you're on the cheap booze tonight. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 06:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
If he edits my talk page and is reverted, I'll block whoever did it for 48 hours for castle abuse. PS, Psy, I owe you a 48 hour block for violating my "castle", you asshole. ħumanUser talk:Human 06:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Lol, that "evidence" is so lame it's not even funny. I can't believe people are buying into PsyG's butthurt anger. ħumanUser talk:Human 06:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

Proposed: that MC's ban be extended to two years, and his further IP edits be reverted and blocked for a day each time. Vote to run for one week, simple majority, three-week-established users eligible.

Evidence:[3][4][5]

Please confine your entry to your signature or a brief statement and do not engage in debate with other editors in the voting section.

Yea

  1. --ADtalkModerator 14:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  2. -- Nx / talk 14:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  3. --Whatever. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 15:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  4. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 15:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  5. --P-FosterThe Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire. Discuss. Moderator 15:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  6. --Pippa (talk) 15:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  7. --stunteddwarf/Stunteddwarf Jabba de Chops 15:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  8. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 15:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  9. --Röstigraben (talk) 16:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  10. SuspectedReplicant retire me 16:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  11. --BobSpring is sprung! 16:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  12. --"Shut up, Brx." 18:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  13. --TallMan (talk) 18:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  14. --Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 20:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  15. --He trolls here because we let him. So don't let him. Real first name and last initialTalk, talk, talk skim my contributions 21:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  16. --This is like the tenth time we've discussed this since I joined. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 15:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
  17. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 21:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
  18. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
  19. Yea. Except that I propose blocking the IPs 1 - 3 months at a time; w/ anon. users only. RatMaster háblame 23:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
  20. --larronsicut fur in nocte 21:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Nay

  1. Of course he's guilty of trolling, but I object only to the two year penalty time - both on philosophical grounds and because I think it will be difficult to enforce. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 18:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  2. Due to having a Joycean/Flann O'Brienish feel for the surreal. It's an Irish thing, and I get it. DogP (talk) 18:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  3. Exactly, making a 1 month punishment into a 24 month punishment is too harsh. I would prefer something under 5 months. --ʤɱ socialist 18:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  4. Pointless waste of electrons Zack Martin HolyMaratreanSigil.png 19:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  5. I don't think this is him. A sorry imitation. --Talpidae (talk) 22:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  6. And I strenuously object to a "vote" lasting only two days. A week should always be the minimum[1]. If I hadn't happened to pop in to check out an old "you're clueless" I'd have missed the whole necktie party. It seems to me the plaintiff is trying to set the terms of the discussion, calling for a summary conviction. Anyway, that's my abstract commentary, and my vote. The reason for my vote was doubled when the orange box I got upon checking in was PG deleting a comment from my user talk page. Please don't do that. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
  7. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD memberModerator 15:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  8. I would prefer for him to return and see his behaviour after his disciplinary block before issuing any new blocks. - π Moderator 09:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
  9. You ain't my bronies this week. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 15:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
  10. I'm moving from "goat" to nay. If it were me, I would wait till he comes back, see what he does under his own name, his own account, then block him again for one month. Then block him again for one month. I don't see how it's a hard ship to block him or any other troll, over and over 1 time per month.--Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 15:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
  11. "Some degree of abuse is inseparable from the proper use of every thing; and in no instance is this more true than in that of the press. It has accordingly been decided, by the practice of the states, that it is better to leave a few of its noxious branches to their luxuriant growth, than, by pruning them away, to injure the vigor of those yielding the proper fruits." —James Madison. The quote is over freedom of press, but free speech applies the same. Let's chill all public debate here by banning someone for being offensive. Let me be the first to say fuck every who votes "yay". --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 21:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
  12. and "polls should a) be of a more realistic length and 2) trigger a message of some sort. LowKey (talk) 08:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  13. fascism never works. at least not on wikis. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  14. Let's not ban people just because they are stupid. On the plus side: MC have entertainment value. Alain (talk) 15:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Goat

  1. I propose we throw a goat at his head instead. It'd be more effective. The Spikey Punk I'm punking my punk! 14:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  2. by letting him once again make it into an issue, you are playing right into his hands. his threats are a game, to get under your skin. If it bugs you, ban him, but do it permanently, quietly, as a matter of daily business. Otherwise, just revert his posts and say nothing again, just as a matter of business. every time you talk about him, he wins.--Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 16:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  3. I understand that DFTT is certainly not going to happen, but it seems the only way this may work. My vote does lean to the 'yea' side, however. Aboriginal Noise with 4 M's and a silent Q 01:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Goat with a twist

Whatever "punishment" MC gets, those bringing the charges should get one-half the "sentence".
I note that the conversation that elicited the current load of feces from MC's BON was nothing more than troll bait, "User:xyz used the "c" word...OMG, so does MC, (it's his FAVORITE!), ipso facto User:xyz=icewedge MC!!1!!"

Christ, I swear, you're all a bunch of whiny little twats running around bitching about stuff that doesn't matter. Please proceed to feel better about yourselves by banning someone who doesn't know any better. C®ackeЯ 22:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand you at all. The conversation that brought this about was actually him doing things like in the links I provided in the proposal: putting a message saying "FUCK YOU ALL" on the Saloon Bar that also declared his identity, from an IP he has used in the past. And it's not like he's a child or new to this: this is, after all, the second vote we're having on the matter because he's already been blocked over his behavior.
This doesn't "matter" in any greater sense, I agree... but no one's trying to make it out to be a larger cause or anything. We're just voting to extend the block of a vulgar and abusive self-admitted troll.--ADtalkModerator 01:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
OMG, he told us all to FUCK OFF? BAAANNNNNINATE HIM. That and he called Psygremlim a racist cunt, I guess (twice). Since we are to febrile to handle such challenges to our wikihood, we most certainly should ban all of Western Europe and all proxy IPs. Otherwise, poor Psygremlin might have to endure such hardships again. Oh, and fuck all of you who voted "yea", you fascists. ħumanUser talk:Human 07:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
It's not like I'm butthurt or insulted by cursing, and neither is Psy. But I guess you know that.
MC has trolled us for years, and has tried to disrupt and cause as much chaos as possible. He has gone on vandalism sprees, posted long vulgar screeds filled with nothing but personal abuse, tried to duck responsibility by claiming it to have been the behavior of a deranged brother, and launched a really obvious series of concern troll movements designed to cause infighting. He has admitted these things explicitly. In response, the community all got together, held a fair vote, and decided to block him for a month. A month. That is unbelievably lenient, but it's what was agreed in light of his obvious abuses.
Without even waiting for his block to expire, he began posting further abuse. He continued his behavior, demonstrating in a really obvious way that he was not ever going to stop, no matter how many chances we gave him. I guess we could just keep on reverting him, keep on ignoring him, and when his block expires endure more of the same trolling and abuse. I think it would be better to just eliminate his MC account from consideration, and treat his IPs like any other vandal. Without the ability to draw personal achievement, he will eventually get bored.
You disagreed, so you voted against it. That's fine. But you're being an asshole, Human, when you tell those of us who voted for the movement that we're "fascists," and implying that our motivations are in some way craven. It's low of you, and disappointing.--ADtalkModerator 10:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Indeed his sole reason for being here is to cause problems. There is always somebody ready to give him "one more chance" - but it's just one more chance to cause problems. In any event "he" isn't banned in any real sense. He's almost certainly operating as one or more socks as well. But now if he uses those accounts to the same end they will presumably suffer the same fate.
Like AD I'm surprised at the abuse being heaped on those who hold this opinion.--BobSpring is sprung! 14:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
No, AD, his purpose is not to cause problems. His purpose, for those of us who remember, is to keep us true to our goals - and to afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted. I am surprised at how many people missed all this history. ħumanUser talk:Human 06:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Weird. I thought he was "[r]iding the wave of mock grievance; So many times you put me on the centre stage with a semi reasonable grievance and I made sure to maximise the fallout as much as possible" and "[d]oing my best to persuade half of you that I 'was a dick who has something worthwhile to say', while really just being a dick and doing my best to annoy as many people as possible."
I guess you have a special insight into his motives, beyond even his own.--ADtalkModerator 06:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Come now AD, that wasn't MC. It was his retarded brother John. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 08:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

