RationalWiki:Chicken coop

From RationalWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Mikalos)
m (Protected "RationalWiki:Chicken coop": protecting to move section without ec's ([edit=moderator] (expires 00:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)) [move=moderator] (expires 00:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC))))

Revision as of 00:22, 13 September 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

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). Lord of Reckless Noise Hooray! I'm helping! 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. Lord of Reckless Noise Hooray! I'm helping! 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)

Well, go and address it. -- Nx / talk 08:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Trent and the board have offered me the newly created position of system administrator. If you want to have an election, now would be a good time. -- Nx / talk 06:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
According to the Foundation's bylaws, Trent, as the Operations Manager is responsible for overseeing all aspects of the daily activities of the Foundation. As such, the bylaws delegate to him alone the authority to appoint people with server access to assist him in this role. At the last board meeting, the board resolved to charge Trent with drafting a job description for the position of Server Administrator, which would be subordinate to him as Operations Manager and responsible responsible for performing certain tasks on the server. Trent's made a proposal, which we're discussing but have not yet adopted. We resolved by unanimous vote to offer the position to Nx once the job description is decided on. So at least for the time being it's still within Trent's sole authority to appoint people with server access to assist him in his job as Operations Manager. Nx is uniquely suited to continue making this wiki work server-side and in the MediaWiki space and we're lucky that he's been so generous with his time and talent.
But several issues relating to 2 distinct roles have been raised in this section. I hope it's clear that the position of tech as someone with user rights to edit the MediaWiki space but without server access is a different role than that of Server Administrator. While it's Trent's job to appoint his own team server-side, I have no idea what procedure ought to be followed for appointing techs and I'm agnostic whether it's within the community's authority to elect techs. I will say that it makes no sense for someone with server-side access to not be able to edit whatever is necessary in MediaWiki to do his job, so whatever the community comes up with consistent with its authority obviously needs to accommodate the Server Administrator's mandate, but that's just a mostly premature side thought right now. I'm inclined to say that it ought to be Trent's or Nx's job to appoint a limited number of techs to help out since their role should only be to assist them, not get involved in the daily happenings of the wiki except as a regular editor, or as a moderator if elected. What are peoples' thoughts on how to approach the duties, term, etc. of the tech spot? Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 16:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, but if the mob wants to have a say in it, they can now. As for techs, we have this discussion. -- Nx / talk 19:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Just to make my perspective clear on the issue, the motion passed was to authorize me to make the job description and offer it to nx. I have done so and sent a copy to the board and gave 3 days time for feedback. Which I received none. Therefore, based on my mandate I have created the position and the job description and officially offered it to nx. Now it is totally his prerogative to seek community feedback before accepting or rejecting, but I don't think we need another board vote. Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, I'm happy with it! Ends a nebulous area, and Nx has proven himself competent and responsible.--ADtalkModerator 23:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

New section

AD, surely you jest. Nx has been deleting content I added to my talk page. http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHuman&action=historysubmit&diff=865092&oldid=865089 the creature is neither competent or responsible. I think he should be blocked for a month for egregious abuse, and his server access removed permanently. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Repeatedly. http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHuman&action=historysubmit&diff=865093&oldid=865092 ħumanUser talk:Human 04:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't Pi's server access be looked into as well? We are in a very nebulous era, after all. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 04:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Pi doesn't have server access. -- Nx / talk 04:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
It was a joke. The point of the comment right before Human's was that we were coming out of a nebulous era. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 04:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I suspected as much, but felt the need to post a disclaimer nonetheless. -- Nx / talk 06:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
And into a stelliferous era? Aceace 04:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Nx was pretty obviously doing the right thing in not ignoring a blatant attempt to circumvent a community decision.--ADtalkModerator 04:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Ignoring? -- Nx / talk 06:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Haha mispoke! Fixed.--ADtalkModerator 06:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Last chance

Since I'm running in the moderator elections, I'll ask Trent to remove my server access. After the moderator elections are over, I will be accepting the job. You have until then to figure out whether you want to have a say in it or not. -- Nx / talk 10:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Ace McWicked again

For desysopping Maratrean and subsequently blocking him for three months. That's pretty bad, especially seeing as how Maratrean is one of our nicest and politest editors. If this were MarcusCicero or someone else who obviously means only to disrupt the site, I'd be a bit more sympathetic and would let someone else coop him (actually, I think this is my first coop! So exciting!!!).--"Shut up, Brx." 03:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly support Ace's actions, and suggest cooping Brxbrx for cooping Ace. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 07:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly support Ace's actions, and suggest cooping Brxbrx for cooping Ace. Pippa (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I suggest cooping Suspected Replicant and Pippa for suggesting we coop Maratrean and Brxbrx. DickTurpis (talk) 16:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I suggest cooping everyone for reading this when e has better things to do. 68.116.168.154 (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
(e/c)I think everyone will agree that DickTurpis should be cooped for that last comment. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 16:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Stop sign.svg

This conversation is about to go badly downhill, inevitably ending in comparisons to Hitler,and hurt feelings all around.
Stop now. Step away from the keyboard.
Go pet a jerboa, or milk a goat.

Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 07:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I delivered a warning of sorts on Ace's talk page. If anyone has something further to argue constructively here, feel free. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 09:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

