RationalWiki:The case of MarcusCicero

And again, as with TK, CUR and others, we're having a hissy fit because we can't get it together to create and enforce a set of standards for dealing with disruptive behaviour. So, let the mobocracy speak. Should we:

Ban MC for good and have it done with

 * I am sick of this asshole scaring editos away and causing trouble. He has caused trouble time and time again, and shown that even his best of ideas (The RationalWiki Reform Society in mind here) are only a ruse to give him means to continue to abuse this site and its editors. 01:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nuke the fucker, TK-style. I'm sick and tired of his shit.  -- 01:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The man serves no purpose here. I've been around this site for six days and I already have a strong enough opinion to take a side. Under these circumstances, nothing short of banhammer to the dome is in order . TKEtoolshed (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In my mighty lurker opinion, people should stop pointing out the local troll, even if it's a fun aside. Bin it, or at least never give it janitor powers. (P.S., it's pretty annoying to see a header about it for a whole damn day. "HEY LOOK, PEOPLE TALKED TO THE TROLL.") ~ Kupochama[1][2] 03:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you think that will solve the problem, go ahead. -- Nx  / talk 05:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Bin him until such time as he has proven himself not to be trying to undermine the project by being a troll

 * Thanatos
 * I think this policy is the best combination of leniency and practicality. 00:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And can we forget about him otherwise? I know Human wants to see his essays, but I really don't care any more.  He was entertaining when he'd show up and post a half dozen messages and then vanish again, but any more was just stupid and annoying. --Kels (talk) 01:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure what I am agreeing with here, but Kels pretty much said what I think, I think. 07:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * --Tom Moore fiat justitia 01:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Permabanning is pointlessly ineffective since new accounts & proxy IPs are freely available. Keep binned & try to ignore as much as possible.   08:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm ok with this. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm ok with this. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No bin, no ban, give him his mop and bucket back and SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT HIM FOREVER

 * I wouldn't demote him, but just ignore him. He'll eventually get bored.  Corry (talk) 01:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I kind of like the guy Web (talk) 05:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Goat

 * TheoryOfPractice (talk). Dealing with this on a case-by-case basis leads to headaches and bad vibes. We need to look at the forest, not the trees, and come up with a uniform policy that is fair to the accused and to the community at large.
 * Agreed, but I think voting on this is a step in that direction. Figuring out how the community feels about MC will help us come up with a policy. 00:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, too, TheoryOfPractice. But, like Tetronian, I would argue that using this example to set the rule is the best way to come up with a policy.
 * "I would argue that using this example to set the rule is the best way to come up with a policy." I think that's the worst way to make policy - that is, reacting to a troll/cyst/cancer by writing a way to deal with them rather than just making sane "policy".  07:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * 00:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC) I agree with ToP. While I am sick and tired of all the shit that has been going on here for the past few days/weeks/etc, and what it has done to the community as a whole, we should strongly re-evaluate our positions on the policies as they stand now.  I will leave it up to the tribal elders to decide what to do with El Cicero.
 * The strange case of MarcusCicero demonstrates one very salient point: RWians as a whole really really suck at not feeding trolls. So we definitely need a "disruptive behaviour" policy that will allow us to deal with this sort of thing easily in the future. I would propose (more or less) permanent vandal-binning. Blocking seems too draconian, and not effective since we don't check IP's and we don't want to go down the TK road. The bin was an inspired creation. It takes the fun out of vandalism and trolling, makes the mess easy to clean up, and isn't heavy-handed. Let's use it more often.
 * "RWians as a whole really really suck at not feeding trolls" is the problem, not the lame troll under discussion. Stop feeding, stop letting them under your skin, end of story.  07:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem with the Vandal Bin is some of our more literal-minded members assume that because it says "vandal" we shouldn't put anyone but vandals in it. Personally, I think it's perfect for someone like MC or TK, since they obviously never intend on doing anything but annoying people. You wanna do that, go to 4chan. --Kels (talk) 02:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Our more literal-minded members can go jump off a bridge. We could just rename it to something more inclusive. Any thoughts?-- 02:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We could keep the vandal bin for vandals and build a similar device called a "bridge," under which trolls would live. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 02:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * How about a Douchebag Storage Area? Corry (talk) 02:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I like the idea, but I think it should be called something more polite. 02:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