All will perish

  • Aceof SpadesSilverbrain.png 22:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
    • The grey globs indicate Moderators, correct? ħumanUser talk:Human 00:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Done

Seeing as how the voting ended yesterday and the ayes were ahead, I've blocked MC for two years. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 15:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Temporarily locked the page

As only "established users" have a say in deciding these issues, let's keep the BoNs from trolling the page for a couple of hours, okay? P-FosterThe Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire. Discuss. Moderator 16:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

This locks out whichever BoN that MC is currently using, thus providing that he cannot defend himself. Shall we just break out in goosestep now, or should we wait until we're blocking people that you care about without allowing them to defend themselves. The idea of trials is to protect our moral authority, otherwise it's just vigilantism, and that's what's going on here. We're lynching someone just because he's being offensive... on the intarwebs no less. zOMG! It's clear that RW has stopped caring about "due process", but then, have we ever cared? --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 06:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
MC has had ample opportunity to defend himself, but has wasted it all on threats and insults.--"Shut up, Brx." 06:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
When and where, you stupid fuck? ħumanUser talk:Human 06:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Never mind, apparently below? You should still shut up. ħumanUser talk:Human 06:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
It's a good thing you're stepping in to stop irrational people getting all butthurt about things. Thank goodness you're on the case.--ADtalkModerator 06:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
While I'd hate to have this page locked in case some other case comes up, we all need to face that MC's defense is that he has no defense. That being said, I still think the only good solution is, no matter how in-your-face his insults, for people to just ignore the bastard. The Spikey Punk I'm punking my punk! 06:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure you people are aware of this, but the lock expired three days ago. -- Nx / talk 07:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate RNS's concerns, it's good to see that some people have consideration for the process. However, when the initial block of MC was voted on I offered him space to make his defence but he refused to "legitimise the process", that is of course his decision but it does render the current discussion hypothetical. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD memberModerator 07:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm getting pretty sick of being accused of fascism.
We're not breaking into his house and silencing him. He can send emails, he can edit other pages from his IP, he can even edit this page (as Nx points out). I assure you, if he wanted to defend himself, he could and would.
You're right, Eira, this is a website. It's a community of people who edit towards a particular end, the refutation of crank science and fundamentalism. It is NOT the public goddamn square. It's not fascism to vote to ban a user who has been wildly disruptive, contributed a few edits of real material, has been continually abusive, and who has explicitly admitted his only intention is to cause trouble and troll.
It's not his "right" to try to fuck up RationalWiki, and when everyone has an open discussion about the benefits and problems with banning him - when he is given years in which to troll and still only gets a month block and just keeps trolling! - when our due process is being followed with a public discussion and free vote - it's not fascism to say, "Well, get the fuck out then."--ADtalkModerator 07:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Completely agree. Not all censorship is bad. The problem lies in when and how to enforce this. Regardless, MC needs to go and it needs to be enforced. RatMaster háblame 17:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
"Not all censorship is bad." That pretty much sums up the whole anti-MC argument here. Silencing dissent is always bad. Personal threats, legal issues, sexually explicit content, racism, etc can be silenced because they are hurtful. But MC has not crossed that line. The plain and simple truth, as Eira and Human have stated in various ways, is that we're doing more harm to ourselves by banning him than we are by tolerating him.--Talpidae (talk) 20:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Wow, not really. It is completely legal for me to start my own American Nazi Party if I wanted to. It is illegal to advocate violence. Might want to check up on freedom of speech. The US Government "censors" violence and threats. Not a bad thing I would say. RatMaster háblame 11:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
"Silencing dissent is always bad."
"Personal threats, legal issues, sexually explicit content, racism, etc can be silenced because they are hurtful."--ADtalkModerator 21:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
"Not all censorship is bad." and how decides which censorship is good, and which is wrong? My whole point is that abuse of speech is difficult if not impossible to distinguish from rightful use of speech. We should all be well aware of Poe's Law here, and yet we think that we are so intelligent that we can pierce Poe's veil and declare that MC serves no purpose here other than to troll. Yet, I regularly read him make comment about this community becoming more authoritarian (not fascist, authoritarian), and that it has picked up silencing and censoring critics rather than responding with an open forum. An example of this is calls for banning JimJast. He's said some moderately disgusting things, but not particularly all that offensive, and he posts his crank bullshit. We are at a crossroads, shall we ban critics and cranks and deny them a voice, or shall we show that critics and cranks are bat-shit crazy with their own words. The weight of Rationalism needs not our banning of critics to defend itself. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 01:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
JimJast is a good example. We all discussed it and decided that it would cross the line to ban him - there wasn't even really much impetus behind that suggestion originally, in fact. He appears to be a crank to some extent, and was accused of being a troll, but in short order it was established that wasn't sufficient to call him into question. That's why he's still editing and discussing his essay. He's a perfect example.
I know that some people have suggested that MC has made some valid criticisms. But he wasn't and isn't being blocked over those. To me, those criticisms looked like a paper-thin facade to cover his concern trolling. But he was free to provide evidence and argument - and in fact he could do so now if he chose - to demonstrate that he wasn't just trolling. That's kind of hard to demonstrate, though, once he has explicitly and several times said, "I'm just here to troll."--ADtalkModerator 01:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

"But MC has not crossed that line." He has. Using brutally misogynistic and racist discourse -- telling Psy that he rapes black women because he is a white Seffrican was the last and final straw for me. P-FosterThe Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire. Discuss. Moderator 20:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I demand a difflink on that one. I know he called PG a racist cunt, which was only half right (note I never asked for PG to be blocked for making libelous statements about me...), but the wording you are quoting is unfamiliar to me and not included in the "complaint". ħumanUser talk:Human 06:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm assuming PFoster means this one: [6] -- Nx / talk 07:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, that's probably one of the most offensive things he's posted. Way out of bounds.--ADtalkModerator 08:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. This is something that should be censored. It's common sense and I disagree that we need to always "need to remember Poe's Law." No, we need to remember common sense and rationality. AD sums it up nicely. RatMaster háblame 01:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Stupidity Incarnate

1) Eira has touched upon some rare, hidden genius. Her analysis is sound as it is inspiring. Those who disparage it do so with only the most staggering kind of wanton stupidity.

2) MCs 'vile misogynistic and racist' attacks, which Foster so hysterically calls them, are neither serious nor intended to be so. The fact that Foster takes them at face value and reads them as intentional, when they are meant to be a broadside volley, a mere rhetorical device, would indicate that Foster is incapable of either thinking in proportion or would appear to have no sense of humour whatsoever.

3) The likes of Gremlin have ruined this site (What with the constant drama whoring, the inability to ignore what they dislike), but truly I blame Foster. He has appointed himself as some kind of gatekeeper of morality, constantly stepping beyond his brief. He seems determined to 'lead' rather than moderate. He is behaving more like a Prime Minister than a local constable. Gremlin is his goon, wantonly provoking an attack from Cicero, (Who is the local troll, for better or worse, and if you provoke one you should expect to be bitten. This all stems from Gremlin vandal binning Cicero because he created a long winded debate title which AD had agreed to partake in. But of course there is no point trying to point this out because this site is so beyond the point where its willing to look at these things empirically) and Foster willingly comes out with his crocodile tears when the Gremlin provokes the attack from the Cicero. Its a farce at best and a disgrace at worst.