An admission of guilt and a show of remorse would be nice.--"Shut up, Brx." 16:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
An admission of guilt and a show of remorse would be nice. Are you out of your fucking mind? Good luck getting remorse out of me. Aceace 20:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for resigning then. --ʤɱ pirate 21:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I didn't resign as an acceptance that I had behaved poorly, I resigned because this website is hamstrung by a bunch of fuicking concern trolls who bleat on about being suppressed. Aceace 21:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I believe you. I was questioning your character. --ʤɱ pirate 21:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Good for you, penis-pie. Aceace 21:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I approve Ace's distaste (mmm, penis pie. someone else may have my entire helping of it; see what a fine fellow I am?) for being hobbled by the need to be seen playing nicely with concern trolls. In the class struggle, he will be more effective as a rouge admin. Just keep the rouge off my end of the goat, will you? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
It would be concerning if we took concern trolls seriously. --Mack Coster (talk) 22:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
this website is hamstrung by a bunch of fuicking concern trolls
Spoken like a true concern troll, and backed up by his actions. nobsI am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp 02:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
What happened Rob? I thought you guys were pals. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 02:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I am such a genius concern troll that I waited four years for a person like maratrean to come around so i could leap into action. Genius! Aceace 02:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm a lot smarter. I'm waiting like maybe a few more weeks before I start concern trolling. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 02:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Ace's actions may have been part of a reactionary counter-revolutionary effort to thwart reform and return RW to the bad old days. nobsI am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp 03:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Go for it, bricks. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 16:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
So do I: I think Maratrean should admit his guilt as a wanker and show his remorse by pissing off for good. Pippa (talk) 16:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Ace is Hitler. I feel bad. steriletalk 18:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

since Maratrean has turned his user page into a promotion for the sort of thing this sites mission is against, and covered the site logo with his own , I think desysopping was perhaps warrented. grumping at ask is also tacky. Ace may have his faults but he is still Ace. Hamster (talk) 04:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Faults? What fucking faults? Aceace 04:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
(ec)Yes, yes, that's so CP-esque, what Hampster wants to do. nobsI am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp 04:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
OMG, not only does he have the audacity to not leave forever when bullied and abused, he is also promoting his made up bullshit religion on his userpage, AND he covered up the site logo on his user and user talk pages with his own? Death's too good for him. -- Nx / talk 06:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I think Hamster was joking there. I hope he was, anyway. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 06:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
And after Maratrean, we should block Human too, I mean he covered the site logo with his face, how egotistical is that? Does he think it's his wiki? And also anyone who uses displaytitle, since it forces me to look at the url to figure out whose talk page I'm on. -- Nx / talk 06:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
And also anyone who uses displaytitle... The specific target being the user formerly known as "Cabbage Wedge Gank," I presume? Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 06:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Is he unblocked now?

you faggots -- — Unsigned, by: Mack Coster / talk / contribs 16:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

A challenge

Some seem to be of the opinion that Maratrean is the most concern trollingest troll that ever trolled. I'd like to see a rap sheet of his greatest (worst?) hits if he is such a troll, otherwise, the cries of "concern troll" are just hot air. Nebuchadnezzar(talk) 03:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Because someone says something that the hearer is either (a) not interested in, or (b) too fucking stupid to understand, does that make the poster a troll? nobsI am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp 04:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
There is also category c) the poster says something too fucking stupid for anyone else to understand. That is not a troll as such, but very annoying. - π Moderator 04:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I understand most of what Maratrean says. Yes, most of it is bunk, but it is at least comprehensible. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 05:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
True, Maretrean makes the mistake in thinking we mean rational as in behaviour and not as in the philosophical sense. - π Moderator 05:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
To me, the two, while not identical, are nonetheless strongly connected. But I acknowledge that many others seem to think the linkage between them is much looser, or even non-existent. Zack Martin HolyMaratreanSigil.png 09:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
We've had a few of these Maratrean-related coopings, and each time they devolve into a cacophony of Maratrean-bashing, yet no one ever given a specific complaint about him, in the form of a diff or a link of any sort (SR's "evidence" was a link to Maratran's user contributions page, but that's less than helpful). If people have a legitimate gripe against the guy, make a case here. Until then, he's going to come off as the wronged party, and guys like Ace and SR are going to appear to be the bad guys who admit they are trolling. Does anybody want to coop Maratrean, or is the plan just to irritate him until he leaves? DickTurpis (talk) 15:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Permit me to join the throng who decline to trawl through Zach's editing history. Some of his more "serious" contributions, such as Independent Catholic churches and the Waldensians, take a pathologically procrustean reading of the mission statement to justify hosting. Fuck it, they aren't on mission at all; they fall easily into the same class as articles on teeny-bopper movies or "Homosexuality and deconstructionist views of See Spot Run." Digital storage is cheap, but why do we waste our time and attention on this self-inflated popinjay? Irritation until departure is one way to go. Getting the mob to shun and ignore him seems to have skimpy chances of success. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for at least providing some links. I'll grant that those articles' relevance to our mission is, at best, questionable, but hardly in the same category as the "Camp Rock". We certainly have plenty of articles on religious groups and sects, though they do tend to be more relevant today than these two. However, we do have a process for removing off-mission articles, and it doesn't involve hounding their creator until he leaves. I think he's enough of a n00b still that we can forgive him taking a slightly liberal interpretation of our mission, and education might be preferable to the boot, if that is his worst offense (and I'm assuming it's not). I'm looking for high crimes and misdemeanors here, but so far no one's showing me anything. DickTurpis (talk) 16:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
High crimes and misdemeanors are one thing, but I do not discount the insidious corrosive enervating influence of repeated low-grade time-wasting. From Huxley's Brave New World:
... water, it is true, can wear holes in the hardest granite; rather, drops of liquid sealing-wax, drops that adhere, incrust, incorporate themselves with what they fall on, till finally the rock is all one scarlet blob
Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
"self-inflated popinjay" FTW. Pippa (talk) 16:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't see the big deal with the articles Sprocket linked to. They could use a few more citations (Thus they can be seen as a form of proto-Protestantism as an example of something needing a citation) and a few less red links, but otherwise describe religious traditions that fall right in line with RW's mission of exploring fundamentalism- moreover the Waldensians article is further on-mission for its section on pseudohistory.--"Shut up, Brx." 17:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Also, "procrustean?" Took me a minute or two to look that up and I don't understand how that's a relevant adjective to this case.--"Shut up, Brx." 17:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
He wrote articles of questionable missionality? Off with his head. -- Nx / talk 18:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
throng, trawl, procrustean, popinjay, shun, skimpy — JMFC, did you swallow a dictionary at some point? That's six words I didn't know before reading that post.
I think it is good to keep a framework of off-mission articles to support those on-mission. Or how would you explain this, this or that? Maratrean certainly contributed to this wiki. I'm sorry but, "he has done nothin' but complainin'" doesn't work in this case, fuck that argument works better for me than for Maratrean. He is one of the few editors who made the philosophy stuff on this wiki relatively stomachable. --ʤɱ netlabelist 18:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
JMFC means Jesus Mother Fucking Christ. I had to look that one up too. Score one for the German, who knows more English (English web slang, that is) than the Frenchman living in the States!--"Shut up, Brx." 18:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
throng, trawl, procrustean, popinjay, shun, skimpy — JMFC, did you swallow a dictionary at some point? With the exception of "procrustean" and possibly "popinjay" those are words I would expect any English speaker who has survived twelve years of schooling beyond kindergarten to understand.
  • "Procrustean" is about stretching or mutilating something until it fits. In this case, I use it to mean stretching the letter of the mission to cover articles which hardly fit. You may debate that usage if you wish, but I will not participate.
  • I would expect an historically informed German or Belgian or Dutchman or Frenchman to be familiar with the concept of a popinjay, if not the English word. The English word is seldom used, but still holds meaning. Never mind; the discussion has moved on... Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Dude, as a French expatriate I am not expected to know the Old French appellation for "parrot." That's asking too much.--"Shut up, Brx." 21:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Get yourself a bow, and some rubber-tipped arrows. Find a suitable path through the woods, and hang a bunch of gallon milk jugs from branches here and there, so they dangle just above ground level, using a fathom of string for each. That is about as much string as you can stretch between both hands at arm's length. Hearing the THOONQUE!! of a well-placed hit, and watching the jug bounce on the end of its string, is guaranteed to put a grin on your face. No need to ask how I know this. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
You know that was just a remark and not a criticism, right? The density of words I don't know was high and I'm dorky enough to enjoy looking them up. If I would have been in an English-speaking school or country for a while I would probably know this stuff. --ʤɱ constructivist 11:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
All is cool, even mildly entertaining. Gave me an opportunity to bask in pleasant memories of roving along bosky paths with a bow and a handful of arrows. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 11:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
As a germanophile, who has lived her entire life in this country, and even has a very extensive vocabulary knowledge, I can tell you: No, you probably wouldn't know those words even if you had spent time in an English-speaking school or country for a while. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 12:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Wait, you're talking about procrustean and popinjay, right? I sure hope you don't think "shun" and "skimpy" are hard to understand. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 12:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I was a bit skimpy on details, but please don't shun me over that. Those words are fairly well-used... --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 12:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Whew. You just saved me from trawling through the history to find reasons not to join the throng of RW's detractors. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 12:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