(Un-indent)I would also like to argue for de-sysoping anyone who lets a vandal out of the bin without a consensus. Some drunk sysop/crat letting a vandal out is not only annoying and dangerous, but is also an abuse of teh powerz. 02:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Restricted Editors puts it in more neutral language, but I suspect the "I am not a vandal, I don't belong in this bin" moan is disingenuous gaming of the system, a.k.a. wikilawyering. Try renaming the penalty box if you like, but when that fails, I won't even give you the satisfaction of an "I told you so." I completely agree with Antifly that an awful lot of RWians' troll-starving skills are abysmal. If you feed them, you join them, as I see it. With that, I intend to abstain from further comment; I've got a life to get on with. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 02:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we are converging to a reasonable policy: Vandal bin re-named to denote inclusion of all troublemakers; making trouble earns you tenure in the bin; liberating anyone from the bin requires consensus (i.e. a page like this with some sort of vote); unilateral exoneration of personae non gratae earns immediate promotion.-- 02:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know much about him, but I would be down for some goat. Icewedge (talk) 07:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

MAKE HIM OUR GOD

 * DickTurpis (talk) 01:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC) No. But it seems it should be an option?
 * I for one welcome our trollish new overlords. Whoever they are this week.  07:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I approve of Antifly's summary of the consensus here
"Vandal bin re-named to denote inclusion of all troublemakers; making trouble earns you tenure in the bin; liberating anyone from the bin requires consensus (i.e. a page like this with some sort of vote); unilateral exoneration of personae non gratae earns immediate promotion."


 * --Tom Moore fiat justitia 03:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * --TheoryOfPractice (talk) 03:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * -- 03:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * --All screwing around aside, TKEToolshed. Good job.
 * --Agreed, and it frustrates me to no end that it took this level of BS to get it rolling. --Kels (talk) 03:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, a better option came up while I had the edit window open. Hear here. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 03:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose on one detail: it should require a consensus to get a miscreant out of this bin only if said miscreant went in it by consensus. 03:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Round and round in circles we go again. But who wants him out, exactly? 03:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll be honest, I'd rather see a higher threshold on getting out than getting in. Getting in should require at the very least a Good Reason, and putting someone in without giving one at all would result in just getting taken back out again since that wouldn't be valid.  But if a Good Reason were given, and there was no consensus arguing with the Good Reason, then the binning would stand. --Kels (talk) 03:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * But if a unilateral un-binning can get one's rights removed, that might be a problem. 03:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A temporary one if it's unjustified, though. --Kels (talk) 03:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Given all the arguments (very vitriolic, some of them) around here about what sort of blocks are "justified" or "unjustified," that is not quite so clear as might be wished most of the time. 03:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Funny, I thought I was clear. I'm suggesting if there is no reason given then it's automatically unjustified and the person can be taken out without consensus.  If there is a reason given then if consensus says that reason isn't worthwhile, then the person can be taken out.  --Kels (talk) 03:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we should get rid of the V-bin, it doesn't really help in the end. Short blocks deal with wiki-bots, and anger at piss-takers is best dealt with personally.  07:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Emperor's suggestion
I agree with Antifly's suggesstion in principle, but it needs a bit of work in practice. I'm thinking the vandal bin could be divided into 2 classes, say "lite vandals", which would be like what we have now, used for spammers and blankers, and "heavy vandals" (working title) for trolls and the like, who would be severely restricted- no editing autoprotected pages, massivley decreased edit rate (1 edit per 6 hours is what I'm thinking), maybe some form of "edit approval"(I think there is a extension that does this), and other such penalties. Needless to say, while a user could be put into the lite version by any old sysop, the heavy bin could only be used by bureaucrats, and only by consensus. This would, IMO, satisfy the hard-liners (like me) who want him gone, by curtailing his presence and limiting him to a very minor role, and the moderates, so we wouldn't have to leave. Thoughts? -- 03:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This is better in that the use of the heavy bin requires a consensus either way. 03:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a good idea, but it needs the details ironed out. If we were to apply this plan to MC everyone would argue over which bin he belongs in. Also, I don't really see the need for a harsher bin, and the fact that it is so restricting will just make people use socks to get around it. 03:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If people try to use socks to circumvent the vandal bin the socks should be permabanned, otherwise the bin is useless. As to the time limits, I do not think that they need to be any more severe on the heavy bin than the light. 03:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's my thing about socks, and people freaking out about Checkuser, which may ensue. If MC creates a sock "1", blanks some pages, writes FUCK YOU AUTHORITARIAN FUCK I HATE YOU on my userpage, and trolls the saloon bar with stories about his brother, we can assume that it's him and ban him, since he already has one account that has been punished.  If he creates the sock "2", which trolls in a totally different manner, we treat it as a different case, and bin it depending on the level of offense, and he gains nothing.  If he creates the sock "3", which contributes in a positive manner and doesn't troll at all, we have no suspicion it's him, he didn't do anything wrong, and he is helping us, so no action is required at all.  Thus, we can see that all socking falls into one of the three categories and is not really a problem at all.