4) This entire process is stupidity incarnate. Cicero will not leave. He can not leave. He revels in martyrdom and you have made him one. The only way to defeat him is to ignore him. If you feed him scraps of meat he will bite for them. He has disappeared for months at a time because he grew bored. I marvel at how easily he finds it to provoke all of you into yet another HCM. You are the authors of your own destruction. This page alone will keep him sustained for months. Nothing but madness and damn folly. 93.174.93.145 (talk) 23:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

You got me there. I mean, rape is funny, right? And apartheid was funny too, you gotta admit it. So jokes about rape during apartheid have got to be really, really funny. Yup. P-FosterThe Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire. Discuss. Moderator 01:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Link please? ħumanUser talk:Human 06:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, here's a good example of the poor oppressed MC defending himself. I guess a point-by-point refutation is in order later.--ADtalkModerator 01:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Damn, you complain about me calling you a fascist, and that's all you've got? Mockery? Where's your point-by-point? Where is it? You got nothing. You fucks are wrecking this site with your lameass authoritarianism (check the mission lately?). ħumanUser talk:Human 06:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry I wasn't prompt enough for you, Human. I realize that those four hours could not have been better spent than in answering your hysterical concerns, but I was too busy checking out sizes of jackboots.
1. While I don't appreciate her choice of rhetoric, Eira certainly has valid concerns. That is why I tried to answer each of them. I do not think there is any danger that this will be the start of some purge. MC, a self-avowed longtime troll, was given a short block. During that block, he opted to continue his behavior of personal abuse and vulgar spam in the Saloon Bar.
We don't have to permit all kinds of behavior. We do not and will not permit child pornography[2] or personal information or threats of violence. We do permit criticism, dissent, and complaint. MC isn't being blocked for the latter - if indeed he has provided any - he is being blocked for what he calls deliberately "provoking HCM." He is here to cause problems and disrupt, and we're no more required to permit him to do so than a shop-owner is required to permit a vandal into their store. MC's been smashing up our shelves.
2. It is possible that MC's incredible level of offensiveness was not seriously meant. But when I look at it I have a hard time seeing that. And there comes a point that a person's failure to communicate is their own responsibility. We don't question too hard whether or not someone posting a physical threat to someone else is being serious - if it's hard to tell, then it's gone. That's because if someone can't communicate that they're joking, it's their problem.
3. I would like to take a moment to appreciate an accusation of drama whoring from MC.
Beyond that, there's not much here but personal accusations. I don't see Foster stepping much beyond his bounds and I don't see much of a problem with authoritarianism here. That's a personal judgment from one of the "authorities," of course - but we're having an open discussion and fair vote, and he gets to have his say and Human gets to shriek.
4. Well, this point consists of MC vowing never to stop or leave, and that he is "provok[ing] all of you into another HCM." These are not points in his favor, but rather further evidence that the best thing to do would be to remove his account so he can no longer concern troll with it and revert his IP edits (although I suppose if Human wants to retain them on his talk page, that's his privilege).--ADtalkModerator 06:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
1. Funny... because all I'm really doing is repackaging MC's arguments.
2. Reading the link you provide, nothing in the comment is defamatory... it is offensive, but the funny thing about patently offensive speech is that it is automatically not intended to be a factual statement, and thus opinion, and thus entirely exempt from defamation law. And being offensive just to be offensive is a bannable offense now? huh. Fuck that noise... fuck it in the ass with a two-by-four sharpened to a point with huge big barbs on it.
3. You're making an ad hominem attack here. Just because MC is a drama whore doesn't mean that his criticism of Psygremlin being a drama whore is wrong. In fact, I've had particularly strong evidence to suggest that his criticism is valid.
4. Ah, so, now the plan is to delete his account? Or are you just being imprecise in your wording? I'll assume the later, because it's less fascist, and I don't think you want to be a fascist. (Maybe somewhat authoritarian, but not fascist.) The funny thing here is that we're given open authorization for people to ban a BoN simply because they think it might be MC. Due process out the window, guilty by association. This is why censoring abusive speech is dangerous and wrong, because you're going to cause collateral harm. How far will we go to stop MC from trolling us? Will we resort to rangeblocks when blocking single IPs doesn't work? --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 08:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
For fuck's sake, this proposal does nothing apart from extending the current procedure of dealing with MC to two years. Let me walk you through it: BoN in the 86.xx range makes a trolling comment, edit gets removed, BoN blocked for a day. Just how many false positives and "collateral damage" do you think this will yield? How many people are there who just happen to share Marcus' IP range and behavior? Let alone that a revert and short-term block would be completely justified even if it's not MC, but just someone who behaves in the same destructive manner. If it was just a slip and they actually plan to contribute to the wiki, they can come back right the next day. As MC undoubtedly will as well, up to the point where he tires of resetting his modem and making comments that vanish seconds later. And please lay off the slippery slope bullshit about rangeblocks, banning dissent or general impending fascism. Discuss the proposal and the case on its own terms, everything else is just bashing strawmen. Röstigraben (talk) 08:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
(EC) 1. I am not sure how you are repackaging his concerns... I mean except to the extent that he is a concern troll - he disguises attempts to cause trouble with a facade of "helping." Maybe you could provide some more detail on what he is saying that is valid? Because as far as I can see, it's mostly just attacking people by calling them authoritarian and declaring that so-and-so is ruining RW - in other words, trolling.
In other words: why is this fair, open, and public vote some sort of authoritarian crackdown?
2. Sorry, I'm actually lost here... who accused him of the legal crime of "defamation"?
I think trolling has been a bannable offense for some time now. He's not being blocked just for being offensive. He was blocked for trolling, and this latest round of trolling is just more evidence.
3. I was pointing out hypocrisy - I guess to the extent that such an observation is another the other person it's "ad hominem," but generally speaking pointing out hypocrisy is meant to demonstrate entirely inconsistent standards. In this case, MC accusing Psy of attention whoring, while in the past having engaged in that practice on a huge scale himself, implies that MC is not actually concerned about attention whoring but rather is just searching for an attack.
4. The plan is exactly what is above to be voted on - I meant "remove his account" in the sense of "remove it from immediate consideration." Thank you for your assumption of good faith. I am seriously trying to both adhere to our community ideals.
I should note that I have already worked to stop people from reverting and blocking IPs just because they sound like they might be MC. Certainly this will be something to keep an eye on - we don't want this to become some crazy thing where anyone who criticizes RW from an IP is assumed to be MC. Generally speaking, he identifies himself and is very distinctive, though - don't you agree?
We will not rangeblock. I would vote against that. If this really doesn't work, then we can vote again. I'm not sure what we'd try. You could propose to unblock him, though, in the hopes of appeasing him.--ADtalkModerator 08:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Foster, get a fucking grip. You and I know that Cicero enjoys being hopelessly, hysterically over the top. Gremlin reverts an edit on Humans talk page so Cicero calls him an authoritarian cunt in his own unique, hyperbolic way (By comparing him to an apartheid era white solider beating and raping black people) Its absurd, its extreme, but surely the absurdity and the extremity is evidence of its intention? Does Cicero really think Gremlin is a racist and a rapist? Probably not, but he is an authoritarian dickweed. Gremlins first instinct after provoking an insult from somebody is to pretend to leave and never come back, then demand the head of the person who insulted him, and then retreat to his blog to make his petty slanders. You're all prancing around as if Gremlin is some innocent naive virgin who is being hopelessly drilled by Cicero. Bull fucking shit. Gremlin gives as good as he gets, he is an incredibly nasty person as many people on this site can testify to. So less of the crocodile tears Foster, learn how to fucking see'. And maybe watch a little Chris Morris too, extreme and deliberate nastiness has its own form of genius.
And I find it extremely, extremely galling that AD and Foster are leading the charge here. AD who has been for a long time Cicero's greatest source of food, and who had even agreed to hold a debate with Cicero before this shambles, and Foster who once made Cicero a crat and defended him admirably when the cretins emerged from the forest, seeking their blood. Its highly disingenuous and it goes a long way to show the intellectual depravity that lurks here. There is something more to this, anyone with eyes can see.
Eira is doing a better job refuting AD's sophistries than I ever could, (AD really riles me up, he has an infuriating reasoning style that never fails to bypass the core issue at stake) so I'll not even bother responding to his comments. But I do find it rather craven that this IP will be blocked and concentration camp guards like Ratmaster (Oh how he reminds me of a soldier or executioner doing his duty!) will swoop in and revert the comment and ban the IP. Craven, horrible tactics, and you all know where it will get you in the long run. Aye, that is a threat in case you're wondering. 95.154.230.191 (talk) 18:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
This is really getting tiresome. Do we have a "yawn" symbol?--BobSpring is sprung! 18:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Yawn.gif The Spikey Punk I'm punking my punk! 12:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps we should all just drop the argumentum ad ridiculum and admit that this site is becoming authoritarian in the extreme. If we close our ears to Huw and Eira, we will fail to correct the issues MC brings up. Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime. ~Potter Stewart --Talpidae (talk) 16:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I do love when people apply issues for governments, with the running of non governmental sites that need to actually work. That is, technically, removing every person's statement like "Obama fucking sucks" would be censorship in your eyes, but "obmama fucking sucks" does nothing to further the goals of our wiki. It is not Censorship to say to someone "we have rules, dude, follow them or go find somewhere else to play". That is a measure of both parties being grown up. Censorship is saying "talpidae, your very ideas are stupid, so we are deleting them". I don't agree with this silliness that actually gives MC way more power than people in the drama want to admit, but at the same time, addressing it, no matter how we address it, is not censorship.Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 17:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