So, wait, someone who peddles the same stuff all over the place to gain attention with the apparent concern that there's something wrong isn't the definition of troll? steriletalk 12:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

  • A troll says outrageous things, hoping to get a heated response.
  • A concern troll puts on the appearance of trying to help fix "problems" in order to alter a site to suit their own agenda.
  • An attention whore adds items they believe will meet with popular approval.
  • A whack job like Maratrean can seem rational at times, but may carry a whiff of all of the above. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 12:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
This is why the coop is so goddamn frustrating. People always throw around accusations about a user's behavior, but never back them up with links. Not all of us are familiar with all the actions of every editor here. DickTurpis (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Maratrean is not the one being cooped in this section, and even if he were, who would have the Sitzfleisch to go through his tedious tl;dr contributions anyway? Feel free to do some research. Opinions voiced regarding M may be taken as mitigation of the actual defendant's actions. A vocal fraction of the community has expressed such opinions. Thank Ahura Mazda the furor seems to have died down. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Back on topic

Can we at least agree that the unilateral demotion (or promotion if you prefer) and blocking of other users is a bad thing and shouldn't be done, regardless of who the subject is?--"Shut up, Brx." 17:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It is a bad thing. Ace has been warned. For now, let's leave it at that. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 19:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh he's been warned but he and others seem to be taking a flippant attitude. At least extracting a promise not to do it again from Ace and an admission that such actions are against the rules by some such as SuspectedReplicant should come out of all this.--"Shut up, Brx." 19:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Give me a fucking break. You're not extracting a thing from him. Either he gets punished or he doesn't. Either he apologizes or he doesn't. Didn't you set the precedent for lacking an iota of contrition until you got desysopped. Yes, you did. There ya go. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 19:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
And therein lies the rub. we've spent six months arguing about the rules and it's all completely fatuous. There are no significant penalties. The only real deterrent is banning and it took how long to ban Marcus - nah, we might try to agree a code of conduct but we won't get much agreement - it's too diverse a crowd and then what agreement we do get is totally unenforceable. Still, it passes the time and makes us feel important. Bob Soles (talk) 20:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
{ec}I'm not on trial here, and I desysopped myself and said I wouldn't do it again anyways. I realize he probably won't apologize or anything, but it sure would be nice. inb4 sarcastic apologies or shows of remorse from the parties I previously mentioned--"Shut up, Brx." 20:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I ain't apologizing for fucking nothing, Brx. So, you know, fuck it. Aceace 20:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Brxbrx coming in here to pretend he has moral warrant to ask for Ace's apology when he laughed through the whole process of removing his sysop bit smacks of the worst kind of hypocrisy. And it's impossible to take this person seriously when it looks like he's basically concern trolling over something there's no possibility he's sincere about. I'm calling shenanigans. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 21:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
If I'm the standard here then I should note I
  1. Promised not to do it again
  2. Desysopped myself
  3. Admitted that what I did was probably wrong, with my defense consisting largely of "it's no big deal"
Nutty Roux, drop your grudgewank against me--"Shut up, Brx." 21:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I've got a grudge? You've been attacking me since May. I'm merely discussing the facts and offering my opinion of your proposition here. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 22:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Huh? Let me recap what's on my screen here: Brx: Ace should apologize. Ace: No, I won't. Nutty: You did it before.
I see you both holding at least an aggressive position towards each other, but this time you brought up the past, Nutty. If you both stop trying to discredit each other with stuff like that, it might help a bit. On the other hand we could discredit everybody who has been cooped before. Well, that would make the place pop up in RC much less… --ʤɱ federalist 22:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm hoping we can agree that unilateral de-/pro-motion and blocking for extended lengths ain't kosher here, whether or not various users can get cajoled into stating as much in this forum. For my part, I'm also willing to let the Ace thing go for now, reluctantly. The whole "he's stopped, we can call this resolved" bit only seems to hold water when "stopped" means "isn't currently doing it at this very moment". There are several times he's done this sort of shit recently, and the first time I was in the vanguard of the forgive and forget crowd, since the dispute did seem to have ended with no lasting harm done. I did want there to be at least an implicit warning in there, but if there was it didn't seem to take. Now, I like Ace. As far as I have any friends here I count him among them, but he can act like a dick at times, and partaking in what is tantamount to harassment on the talk pages of Rob, Nx, and Maratrean, as well as the removal of rights and extended blocking of the latter, are cases in point. He is being allowed to get away with too much, in a way most other editors I don't think would be able to. So I don't consider Ace exonerated here, and while I don't suppose him stepping down as moderator has anything to do with any of this, I'm inclined to view it as a positive move nevertheless. DickTurpis (talk) 20:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I like you too Dick. Hell, you can come over and use my wife. Aceace 20:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Well thanks. I'd like to return the offer, but I guess that would have to basically mean offering you a hand job. I think I'll decline. DickTurpis (talk) 20:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Are you saying you are not married, or that your wife is a hand? Aceace 21:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
What Wayne says. SJ Debaser 21:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