Naturally the precise details of the heavy bin need to be worked out, but that consensus would probably be that he belongs in the more restricted category. -- 03:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you about socks, but in terms of time limits I'm with LX. Which basically means I pretty much disagree with most of your original proposal. After all, the current time limit does curtail regular vandals and MC pretty well. So why would we need 2 bins? 03:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem with binning socks instead of permabanning is that a user with enough socks can then make many more than the specified number of edits in an hour. Fall down has about a hundred vandal-binned accounts by now and he would always switch between them to avoid the limit. 03:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

@Tet: No, it doesn't. MC can wait 30 minutes and resteer the discussion towards him. You couldn't after 6 hours. At the very least, it would cause a drop in the fun he has.

@Listener Yes, but if he tried that, we would see that the socks were connected, and ban them accordingly.

Actually, what I'm thinking of now is that the heavy bin would automatically put his comments in collapsible boxes and hide it, so one could click and read to comment, but it would help in DFTT. -- 03:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * @Listener: Yeah, but like the Emp says if we find out whose sock it is then we ban it instead of binning it. I would think that we are smart enough to be able to tell whose socks are whose.
 * @Emperor: Maybe if it were 2 or 3 hours instead of 6? Also, that last idea is worth considering. 03:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

This is nothing new. People tried discussing this on the sysop user guide page several times this year. Conservapederast (talk) 04:00, 11 December 2009 (UtTC)

@Tet: Yeah, I said the details need to be worked out. I say 2 as min, 6 as max, and everything in between is fair game. -- 04:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Antifly's + the Emperor's ideas
Which means:
 * The bin is to include all vandals and trolls.
 * Particularly nasty trolls are to be placed in a stricter bin.
 * Socks of trolls or vandals are to be banned, not binned. 04:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree-- 04:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree, and I like the collapsable box idea thingie. -Corry (talk) 04:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree, TheoryOfPractice (talk) 04:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree, cause I'm tired of this ACLU test case bullshit. --[[Image:Flag of Soviet Canuckistan.svg|30px|IN SOVIET CANUCKISTAN, BEAVER DAMS YOU!!!]] Yossarian The Man from the USSR 08:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree Provided they stay in the bin forever 09:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree Provided we don't see a repeat of people being let out by lead paint lickers playing at Perry Mason .-- 13:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree EddyP (talk) 17:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I think all this fluffernutter is endless wanking
Get over ourselves, don't feed the troll unless you want to drink wine with them, and stop wanking on new ways to block people from the site. 07:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree –SuspectedReplicantretire me 08:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes - also agree with points further up this page that RWians are terrible at not feeding the troll.  08:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wey hey! That's what I wanted to see! Very right. Also very right that people are shit at DFTT. I was extremely close to de-crating/sysoping and then vandal binning every user that exacerbated the situation just to get all Judgement of Solomon on it. 09:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. I still don't see why everyone is giving him so much attention. 13:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sort of agree. The problem is not really MC. The problem is RW. It's not how MC acts on RW, it's how RW reacts to MC. Consequently the solution is not a technological one which can be addressed with a more sophisticated vandal bin; the solution is sociological one. RW users must change the way they deal with MC. RW users seem unable to "not feed the troll" and equally unable to "not free the troll".  But if you want a technological solution which would enforce NFTT then everybody who feeds the troll should be vandal binned and have their sysop or crat rights removed for a day.--False Flag (talk) 16:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A,yup. I've seen this kind of thing in real life, in group housing, where house meetings had to deal with "life artists" who enjoyed pushing the envelope while others were trying to get something done in the midst of the chaos. Sometimes the need to hear everyone out led to HCM. Sometimes the answer was as simple as "You don't live here any more" when someone had not paid their share into the house kitty nor done useful house work for a long time. Answers for you have I none. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I have done nothing
I have deliberately stayed away from this discussion, but it is interesting to see a dramatic interpretation of the site's ethos 'explorations of authoritarianism'. MC 86.40.104.161 (talk) 12:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)