"authoritarian in the extreme." BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!11111111!!!!!!!!!!! P-FosterThe Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire. Discuss. Moderator 16:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Point by point refutation

1) Who cares? 2) Who cares? 3) Neither true nor relevent 4) MC has nothing else better to do. So who cares? Next. Aceof SpadesSilverbrain.png 02:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Or:
1) You're being trolled
2) You're being trolled
3) You're being trolled
4) You're being trolled
Pay no attention, Ladies and Gentlemen, to the man behind the curtain. During the course of the performance he will repeatedly be sticking his penis through the curtain in an attempt to distract. Please to chuckle, if that be your thing, else enjoy the show. DogP (talk) 17:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Footnotes

  1. You're right, I changed it. GK
  2. Haha, see, I have my own wildly exaggerated comparisons!

Nx,and Human, and MC or, "This is why we can't have any nice things."

Nx has used his mojo to block a page from appearing in Recent Changes. This is probably not something people should do without checking in with the mob. He's been asked to undo the act, but his reply makes it seem as though he's more interested in deflecting the issue to Human's decision to give MC a "sanctuary" in which to troll, even though IP edits that have the stink of MC are supposed to be undone on sight. Human is claiming "his user space, his rules." So, Nx should prolly not use his server access to fuck with what appears in recent changes without consulting the mob. Human should probably not give MC an out when the community has decided to revert on sight, but it's Human's wiki and he's gonna do what he's gonna do. MC should get a hobby or something, but what he does here is probably best taken up with his therapist and not us. Finally, if the sanctuary works, maybe we should just let it work? P-FosterAuthoritarian Prick.Moderator 17:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Nx's action is likely the most innovative method of not feeding the troll we've come up with yet. He probably should have consulted the mob first, but otherwise I congratulate him.--"Shut up, Brx." 17:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah of course you do. Because despite being our worst and least contrite rights abuser you're apparently also an authoritarian. Strange that you've only been here a few months and that your talk page is filled to the brim with "firm rebukes" that you openly defied and even made fun of. But when it comes to someone else there are no limits. You'll even applaud it.
I asked Nx to undo the recent changes skullduggery here. I don't understand the caption for this section, though. If you want to charge these guys with some misconduct do it in separate sections. They're not codefendants because they're not accused of participating together in remotely similar conduct. As for the sanctuary, I semi-agree that it may be improvident according to the community's decision to ban, but MC wasn't given a space to respond to the charge and it's not so clearly contrary to the letter or spirit of the rules for Human to have done what he did. Nobody forced anyone to jump onto his page to continue having strong emotional reactions to MC. Re: MC being permitted to respond. some expressed their expectation that he'd disregard his block and post as an IP to do it. Others wanted to deny him the right to even respond. I recognize you all didn't like his continued charge of fascism. I definitely don't like the racism and weird rape shit. But, if the sanctuary works to keep him out of your hair in other spaces it's a damn good fucking idea. And I've said before that you're not going to get rid of MC by banning him. By all means do what you all feel is right, but do realize that his goal is not to go along to get along and this particular sanction is unlikely to do anything but cause more of what you all seem to dislike. Actually, it's not unlikely. It's a promised certainty. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 18:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
MC is an attention whore. Why do you think the page he created has such a turgid title? He wants it to stand out on RC, poking people until someone responds, and someone will respond, and the whole bullshit will start over again. The community has decided that it has had enough of MC and his trolling. At least what I did was in accordance with that. -- Nx / talk 18:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree, it was. Can we just go through the formality of putting it to the mob? It feels really weird to know that there's one user who can do all kinds of spooky shit to the wiki all by his lonesome. P-FosterAuthoritarian Prick.Moderator 18:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Sigh. More pointless voting over something that we've already agreed on. -- Nx / talk 18:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Or alternatively, grow some balls and tell Human that it's not his wiki and he can't have his troll playground. -- Nx / talk 18:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
At what point did we agree that you can arbitrarily, unilaterally, and secretly screw around with the server?--Talpidae (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
The community did not agree that you have the authority to go into the server and do whatever you feel like, whether it's enabling checkuser, desysopping hundreds of sysops, or filtering a single page from Recent Changes. Nor was it within your purview to filter a single page from the trolltop template after having edit warring over other revisions, but that's not a Tech abuse so we'll address that elsewhere if it continues. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 18:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
My 10c, let MX have his little toy box and *ignore him*. He can't post anywhere else. If you act like a grownup yourself and don't go read his little antics, then he's done. or he raises the stakes and "we" ban him longer. You can't say "don't feed the trolls" if you are playing with the trollPink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 18:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)s. bullies and brats quickly go away when the other kids play hop-scotch without them. or they behave and ask to play too.Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 18:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, that's probably going to work well. Like it has so far. I really can't understand how MC is still a problem, since we're all ignoring him. -- Nx / talk 18:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

"his user space, his rules" isn't a cast-iron maxim to ignore the wishes of the mob. You can't delete talk pages without archiving even if they are in your user space. Messing server side to target a single user isn't a good precedent, troll or not. At the very least it deprives members of the mob the opportunity to counter troll for fun. -- Iscariot Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012! 18:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