BrxBrx

This is an unusual one as it takes place on RWW but I think it serious enough to be brought up here - Brxbrx continued to expose my workplace IP, sensitive personal information, without checking why I had hidden it so quickly because "my IP isn't special" and "people flash their IP's all the time". I think that is an extremely uncool thing to do. If someone hides an IP they obviously have a reason and to continually revert and expose it was a serious breach. I have taken away his show hide abilities over there but thought the community here should be aware of this. Aceace 05:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and once again he doesn't seem to give a fuck. Now as you'll know I have made it to this coop a few times recently but nonetheless, exposing someone's workplace Ip when they have already specifically said they wished it hidden is pretty serious. Aceace 05:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I think our policy is that any misbehavior on other sites, even RWW, is not grounds for punishment here. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 05:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
(EC) Unfortunately, while this is a dick thing to do, it's beyond the Coop's power. RWW is a separate thing, run by (I think) Goonie. You have to take it up over there.
Brx, if this is true, knock it off, goddamnit. Totally not cool.--ADtalkModerator 05:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
{ec}Honestly, why throw a fit over this? What's anybody gonna do with your work IP? No one cares enough to try anything with a single obscure IP and if they did they wouldn't be sniffing around RWW for it.--"Shut up, Brx." 05:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
It's part of a long-standing pattern of noxious misconduct directed at Ace and me. It'll catch up with him at some point. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 05:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Just stop it, Brx. We can't do anything to you here for it, but if you keep it up you're going to develop a reputation (more of a reputation? I'm not sure) for being a dick. Also lay off this nonsense with Nutty. You call him out constantly, and it seems pretty unilateral in that respect. You seem alright in general, but there's a bad habit of feuding that seems to go on.--ADtalkModerator 05:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh I didn't expect anything to be done about it here, just making the note that brx doesn't seem to give a fuck that someon e wouldn't want their work IP displayed and that he believes, without actually knowing what the job is, that it doesn't matter anyway (and this coming from the guy who threw a shit fit after people discovered his real name). Aceace 05:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
It's our moral duty to inform your workplace and business partners about your Internet behavior. --Mack Coster (talk) 00:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


Human again

For undoing the removal of MC's comments from his talk page. -- Nx / talk 04:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

It's actually rather comical how he keeps coming up with new ways to circumvent community decisions. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 04:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, clever too. Aceace 04:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Anyway, do we really have to go through the whole tedious argument and vote again? Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 04:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
No, there's no inane vote needed. This is a childish attempt to avoid a decision arrived at by a full and fair vote, through wikilawyering ("It wasn't MC guys it was me!"). We're not going to have a huge vote every time he comes up with some new slight alteration to try to defy everyone else - it'd just be a big dramatic time-suck that allows continual relitigation of a decision he didn't like.--ADtalkModerator 04:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Preach. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 04:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
We banned someone for 2 years on a simple majority vote with a 20/16 margin. That's revolting. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 04:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
20/14. Goats are not nays, you know. And 4 of those nays only objected to the length, wanting to give Marcus a chance to return and reform (lol, how many times did he pull that stunt?) before having another vote. -- Nx / talk 07:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
21/13, if we held the vote again I would change. - π Moderator 03:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Aye = for. Nay = not for. Goat = not for. Not vote = abstain. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 02:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
yeah, i don't think we can count goaxs for anything. Aceace 02:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Precedent is that "goat" votes are abstentions. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 06:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
That makes no practical sense. It's a vote. An abstention is the lack of a vote. And Pi, you rascal. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 13:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Go on, then. Undo the blocks yourself. Restore all the comments. What's stopping you? Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 04:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Dear child. You've completely missed my point. The choir you think AD's preaching to just ain't that big. Sure, it was a "community ban," but it was real shady. I wouldn't sharpen up my elbows and glory in being on the side of right when my mandate was so slim. But you think you're grooming for a leadership role, so don't listen to me. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 05:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Although the actual banning of MarcusCicero had a somewhat slim majority, the subsequent measure that Human is here accused of ignoring passed 20-3. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 05:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I like to pretend there will come a day when people like you and WfG don't question my motives at every turn. But to the point - well, you've completely missed mine. You thought I was threatening you? Come on, honey. I was asking why you tacitly support the legitimacy of the ban while shouting about it being "revolting" and impugning its legitimacy at the same time. I voted against the ban, you know. Well, I suppose you've given an oblique answer. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 05:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Mindless imposition of the rules can sometimes be a dickish thing to do, it doesn't hurt to sometimes turn a blind eye to the odd infraction especially if it doesn't involve you directly. I have seen several instances of people sticking their noses in solely to enforce some 'community decision' and thereby escalating a situation rather than backing off and letting it go. As a moderator I am more interested in containment of situations than being a 'jobsworth'. Reading the sections on this page I see several people jumping in with both feet to attack someone they hold a grudge against. Yes, there are are other editors here who irk me but I largely cope with that by not getting involved unnecessarily. What a lot of people have singularly failed to grasp is that the simple way to deal with trolling behaviour is to ignore it. "Oh DFTT doesn't work" - well that's because people just can't help themselves from sticking their fingers between the bars and getting them nipped. A user's talk page is meant for interaction with that user, while it may be sociable to join in a good natured discussion on a talk page, piling into a dispute is rarely a constructive thing to do. Nobody is obliged to visit Human's talk page unless they wish to communicate with him directly so as long as Human isn't objecting I see no big problem here other than those who want to make it one. I would really hate it if RW had its own Karajou(s). Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD memberModerator 08:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Marcus can communicate with Human via email. He was banned from this wiki. We had an overwhelming vote that said Human was not allowed to give Marcus a sanctuary. And Human's response is "fuck that, I'll do what I want". If we let him, what's the point of having rules or community decisions or mods for that matter? How many more votes do we have to have before Human accepts that the community doesn't want to see Marcus's shit anywhere on this wiki? -- Nx / talk 09:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Well the whole process of permabanning MC was flawed in my opinion; first of all it was to be a rush vote of two or three days when his current ban had not expired and then the wording of the vote conflated the action with the duration rather than having separate votes of what to ban and then for how long. As in any referendum the original worder of the motion can skew the outcome. Also blocking IPs that might be MC is a very un-RW procedure and difficult to enforce, just like whack-a-mole. Although the decision may have had a simple majority it was not a particularly large vote and not everyone was given the chance to vote - you know not everyone manages to log in to this site several times every day and despite the number of people who did vote for the ban I don't see them all actively pursuing this, it's just a small number who are making an issue of it. And if you don't want to see MC's shit then don't look at it. What I am seeing now is a bunch of busy-bodies getting their knickers into a twist and demanding that something must be done because they are outraged at the rules being flouted like some Christian fundies complaining about blasphemy at a show they forced themselves to go to in the first place. Can't you see that the constant reversal of posts only encourages the trolling and aggravates the situation rather than making it better? Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD memberModerator 10:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
All right then, let's see how your idea works. I'll stop deleting MC's comments. -- Nx / talk 10:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
(EC) A couple points:
  • I am super-psyched that we're still talking about this. But whatever.
  • If MC were to make IP posts that did not distinctively sound like him, then they would not be banned nor would they be a problem. He craves attention and drama (i.e. this) and if he was just another anonymous IP then no one would care. This is not a "whack-a-mole" situation. In other words, if the edit was not distinctively him then no one would have given a shit.
  • The vote in question is the troll sanctuary vote, which was 20 to 3. If you want to propose unblocking MC, then fucking propose it. I wish someone who was whining about this would do it. Short of that, the solution is not to just start ignoring votes that we dislike.
  • No one is retarded here. Everyone recognizes the phenomenon caused by even more attention when this sort of controversy happens. Seriously, everyone at this point is aware of the if we let him bother us the terrorists have already won line of thinking, because it has been spouted by every crusader two or three times.
  • Consider that by making your own criticism and response, you are helping increase the drama more visibly, lengthening the argument, and causing a problem. But no one busts your goddamn chops about it because we recognize that you're doing it because you think that it will help minimize drama in the long run. You're thinking, "Maybe I can show them how their busybodiness is helping make the situation worse, and this won't happen again and they'll just relax." We have the same goddamn intentions, because we're thinking, "Maybe if entitled assholes didn't think they could ignore the rules and slap their balls against the window to draw attention to how awesome and rebellious they are, we wouldn't have to do this shit again."
  • So anyway. Yeah. Butts.--ADtalkModerator 10:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Trolls will always be around. (Some would argue they've never left.) So, indeed, we will have to deal with this shit again. Like, duh. Damn fools. steriletalk 11:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
There's also nothing shady or even just narrow about a decision that was reached with 20 out of 34 valid votes in favor. That's a 59%-to-41% margin, for god's sake. Every single real-life election or referendum that had such a lopsided result has been described as a landslide victory. The vote was announced properly, ran for more than a week, and every editor who's not comatose must have seen it pop up on RC during that time. Apart from that, nobody voiced any procedural concerns during the vote itself, these complaints only came after the result had been certified. So please, if you've got a problem with the outcome of the vote, don't make it about the rules. Say that you think the majority was mistaken, stupid or didn't properly consider the eventual consequences of their decision, that's all fine. You can also schedule a new vote to reverse the outcome if you feel that community sentiment has shifted. But don't try to delegitimize the only instrument we've got to reach those decisions. If we don't accept that votes are binding or set an unrealistic consensus requirement, there will be no way whatsoever to reach policy decisions. Röstigraben (talk) 13:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

(od) nobody voiced any procedural concerns during the vote itself. False. Check "Nay" votes 6 and 12. One of the objections was even strenuous. And those were merely the objections within the poll. There have been objections elsewhere (e.g. above) about that particular procedure and the voting procedure in general. It's enough of a mess that voting can be seen to merely legitimise a pre-determined action. In this particular case, a two-year ban for multi-year behaviour deserves more than a 1 week vote, and said vote should have been well advertised (hint; something a little more purposeful than "people should see it in RC"), and indeed should have been based on a stronger mandate than simple majority. As Nutty has said (although not in quite so many words) you need to systematise elections to lay down established notification methods, franchise, poll duration, majority and accession standards and so on for broad classed of election. That was started around here somehwere but I think Peter left with it. Also I would say that you need a specific location for these. Currently elections seem to crop up in a variety of places, most often talk pages. Oh, and the message box should stop saying "after extensive community consultation", as sometimes it is just plain not true. LowKey (talk) 01:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, as to "nothing...even just narrow about [the] decision" - if three (count them 1..2..3) people had voted Nay instead of Yay then the extremely long ban would not have got up. A totally different outcome if 3 people voted differently; that's a very slim mandate. LowKey (talk) 03:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