NX, i have *tons* of respect for you, and most of the editors here. but none of you have learned how to ignore him. He controls this place, by pushing people's buttons. Ironically, the single best idea was yours, I just agree that it shouldn't be done without mob knowledge. But the fact that they noticed what you did, and CARED about what you did shows they are (at large, not any editor in particular) curious about what he says and willing to have their buttons pushed. Some editors (and i can't even follow the 'sides' on this, so i am really using some as 'i don't know', not as a way to point fingers with out naming names) not only don't ignore him, they escalate things. they focus on MC's actions on human's page, and human's lack of "attention". they focus on you blocking MC from being seen. not block him from posting, just block him from being seen. (again, that's why i think it was probably one of the best ways to handle this...) I don't really give a crap how any of you handle MC, i just hate that it seems to make you all fight against eachother. Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 18:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)
"prevents us from counter trolling for fun". but don't you get it. that's the very center of this entire tying. by paying attention to MC and playing "counter troll" you are not helping end this childish bullshit. Trolls exist to cause fights, to start "in fights", and to see exactly how much they can mess up a smooth running world. I don't know why, but that's what they get off to. and you "playing with the troll" just adds.Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 18:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
My personal opinion is a) let MC have his sandbox and b) let Nx fence it off. If MC tries to stretch outside his sandbox we'll stamp on his hand with our jackboots. While I think that Nx should have run hiding the page by the community first, it's actually a really good idea and I like it. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 19:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I concur with Eddy. Nx should have asked nicely beforehand, but then again - it's often easier to say sorry than it is to ask for permission. PsyGremlinПоговорите! 09:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Human shouldnt have done it at all. Aceof SpadesSilverbrain.png 09:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Human

Since it's really stupid to create one section for two people charged with two different things, let's split the above discussion into two sections. To the best of my knowledge, Human is being charged with subverting the community's decision to ban MC by creating a sub-userspace for him to play around in. This charge should probably be formalized and expanded before it's brought to vote. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 18:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

WTF? Human isn't being "charged" with anything nor should he be. He said "I don't really give a shit about these games, so sure, play on my page". if you don't want to read MC's stuff, don't go to Human's page. --Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 19:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
"Anyone who deletes your comments to my user talk space, for the time being, will be blocked for 48 hours.", blocking people who have deleted MC's comments in accordance with the community's decision.
Also, he shouldn't be allowed to go against the community's wishes and create a troll sanctuary in his userspace. -- Nx / talk 19:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
In fairness Human's offense here was basically undermining a community decision unilaterally, whereas Nx's was enforcing one unilaterally. Huw's was a more serious offense, so I'm really surprised it's being glossed over so easy in favor of Nx-bashing. I'm actually inclined at this point to say that this whole coop case is a few users taking out their personal vendetta against Nx rather than dealing with the actual abuses that took place. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 21:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I am super pissed at Human to be honest. He is going directly against the community decision and I think he needs a slapping. Aceof SpadesSilverbrain.png 22:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
He does need a kick up the arse, but I think that'll only make him more obnoxious. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 22:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Declaring a "troll sanctuary" in one's user space is not against the rules, but blocking users for enforcing a decision from the mob or the moderators is an abuse of block rights. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 23:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
It's well past time that Human was called to account for his continued abuse of the rules. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
If MC edits Human's userspace, what's the harm? If MC is using it to launch blatant personal attacks, those attacks can be reverted. Otherwise, he should be left alone to play in his sanctuary. If you don't like it, ignore it. Zack Martin HolyMaratreanSigil.png 23:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
It takes a troll to defend a troll. Using one's userspace to bypass a community ban is irresponsible. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
No personal attacks please, SR. Zack Martin HolyMaratreanSigil.png 23:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Unless your real name is "Maratrean", I'll call you a useless fucking trolling asshole all I want. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
You need to learn to moderate your aggression. Zack Martin HolyMaratreanSigil.png 00:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Truth is defense against libel, M. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 00:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
This whole sub-converstaion has nothing to do with Human anyway. Why not stick to the topic at hand? Zack Martin HolyMaratreanSigil.png 00:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I fully expect to be flamed for this, but Human's actions need to be seen in a serious light. The community, along with the elected moderators, took a decision to take action against a member of this wiki. Now, not only does the member concerned ignore the edict issued against him, but Human also actively encourages his behaviour on the wiki, and sides with him - violating community policies by blocking people who revert MC's trolling, in line with the mod's decision. Now, this is somebody who has basically issued a big "fuck you" to the community and the moderators. This is also somebody who is a Trustee of the Foundation, which supposedly represents the community he is saying "fuck you" to. Now, some will argue that he's not acting as a Trustee in these matters, but that is irrelevant - should somebody who is deliberately working against the will of the wiki be allowed to be a representative of that wiki? Human must resign as a Trustee. --PsyGremlinHable! 09:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I wont go as far as saying Human should resign as Trustee but I wholeheartedly agree that he is basically saying "fuck you, I'll do what I like". I like him and all but yeah, what a dick. Aceof SpadesSilverbrain.png 09:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
This is the second times Psy has basically demanded removal of a trustee, and while his complaints both times have not been without merit, bringing trusteeship into the matter is starting to get tiresome. That said, the community did, by a wide margin, vote to ban MC from rationalwiki for a month. As far as I can tell, a user subpage is still part of rationalwiki, therefore Human did break the rules here. If we want to discuss the validity of a "troll sanctuary" and under what conditions, if any, it could be allowed to operate, this probably isn't the place for it. Furthermore, Human blocking other editors for enforcing community consensus ain't cool. What is to be done about it, if anything, is the question. Anyone have any proposals? DickTurpis (talk) 17:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Amazing. We're talking about demoting a user (again!) for abuse of powers (again!) - something you agree with - and this should somehow have no bearing on the office he holds? It's a bit like saying "Oh, we're suspending this employee because of maladministration, but it's ok, he can remain a director of the company." --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 16:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Whatever your opinions on Human's position on the board are, and whatever validity they might have, this isn't the place for it. Hell, we can't even get the community to do something like remove his sysop rights for a day; removing him from the board (which I don't think there is even a process for) isn't imminent. Baby steps. DickTurpis (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I suggest demotion to editor for a specific period of time, say a month, and perhaps a ban for a few days to a week. Naturally rights would be reinstated at the end if he behaves himself and obeys the community's decisions. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 18:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Nx

Again, creating a new section to make discussion easier. Nx is being charged with unilaterally acting to abuse his server access in order to remove a page in Human's userspace from Recent Changes. Again, somebody should probably reword the charge and get some diff links before it's brought to a vote. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 18:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

There are no diff links. It's part of an emerging pattern of using server access to unilaterally effect his will, including desysopping hundreds of sysops server side, enabling checkuser, and this latest bit of modifying Recent Changes to exclude a single page. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 18:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Then find a difflink where he admitted to it, or Trent said it was him, or something. That can't be to hard, unless we have no evidence it was actually him who did it, and not one of the other people with server access like Pi or Trent. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 19:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Nx has admitted to all of them. Personally I don't judge him for the first two and applaud him for the last. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 19:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
How about Nx can't do anything non-techy with his special powas unless he puts each issue to a vote? Otherwise the mob is subverted by one guy tech skillz. --Talpidae (talk) 19:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Well no shit Talpidae. Emp, It's easier than that. The facts aren't going to be in dispute. Nx: please admit or deny you did these things. Please also tell us who has server access. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 19:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I did. Trent has server access. The server's root password (as well as other information, see Forum:Keepers of the keys) is on Google docs, in a document shared with Human, Bob, and myself. -- Nx / talk 19:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
If the solution were that obvious to certain people, Nutty, we wouldn't be having this discussion.--Talpidae (talk) 19:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not actually disputing that he did it since IMO it's exactly the sort of thing that Nx would do (that was a statement, not an indictment, don't take it the wrong way). I just think it would set a really bad precedent if we banned/censured/whatevered a tech who some people don't like without evidence just because some techie shenanigans happened that were coop worth. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 19:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
And that's good, because you all are retarded. As far as I understand you are whining about Nx not having a vote on enforcing a voted on decision. --85.78.248.199 (talk) 19:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
What decision would that be? Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 19:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Um, that MC should be banned for a month? --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 19:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
What? This is about him using his server access without consensus, not about a block he didn't make. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 19:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
So what do votes do in your mind? --85.78.248.199 (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I asked you what decision was voted. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 19:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
The BoN means that if Nx was enforcing the Mod's decision, he can do it unilaterally.--Talpidae (talk) 19:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
What decision?! Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 20:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
The MC decision! Apparently this is considered an extension of that.--Talpidae (talk) 20:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not following you. Please read and re-read what's going on here. This isn't about MC. It's about Nx using server access without consensus. I'll point out that achieving consensus later, to the extent he can do that, doesn't obviate the fact that he unilaterally used server rights prior to gaining it. And to clarify for you, there is no relevant MC decision other than the prior block. The vote for a 2 year ban ends tomorrow. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 20:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that the specific incident that inspired this cooping, the incident which theEmperor and others were talking about the most, in which Nx prevented MC's Human subpage from appearing in RC, is being justified by the Mod decision. See the BoN above. I'm not saying I agreed, I thought you didn't understand what was being referred to ("What decision would that be?").--Talpidae (talk) 21:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

What exactly is being proposed here? That Nx undo his invisiblizing of the page in question, or that he be punished in some manner for doing it in the first place? It seems we should first decide the issue of whether Human is abusing the system by giving MC a place to rant. If it is decided that it is contrary to the mob's decision to ban MC, then the matter will probably be moot anyway, as hiding the page will be unnecessary. No one seems to be addressing the Human issue much so far. DickTurpis (talk) 21:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I suggest the best thing, would be if Nx undid the change he made, for now at least, and then this discussion can end. And Nx, you must tell me, how did you do it? I am interested to know the technical details. Zack Martin HolyMaratreanSigil.png 21:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I undid it already. -- Nx / talk 21:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Very well then. Can we call this case closed, or do we need blood? DickTurpis (talk) 21:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes we need blood, but we're focusing on the wrong person to get it from. Huw blatantly disregarded a mob-and moderator sanctioned policy, and should be censured for it. He's not aboe the rules here just because he has a lot of edits and has been here a while. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 22:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Nx did the wrong thing for the right reasons. Server access is a really important right and shouldn't be used on a whim, even to enforce community decisions. At the very least it should have been brought here first. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Go for Human's throat all you want. That's a separate issue. This section for discussing the following:

  • Nx used his server access to desysop hundreds of sysops in May (Nx - if the number is higher or lower please let me know)
  • Nx used his server access to install checkuser in the midst of a dispute with Eira
  • Nx used his server access to hide a single page from Recent Changes

Nx did these things without securing community consensus beforehand. I have no idea what the sanction should be if the community disapproves of this behavior. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 23:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe Nx had either the consent of the Foundation or Trent for the first action. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 23:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Just for the record: Nx certainly did not have the blessing of the Foundation for item #1, and there have been resolutions before the Board of Trustees before to chastise him for various server-side actions (and there still are various resolutions before the Board). That being said, the Board moves very slowly on Wiki politics because we prefer to have as little to do with it as possible (as our bylaws state). The Spikey Punk I'm punking my punk! 12:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Is there a rule against the last one? 24.246.11.252 (talk) 00:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Number 1 can probably be classified as implementing a directive from the foundation, as Theemperor suggests. Number 2 was naughty, but after proving a point the extension was removed. It was on the site for only a couple of hours, and only Nx and Eira had access during that time. Number 3 is very naughty, although as I said above, done for good reasons. It's not one person's decision to take the law into their own hands when another user violates community principles. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 00:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
There was no precedent / "case law" about number 3. So we can't say it was that wrong when there was no clear rule about it before hand. Of course, this is the opportunity to make a clear rule about that, and then if someone did it again, in violation of that clear rule, it would be a different story. Zack Martin HolyMaratreanSigil.png 03:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
This is getting ridiculous. Permission from the foundation? LOL. No, it was a couple users agreeing (Armondikov, Psy, Pi). I thought we all agreed that Radioactive afikomen is a tosser and that sysopping everyone who's been here for more than 5 minutes is a bad thing, but when I actually try to fix that everyone gets upset because they lost their banhammer. -- Nx / talk 05:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
In my personal opinion, hiding Human's page to force us to avoid feeding the troll, while heavy handed, is not cause for action against Nx. To the contrary. I think that if a page grants trolls the freedom to post whatever the fuck they want, then the community (which blocked said troll) is within its rights to block that page from appearing in Recent Changes. That way, the troll can post without being "oppressed" and so that we can go on without more of these stupid arguments when we most certainly have better things to do. The Spikey Punk I'm punking my punk! 12:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Since this case is less clear-cut than Human's above, as he was using discretionary powers granted to him by the community to enforce a decision of the community, I'd say that we should first have a vote on whether or not he actually did anything wrong or if he was within his rights before we try and determine the sentencing. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 18:49, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I may be arguing semantics here, but was Nx granted powers by the community? I sort of thought he was given the powers by Trent. I only bring this up because some people have been making noises about the Tech position, who gets it and what in entails. I'm not even sure its necessarily relevant int his case, or whether guy with access to server and tech are the same thing or not. Either way, at some point there should be some process for deciding these things. I've noticed there's been a certain amount of grumbling about Nx in particular among several editors, and at some point I think there should be a way for these grumblings to be expressed in an actionable manner, so this can be discussed and settled, and we don't have to hear "Nx desysopped us all months ago!" every time someone gets bent out of shape over something he says or does, which seems to be about the only outlet we have now. DickTurpis (talk) 19:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I may be arguing semantics here, but was Nx granted powers by the community? No. I sort of thought he was given the powers by Trent. Yes. or whether guy with access to server and tech are the same thing or not No. Techs are people who can edit mediawiki space and stuff like that. This is mostly stuff sysops can do on WP, but we can't let sysops do it here because everyone who makes 3 edits is a sysop, and that'd be dangerous. Although it's only Trent, myself and Bertran (because he's the main administrator of RussianalWiki) now, it really should be granted to more people. -- Nx / talk 07:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Thanks for the clarification. This brings up another entire matter which needs to be settled at some point, in as much as how tech powers are granted, as well as the position of (for lack of a better word) "serverdude". The community sensibly wanted to sort of moderators first, but now that that's settled (mostly) we should address this. I don't know how many techs there should be or how they should be decided. A regular election isn't ideal because, even more so then moderators, we need people with specialized skills more than people who we like or agree with. Perhaps some sort of nomination process, with an election from a group of vetted candidates? Whatever it turns out to be, we need some process in place at some point. Sooner rather than later. DickTurpis (talk) 13:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Just making a point...