its a simple thing, if you do not intend to enforce them then dont make rules. If the duties of a moderator are not defined then dont have moderators. Either accept a vote or require a stated quorum of members for a valid vote. Its just a waste of everyones time otherwise. Hamster (talk) 03:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Your objection was addressed. Check the timestamps, the vote evidently lasted longer than two days. Are you seriously going to argue that a vote is flawed because of a practice that was proposed, but not followed at the time? And do you realize that this is a small wiki, where typically no more than twenty or thirty editors participate in community decisions? Under these circumstances, a six-vote margin is rather large, because three editors represent almost 10% of the voters. And if you want different voting rules, propose them - Maratrean already called for instituting a two-thirds supermajority requirement recently, that didn't garner too much support though. But let's be clear about one thing: you either think a vote is legitimate, or that it's a sham. If you're convinced that procedural flaws will make it impossible to reach a legitimate decision, it's customary to voice these objections up front and in full, usually coupled with a boycott of the vote itself. Voting and then suddenly coming up with all these objections after your side has lost is sore losership, nothing else. Röstigraben (talk) 06:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Had we been able to agree on a regular voting procedure — I was making some attempt to get one in place before the Saloon Bar Putsch happened — we would not have needed the moderators in the first place. Until we get a regular procedure in place, as I understand it, the moderators have free rein to set the terms of votes. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 06:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if they're authorized to do that, but they seem to follow customary rules anyway - simple majority or plurality under mulitple-choice options, keep it open for at least one week, any registered user can vote. That's fine with me, although I'd like to see the eligibility requirements clarified, possibly to the same standards we use for elections. Röstigraben (talk) 06:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
(EC)Please show me the diff where my objection (not Human's) was addressed. That would be my comment that the vote should be longer (for a multi-year solution to multi-year actions) and that there should be some kind of effective notification. Also, check the timestamps yourself, take very careful notice that my objection was lodged with my vote not "suddenly...after [my] side has lost" and then be honest enough to retract "nobody voiced any procedural concerns during the vote itself" since you have actually now changed your claim to "voiced and addressed". To, "It's customary to voice these objections up front and in full," I would point out that I already raised objections to the short voting window in relation to the earlier vote, and my mentioning them with my vote was well after I had initially raised them. As to, "usually coupled with a boycott of the vote itself" may be your view, but why should I be disenfranchised to do dissatisfaction with the system? So if I am against lynchings and someone attempts one am I to sit aside and say "well it's not legitimate so I have nothing to say"? Where I come from it is not uncommon to vote against proposals that are being improperly pushed. You say, "if you want different voting rules, propose them," as if I had not already indicated that that is exactly what has been going on. I found that, BTW, here (and associated talk). "Typically no more than twenty or thirty editors participate in community decisions" could well be due to the rush-to-judgement style employed. Statistics show "active editors" at 671 right now. That is for 91 days though, so for a very rough estimate divide it by 3 and you get 220 odd editors in the last month. In other words voter turnout is about 10% which is truly pathetic, or rather largely apathetic. This particular case in point, if only about 10% of active editors even care about the proposal and 40% of those are agin it, then it becomes pretty hard to claim a mandate for a multi-year ban on the back of the 5 or 6% that want it. LowKey (talk) 06:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Your objection to the vote's length was addressed at the same time as Human's; as to the notification, P-Foster sent out an intercom message on the subject about 15 minutes after the vote opened. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 07:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
To the former, okay, although I was not complaining about the 2 days, but the week. To the latter, what is the timestamp of P-Foster's intercom message? I certainly didn't see one at the time, and the closest timestamp I can find in the index there is about the "Trusted User" group . Rostiwhatsit should still acknowledge that objections were raised. LowKey (talk) 07:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
There is a link to the intercom message in my post. If it does not work for you, the time stamp is "15:16, 31 July 2011."
As to getting the intercom messages, you should make sure you are a member of the "General site news" intercom group. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 07:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
(EC)Do you deliberately misread my posts so you can find some monstrous injustice to complain about? The concerns you raised at the time were addressed, the ones you're bringing up now are new. Two days would indeed have been to short for a vote (a week is customary), so that part was changed very quickly. If you want to split hairs, I will change my statement to "no objections were raised that weren't immediately addressed". Big difference. As to the quorum of participants, the core user base of RW is about fifty to a hundred people in a shifting composition. Even among the regular contributors, there are many who simply don't care about site policy or the tedious, usually MC-related drama. If they don't show up to vote, it doesn't change anything about the legitimacy of a decision. Seriously, if you're so pissed off with the current election rules, team up with Maratrean or somebody else who shares your concerns and draw up a new set. Supermajorities, minimal participation quorums, all of that can be incorporated if you'd put forward a concrete proposal. But don't complain if you lose that vote, too. Röstigraben (talk) 07:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
The "Active users" list includes large numbers of vandals and small-volume editors who do not involve themselves with the community. A better measure of the number of people involved is rww:RationalWikians by Edit Count. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 07:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
(EC)Rosti, you particularly claimed that no-one voiced concerns at the time in order to argue that we have no right to voice concerns now. As to my concerns that I voiced at the time, it turns out that in fact they were not "immediately addressed" as you so goal-post-movingly put it, but were ignored at the time - as indicated by your apparent inability to provide a diff to where they were addressed. You now say that a week is okay. Well that is address my concern after a fashion - as long as specific dismissal counts. LX is only just now addressing my comment about a message. It is a month after I mentioned it the first time, but maybe if you really squint that counts as "immediately". Simply admit your error and I will stop hounding you about that. Also I have now twice mentioned (once with a link) that I have been involved in proposals about voting rules, and I have again raised issues that should be addressed. Stop pretending that I have not, please.
LX, I see. My preferences are pretty much default, except for RC display. It appears that "General site news" is an opt-in, which I did not know until now (also it's not in Preferences). I don't get why a Saloon Bar discussion rates "Site-wide (urgent)" but the second ever long-term ban is only "General site news" but I guess that's how it goes. Community consultation really should rate as more than general news. Ah, I have added the group and I see now that I wouldn't have seen the message anyway unless I logged in between 31 July and 2 August (the original vote duration). When the vote duration was changed, the message was left unchanged (apparently). LowKey (talk) 07:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Aside from the intercom, our options are limited for notification, and we assumed that people had gotten the intercom message. I thought Nx had reconfigured the intercom so that people were in "General site news" by default; if a significant number of users still have it turned off, we should make a new opt-out intercom group for vote notifications, or at least send out a message through the "Urgent" group telling everyone to put themselves in the "General site news" group. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 07:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
It's not that simple and I didn't have time to do it yet. -- Nx / talk 08:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
(EC!)I like both the new group and the "Urgent" message to opt-in on General site news. Alternatively, vote notifications could simply be always sent as Site wide (urgent). It's largely water under the bridge now, but assuming that people had gotten the message was fine up until I said that there should be a message. At that point, even if someone had done as you did and point to the intercom, the two problems (premature expiry, and need for opt-in) could have been corrected almost within the vote window. Ah well, another of Rosti's claims (proper notification) shot down. LowKey (talk) 08:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Are you dense? The two days proposal was never implemented. Look at the time stamp of your own comment from back then: August 7th. That's seven days after voting began, and it still continued for a few more. A message was also sent, it's not my fault if you don't read it. So in fact your concerns were not just addressed immediately - what you wanted had already been done at the time. I'm also not saying "now" that a week is OK (whatever that is supposed to mean), I've said right from the beginning that a week is the customary minimum length for a vote. And, once again, the vote you're complaining about lasted for longer than that. Lastly, if you're content with making your proposals on a talk page in somebody's user space, go for it - why should I care about that? I didn't admonish you for not participating in discussions, but simply told you what you'd need to do if you actually wanted to see some change in the rules take effect: write up a concrete proposal, bring it to a vote, get a majority. Anything else you do doesn't concern me in the slightest. Have a nice day. Röstigraben (talk) 12:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
It was not to the 2 days that I objected, it was the week. It was Human that objected to two days. Our usernames are easy to confuse but here is a handy shortcut for telling them apart: they are spelled and pronounced differently. My objection to only a week WAS NOT ADDRESSED. In any case, why should a major vote over extraordinary action be subject to the "customary minimum" period? You staked your claim that objections over the procedure only arose AFTER the conclusion. I think we have seen that your claim is wrong, and it is perfectly legimitate to re-raise objections that were not addressed at the time. In fact I had raised objections about short (NB: a week) votes without decent notice before this vote was even proposed. Some of the response was of the tone "well just this once it's a special case", although it looks to be well on it's way to SOP. I did not read the message because I DID NOT RECEIVE the message. Dismissing my concern on the basis of "it was sent" is very very Vogon. I did not blame you for the message not being sent properly. I merely pointed out that although you claimed it was sent properly that in fact is not what happened. As to "I didn't admonish you for not participating in discussions". That is technically correct, but a major quibble. You more than once quite strenuously directed me to address my objections to current practices by proposing new ones, even after I pointed out I had in fact done so. The implication appears to be that I should only propose new processes and not point out the gaping flaws in the current ones. Heads up - that won't happen. LowKey (talk) 13:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Is it me or are we taking this a little too seriously? It's just a wiki, FFS. Bob Soles (talk) 08:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

BUT MC HAS BEEN DENIED HIS GOD-GIVEN RIGHT TO TROLL THIS WIKI!!!!! IT'S A TRAVESTY!!!!!! -- Nx / talk 08:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Nx, for my part this is not about MC. It is about doing it right. LowKey (talk) 13:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
sorry but there is no 'one true way' , its whatever works for this wiki. 67.72.98.45 (talk) 13:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I can appreciate that, LowKey. I'm just tired of this MC bullshit. The last time we tried to do it right we ended up with a stupid vague rule that has caused more problems than it has solved. But if you feel so strongly about this, propose another vote. Then hopefully after that we can finally lay this thing to rest. Yeah, I'm naive. -- Nx / talk 02:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Shifting the discussion away from MC, how about a discussion, and then a vote, on some standardised voting procedures? i.e. who can propose a binding vote, is adding other options allowed, how long must vote be open for, how should it be advertised, who can vote, how to resolve disputes, etc. At the moment, it seems like people just make this stuff up as they go along, and different votes get governed by slightly different rules (for example, in one discussion I had with him, AD said that proposing other options should be allowed... then in the talk page vote, he announced that they shouldn't be for that vote...) Such a process could answer many of LowKey's concerns here... Zack Martin HolyMaratreanSigil.png 02:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

So I have to ask. If people voted for option 3 "user's castle", does that mean it's users castle except in the case of MC? Because if Human's talk page is his castle, then I would think Human could keep it the way he wants. steriletalk 02:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

You raise a good point. But various people have argued, that the MC reversion vote would still apply, which would mean "user's castle" would not really be user's castle. That said, users cannot have unlimited control over their talk page - what if someone used theirs to paste gigabytes of text, or defamatory accusations (e.g. user X is a child molester). So "user's castle" will never fully be "user's castle". Zack Martin HolyMaratreanSigil.png 02:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

(OD) Nx, I don't actually want to propose a fresh vote. I merely think that we should be free to point out errors in order to learn from them. I only waded in because claims were being made that the process was uncriticised at the time and beyond criticism once complete. If I hadn't dug my heels in so hard then I would never have found out about the required intercom group, so for that alone my complaint had merit. Also, it turned out that although the poll was extended the notification was not, so right there is a completely noncontroversial fix that is needed. Or I could have pulled my head in as instructed and what went wrong would continue to go wrong. It's quite amazing how authoritarian some of these anarchists get. LowKey (talk) 00:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so we'll make sure to use the site-wide intercom group next time. Can we move along now? -- Nx / talk 08:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

What is this? Please elaborate.