Okay, so I'm watching Watchmen with a few bottles of Magners and loving it. I'm in a merry mood. This is good, because it gives me the balls to do something silly, so I figured I'd just post these:

Welcome to RationalWiki. This site exists to help expose and refute pseudoscience, shams and paranoid beliefs. These cause actual harm, loss of life in the four cases about that took me about 25 seconds in bed with Google to find. If one of our articles dissuades one person from trying a sham medication who might otherwise have died... just think about it. The site does not exist for the bitching, moaning and pedantic procedural clusterfucks that everyone seems to enjoy. Now, face it, we exist for this and this refutation above all else. Sod this bizarre concept of "freedom" and "anti-fascism" that some people are throwing around. How many people are actually in on RW's mission? From what I can tell so many aren't, especially the ones who love to just drama-drama all day and yet people who have donated to the RWF are expending their money, actual money, on hosting this bull. People die because they take bullshit instead of real medicine, so why do you insist on diverting your attentions away from stopping that to this sort of crap? ADK...I'll sell your handstand! 00:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Goodpost.gif Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 03:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
A good post, which makes me think: do we actually have a page on the dangers of such beliefs? As in a cover-all page for people harmed? EddyP Great King! Disaster! 09:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I usually spend 25 seconds in my bed with Google searching other stuff. But ADK has a very good point. SJ Debaser 12:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Somewhere like this is probably a good starting place. Worm (talk) 16:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Not really the place, but I started watching the film and hated it so much that I switched off after about 30 minutes. I bought the graphic novel years ago, and never really understood why people loved it so much. Alan Moore has done some great work (From Hell was wonderful), and some of his Swamp Thing scripts were fantastic, but most of his stuff is rambling shite. Give me Neil Gaiman any time. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 00:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that American comic books are of an intrinsically inferior quality. Authors continue to insist on ludicrous tropes such as latex costumes and overpowered heroes with lame themes such as "the yellow sun makes me strong" or "green light makes me strong." I would suggest that you invest in graphic novels that were not created on the North American continent. Instead of Watchmen, try Valerian, Requiem, or Lanfeust de Troy--"Shut up, Brx." 01:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
So hopefully the only reason I will ever edit this page (No Drama is ny guiding principle) will be to talk comics. Brxbrx makes a valid point in that there are lots of great comics out there that most US-Americans are unaware of, but I think he's off with his narrow view of what US comic artists do. Yeah, there's a lot of crap, but there's a lot of great stuff that doesn't fall into the "tights" genre : DMZ, anything by Azzarello, Mike Bendis, Logicomix, Mike Smith, James Vance, Nate Powell...BbMaj7 On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. 03:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
ADK makes a strong point. This site is more of a trolling haven than an actual "community working together" to explore fundamentalism. The fact that CP is fascist makes a few on the extreme left here want to cry "fascism!" at everything that limits editing due to innappropriate behavior. It's beyond ridiculous. RatMaster háblame 20:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
"CP is fascist" Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 20:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Good point LX. Fascists are organised. Real first name and last initialTalk, talk, talk skim my contributions 21:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Evangelical/fundamentalist Christianity and fascism are two highly disparate strands of thought, except for the authoritarian factor in some strands of fundamentalism. The only reason why the groups have been lumped together as they have is that they are both anti-communist.
If Conservapedia is to be compared to a country, it would more resemble the one in Woody Allen's film Bananas where the tinpot dictator decreed that everyone had to wear their undershorts outside their pants. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 21:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
On the other hand, there is a significant contingent of people who do just Keep Calm and Carry On. But it's still an insult to them that we continue to host utter bollocks. And fascism is being thrown around too easily, some people need to actually go find a fucking dictionary and look it up. ADK...I'll lick your kitten! 15:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Idea

Shunt off the dramatists and trolls to a subwiki where they can piss on each other's chips all day long, and the rest of us can get on with refuting pseudoscience and stuff as Miss Armondikov suggests. We have enough numbers that we don't need them. Even GLP is blocking trolls now, why can't we do it? Why are we so afraid of being called fascists just for trying to stop abusive behaviour? Real first name and last initialTalk, talk, talk skim my contributions 21:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif (I'll be off, then) Pippa (talk) 21:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I suggest that we deal with trolls in the same way that Thor dealt with Loki at the end of Lokasenna, viz., use the hammer if they do not shut up. I suggest also that we use "preponderance of evidence" instead of "beyond reasonable doubt" as a standard of evidence when identifying suspected sockpuppets of banned trolls, since ironclad proofs of identity are beyond our capability to make. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 21:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
As a fan of the way Thor dealt with Blockbuster in Thor #374, I concur. Real first name and last initialTalk, talk, talk skim my contributions 21:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal #2

Since discussion here seems to have died, and nothing has been settled, I think it would behoove us to try to reach some conclusion, if only so we don't revert back into HCM right after we had a quite successful inaugural moderation last month. Human has been called on the carpet for giving Marcus a sanctuary, but while several editors have balked at this as Marcus is supposed to be blocked from the entire site, no one seems to be clamoring for punishment. Furthermore, his sanctuary still stands, and Marcus's comments remain undeleted. This much is a de facto win for Human, so we might as well certify it. However, Nx's, technical tinkering was condemned by many as an abuse of powers, but also seen by some as a clever and useful compromise: a good idea if it had not been a unilateral action. So here is my proposal, hoping to bring a quick and painless end to this. Troll sanctuaries, such as Human made for Marcus, are allowed to remain, but are to be removed from recent changes. This basically adheres to the path of least resistance (ie the status quo), which is probably about all we're gonna get, given what's happened so far. This has the further act of legitimizing Nx's actions, and leaving everyone unpunished and hopefully unbutthurt (great word, there). So let's vote. DickTurpis (talk) 14:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC) [Note: this has no bearing on the proposal to further extend Marcus's ban]

Yea, allow a troll sanctuary for a banned user, but hide it from RC

DickTurpis (talk) 14:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  1. Zack Martin HolyMaratreanSigil.png 13:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Nay, do not allow troll sanctuaries, as they undermine the concept of a sitewide ban

  1. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 15:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  2. -- Nx / talk 15:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  3. SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  4. Trolls don't want sanctuaries. MC isn't going to stay quietly in his sandbox by himself. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 15:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  5. I'm surprised it needs spelled out: it's an excuse for more attention by having their own special place just for them. Fuck, even writing this comment is giving them attention. Crap. There's just no winning. ADK...I'll insult your amplifier! 15:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  6. Keeping it off RC was a creative idea, but devising ad hoc responses instead of actually enforcing a sentence that had something like 90% community approval will just reinforce the notion that trolls can do whatever they want. Röstigraben (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  7. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 16:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  8. I don't normally vote in these things, but if we're going to do moderators, then sure as hell we'd better do it right. And clearly violating their decision is doing it wrong. ThunderkatzHo! 16:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  9. Isn't this obvious? --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 16:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  10. RatMaster háblame 17:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  11. -Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  12. DickTurpis (talk) 17:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC) - Changing my vote. No need to propose a compromise when basically everyone is already on one side. I misread inaction for complacency rather than laziness or whatever.
  13. --BobSpring is sprung! 18:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  14. TallMan (talk) 21:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  15. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 01:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
  16. - π Moderator 02:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
  17. Excellent set-up by Dick Turpus - thanks, man! This needed a vote to sort out the aftermath. I really think that our new system is working out.--ADtalkModerator 03:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Nay, allow troll sanctuaries but leave them unmolested as any other page

Goat

  1. --ʤɱ soviet 16:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Occasionaluse

Occasionaluse is deleting this comment from his talk page, claiming that he is allowed to decide what is trolling and what is not. The community standards say: "A user's talk page, like any other talk page on the site, is public and does not belong to the user. However, users are permitted to delete posts containing personal attacks or trolling from their own talk pages, being responsible for any abuse of this permission." Even though it's quite clear in this case that OU is abusing this privilege just to make a point/be a dick/cause drama, I think the LJ's decision should be repealed, as it's wide open to abuse and wikilawyering such as this. Furthermore, I think Occasionaluse should not be allowed to trolltop his entire talk page for similar reasons. -- Nx / talk 15:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