SuspectedReplicant

For edit warring and vandalizing Maratrean's user talk page. I've desysopped and blocked him for 30 minutes to stop the edit war. [3] -- Nx / talk 23:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Ace McWicked, AGAIN

Vandalizing user page, as usual. This is getting old. [4] [5] [6] [7] -- Nx / talk 23:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm cooping him right with you: Vandalized Maratreans talk page, vandalized Nx userpage because Nx undid it, vandalized my page because I undid SR vandalism. Nx stripped him of his rights, I blocked him for half an hour so the vandalizing would stop. Repeated pattern of abuse, unwilling to stop. --ʤɱ digital native 23:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Wait, what? When did Nx get the moderator rights to do this? For people all interesting in other people following the rules, you all seem more than happy to let someone else circumvent the rules to achieve your desired outcome... --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 21:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Do you need to be a mod to do that? --Mack Coster (talk) 21:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
No, Eira. Any sysop can strip another of his rights. You can do it too, in fact.--"Shut up, Brx." 21:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not interested in blindly following rules, Eire. In fact, ideally the only rule we'd need is "don't be a dick". Unfortunately, the definition of dick varies from person to person, hence the need for actual rules. -- Nx / talk 08:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Nx (yet a-fucking-gain)

This discussion was moved to RationalWiki_talk:Chicken_coop#Nx_.28yet_a-fucking-gain.29.

Everyone

This discussion was moved to RationalWiki talk:Chicken coop#Everyone.

Mikalos

This user has been stalking and hounding me. While my efforts here have been in keeping with Rationalwiki's mission of documenting the full range of crank ideas and explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism, Mikalos only purpose seems to be to make my life miserable. nobsI am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp 22:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Stalking would imply i actually look for your edits rob. I'm trying to make you shut up about the injustices of Conservpaedia like it's anything new. When you do that, we can all be friends. --Mikalos209 (talk) 22:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Maybe a mod could step in and tell Mikalos to stop following Rob everywhere.--"Shut up, Brx." 22:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
(ec) Mikalos, "...trying to make me shut up", that violates Rationalwiki's core mission statement about explorations of authoritarianism, would it not? Do you have a better eyewitness to the authoritarian abuses of Conservapedia sysops? Why am I asked daily to leak materials? nobsI am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp 22:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Mikalos, Rob clearly has no interest in your getting him to shut up. You've poked him again and again and it's bordering harassment. Just give him a break, okay? And no, we're not getting into your reasons. This is merely to get you to stop popping up wherever he posts and flaming him--"Shut up, Brx." 22:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Fine, but if i see him im still going to comment on what he says. And rob, if you want to help us on said mission, actually reveal information that isnt "CP sysops don't follow the rules on the site"--Mikalos209 (talk) 22:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Help you what, violate the policies of this site? Let's not get personal, please. Just leave me alone. Thank you. nobsI am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp 22:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Notice the word "Us" in that statement. That pretty clearly meant "Rationalwiki and its goals"--Mikalos209 (talk) 22:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Just leave him alone, Mikalos, and he'll leave you alone too. Please.--"Shut up, Brx." 22:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Brxbrx, your words and advice carry as much weight as a small bag of shit and should be treated as such. Aceace 22:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Ace, please watch this video--Mikalos209 (talk) 22:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
{ec}Thanks for stepping in, Ace. You've really improved the situation.--"Shut up, Brx." 22:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Milakos hasn't done anything wrong. Aceace 22:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Rob and Brx are teaming up? That's fucking hilarious. If our mission is to expose crank ideas, then Mikalos is fulfilling it by constantly pointing out some obvious truths to a congenital idiot who refuses to understand how mistaken he is. I fully support his efforts in this regard and recommend that this case be closed forthwith. B♭maj7 "If two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong." 23:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

A shame. I thought Mikalos was on the verge of agreeing to leave Rob alone, thus ending conflict and letting us go on without this drama.--"Shut up, Brx." 23:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
What conflict? Aceace 23:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Mikalos stalking Rob against the wiki.--"Shut up, Brx." 23:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
That's not conflict. Aceace 23:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
It's just Rob being a massive tool. Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly.... B♭maj7 "If two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong." 23:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps the only wrong thing Rob did was bring this up in the coop. Otherwise it's not too much to ask of Mikalos to lay off him.--"Shut up, Brx." 23:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Rob gets it as much as he dishes. Case dismissed. Aceace 23:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

For fuck's sake people, can't you just stop bitching at each other all the time? Mikalos: Can't you see why Rob is annoyed by this? He is allowed to change his opinion on something, and that's what he did (or so it seems). Rob: Tune down the bitching about CP, you sound like a broken record of tu quoque arguments. Brxbrx: try to see both sides. Ace: stop being an asshole. --ʤɱ socialist 23:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Mikalos actions are constant and endless. He's been asked by several users to layoff; his snide remarks and incivility bring nothing to the table; he's activiely interfering with Rationalwiki's Mission Statement; I swear he's a sock of Ace McWicked. nobsI am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp 23:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
What would I need a sock for? Aceace 23:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Rob, don't bring up the mission statement. You come off as insincere. Just focus on the whole Mikalos stalking you thing.--"Shut up, Brx." 23:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Ace's Style, substance, voice. Geez, Ace even came on momments after Mikalos left. I love those discussions with himself. nobsI am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp 23:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Accusations of sockpuppetry are equally fruitless, Rob.--"Shut up, Brx." 23:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
If Rob wants to stop Mikalos from calling him out for repeating the same stupid bullshit over and over, the solution is for Rob to stop being a stupid bullshitter. B♭maj7 "If two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong." 23:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Rob, if I was going to fuck with you I don't need a sock - I'd just do it. Like I always have. Aceace 23:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
BMflat, Alright, look at this way: I'm in negotiations over the private discussion list materials. Psygremlin and others want me to leak; I got ethical problems with that; I'm trying to discuss some of these concerns with CP sysops. Mikalos is interfering with those negotiations. Just tell him to shut the fuck up and go away. He's not helping. Maybe I can get some support from Psy & Nutty on this. So if they don't get leaked, you can thank that asshole for it. Ace, get fucked. nobsI am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp 23:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
The very topmost item on my list of "things that I in no way give a shit about" is "Reading the internal e-mails of a website full of hateful cranks, mental midgets and inveterate liars." Take your leaks and shove them up your ass. B♭maj7 "If two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong." 23:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
And you are telling me to get fucked why? What did I do? Aceace 23:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Lol Brx talking about sincerity. I needed a laugh today. Thanks. Hey Rob just email me. Not sure what's appropriate for me to do to help but let me know your thoughts. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 00:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support