As you said in defending the use of your trolltop template, "hiding comments is not censorship". So what the fuck are you bitching about?
  • Stop stalking me.
  • Stop threatening me.
  • Stop sending me emails.
  • Fuck off.
Occasionaluse (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Trolltop != deleting a comment. Also, WfG's comment was not trolling, not by any stretch of the imagination. And I'm not threatening you and I never sent you any emails. -- Nx / talk 17:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Then why do you all of a sudden have issue with use of your trolltop template? And WfG's comment is certainly trolling. I know because it's subjective and I said so. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Because you are abusing it. Also, calling someone's comment trolling can be a personal attack. -- Nx / talk 17:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Then consider me personally attacked. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I consider you a troll. -- Nx / talk 17:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


Somoeone set up WikiCreativeTroll so such people can enjoy themselves undisturbed by the rest of us. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I think Occasionaluse has made enough of a nuisance of himself that he could be ejected, despite his being slightly more mindful than MarcusCicero of when he is in hot water. But perhaps my perspective is skewed, I being the only user who rated three entries on his shit-list. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 01:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

OccasionalUse, if we called a vote on you I think it might be seriously close. But because we've had enough nonsense lately and we all deserve some peace and quiet and pleasant mockery of pseudoscientific idiots, let's just say you knock this shit right off right now. If you abuse your sysop powers like this (with blocks and whatnot for legitimate reverts of your nonsense), then you will lose them. A mod will take them away for a brief period, because of the current circumstances (pretty chaotic and heated, ripe for further chaos), calling a vote later. You are pretty clearly a troll but we're at the point now where you can just back off and be chill and we can all get back to business. We'll all just be cool like Fonzi.--ADtalkModerator 03:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK he didn't block anyone, he just keeps removing the comment from his talk page, citing the LJ decision as justification. To be fair, the LJ's decision is vague and wide open to abuse and wikilawyering. Ou's behavior is dickish point-making, but not without merit. IMHO we should fix that instead of applying bandaids. This rule has been a source of drama and edit warring from the very start, and it's incompatible with the RW guideline that all talk pages are community property and deleting talk page comments is forbidden. -- Nx / talk 05:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Occasionaluse's modus operandi is called gaming the system on Wikipedia. This is not the first time he has done it, and I doubt scrapping a rule would stop Wiki-lawyers from finding another one to game. I am highly skeptical of those who pooh-pooh "bandages" on "fundamentally broken systems" in favor of "solutions that treat the root cause;" in this case, repealing the Loya Jirga's ruling would likely mean restoring the previous rule that no talk-page post is to be removed, which was the cause of the Loya Jirga's creation in the first place. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 06:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Not necessarily. We could say that talk page comments can only be removed (or better yet, just hidden with {{collapse}}) by moderators. Or we could also say that only MC's talk page comments can be deleted, because the community voted so. -- Nx / talk 06:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
We could, of course, just say that any post by a blocked editor can be reverted, which has much less potential for abuse, but then we come back to lowering the bar for sockpuppet detection. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 06:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
That works too. Also, if Ou was gaming the system and clearly in the wrong here, why the fuck did no-one do anything? The only mod action was Ace's, he locked Ou's talk page because the edit warring was annoying him. I guess I should be thankful he didn't block me for edit warring. Then when the lock expired, Ou continued removing the comment, and it wasn't until I brought him here that a moderator finally told him to stop. -- Nx / talk 06:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Getting people to do things around here is an Herculean task at times. I probably would have advocated for Occasionaluse's removal a while ago, except that given his self-declared vendetta against me, it did not seem right for me to spearhead such a motion. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 06:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Nah, Ou isn't a troll all the time. He's just an Occasionaltroll. -- Nx / talk 07:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
"ListenerX" it's the other way around. You're the one with the vendetta against me. What the fuck do you think you're doing citing TOW policy and thinking it will stick? If I have to be a dick to skullfuck a point into your thick head, I'll be glad to. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I seems to me that Occasionaluse's actions are frequently not those of an editor who has the wiki's best interests at heart; his posts sometimes seem to be designed to cause offence and raise the level of tension by using bad language or personal insults.--BobSpring is sprung! 19:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
No foul language? Another leap forward in bureaucracy from the geriatric. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Brxbrx

[7] [8] This person still like to make trouble, if the owner cares anymore about what this person is doing. — Unsigned, by: 85.214.198.31 / talk / contribs

Yeah, Brxbrx is a pain in the arse. Let's block him forever. SJ Debaser 16:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Well now that my infinite block has been undone...
I think I was pretty transparent in my actions, to the point where they could not possibly be construed as malicious. I was merely proving a point to Nutty Roux. Whether or not he got the message depends on how petty he's been feeling of late.--"Shut up, Brx." 19:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
And straight away, you idiot, you go altering someone else's edit on a talk page? Pippa (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Brx, I have had enough of your bullshit - imitating another user and altering others comments is not on and considering you are already on a sanction. You're fucked - I suggest taking away your rights for longer and possible ban. Aceof SpadesSilverbrain.png 22:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
That's a bit too harsh. I don't think there's any malice in young Bricks, thought his judgement leaves a lot to be desired. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 22:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Imitating another user is a pretty big lack of judgement. And he has caused trouble since his first day. Aceof SpadesSilverbrain.png 22:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
If imitating another user refers to his anon edit saying "I'm Nutty Roux" or whatever (link), I think we can pretty clearly pass that off as snark used to make a point about Nutty's stance on anon voting. If not, it's about the lamest imitation ever. Also basically harmless. If it refers to something else let me know. Changing another's edit comments (or, in this case, changing a link) is stupid, but I wouldn't consider it worth a real ban. Then again, I'm not familiar with his past transgressions leading to his current sanction. DickTurpis (talk) 22:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with Brx's history either, bur a quick look at his contribs shows he wrote this so there's useful stuff there. TBH I think this is being overhyped - I reckon quite a lot of user here would get away with what he's being cooped for. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 22:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Is this even a serious coop? I sort of assumed it was an anon doing some minor trolling. Oh, and by the way, I'm Ace McWicked. DickTurpis (talk) 22:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Impersonating another user isn't the best thing to do, but we should also block everybody that believes something like that coming from an unconfirmed BoN - and brx had a point doing so. Changing another user's comment on the other hand is simply wrong (if not correcting grammar). @Dick (it feels weird to type that...): Basically, abusal of blocking rights. --ʤɱ atheist 22:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Come to think of it, I do recall something of the rumpus o leading to brx's promotion. In any case, I think calling this a real imitation is overstating it a bit. It's not like he made some significant comments and faked Nutty's sig. That would be a big deal. Saying "Hi, I'm Nutty Roux" and signing it with a BoN is not in the same ballpark. But, yeah, Brx, don't do it again. And definitely don't change people's comments. DickTurpis (talk) 22:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
(EC) This seems to be blown out of proportion. I do not think Brxbrx was acting maliciously, nor did he cause any actual disruption, since very few editors would have believed that the anonymous edits were coming from Nutty Roux. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 22:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I am an angry man. GAR. Aceof SpadesSilverbrain.png 22:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Noob question: who's GAR?--"Shut up, Brx." 00:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Ace McWicked posting as a BoN. I think anyone who impersonates me should suck a bag of smelly cocks! --58.163.175.191 (talk) 00:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Spot on--"Shut up, Brx." 00:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Ace McWicked posting from behind an unspecified number of proxies. Has anyone seen a smelly bag here? I really really want it. 75.130.233.149 (talk) 00:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support