RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive15

Eira
I'm bringing Eira to the Coop, for gross abuse of her powers, and a complete disrespect of the wiki. As an elected Trustee of RationalWiki, her behaviour is totally unacceptable and as such, she must be removed from her position and stripped of all rights.

The evidence:
 * She adds obscenities to RationalWiki's Community Standards, as a part of her personal vedetta with Kels
 * When Kels reverts her childish rant, she reinstates it.
 * When questioned on her behaviour, she - as a Rational Wiki Trustee claims "So, now we can't even do wandalism? WTF is wrong with this site anymore?" "Wandalism" of the main space has never been condoned on RW, and for a Trustee to think it is, is unforgivable.
 * When questioned further on her actions, she plays dumb and then when called on her stupidity, cries "personal abuse!" and hides behind the banhammer, rather than face her accuser.

These are not the actions of a RationalWiki Trustee, but rather a Conservapedia goon. It is certainly behaviour unbefitting somebody holding such high elected office, as and such she needs to be removed.


 * While I'm hardly a fan of Eira, I don't think the endless Chicken Cooping of people is achieving anything. Why not just give this page a rest for a while? 11:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, so let a Trustee do whatever the fuck she likes, is it?  PsyGremlin  11:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not about her, it's not about the Board. It's just about my hatred for this page. 11:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well last time I checked, this isn't about you. Misuse of powers are not going to go unchecked, because you don't like something.  PsyGremlin  11:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This page produces more heat than light. I think an alternative method of dispute resolution needs to be found. Suggestion: An independent, respected member, not involved in the dispute (let me suggest Tmtoulouse) hears out each side in private, tries to mediate, and renders a decision. If the editors involved can't accept the mediators decision, let them take the dispute public. But let's avoid this page blowing up every time there is a fight. (And I'm not defending Eira's actions in the slightest, but this page is not going to make things any better.) 11:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Maratrean might have a bit of a point. While I haven't been keeping tabs, it seems to me the coop doesn't have a great track record for solving disputes (correct me if I'm wrong). The new proposed moderators will likely be the future mode for resolving disputes, but until they're up and running (if that happens) I'm not sure Trent wants more crap dumped in his lap. Imperfect as it is, it seems the coop is what we have, unless someone wants to raise the Loya Jirga out of its coffin. DickTurpis (talk) 12:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree let's not dump everything on Trent (if he doesn't want to be dumped on). But, DickTurpis, can you think of a reasonably respected user (i.e. a crat) who hasn't been too involved in recent dramas? They might be a good candidate for the type of mediator role I envisage above. Just because we don't have a permanent solution yet, doesn't mean we can't have an interim solution better than this. 12:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So once again, we all jaw jaw jaw while a Trustee shits on the wiki? --41.133.33.197 (talk) 12:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If one of the other crats wants to step in and take action, I have no objection. I just don't think this page helps, that is all. 12:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I haven't been keeping tabs on who's involved and who isn't. In fact, I don't even have a good grasp on who's who half the time; there are a lot of users here, even bureaucrats, who are just a name to me. For that reason I'd be hesitant to suggest anyone (assuming your question is more than hypothetical) nor do I want to dump crap in he lap of anyone else unless they indicate they welcome it. I have not been involved with the current shit to speak of (I have doubts that the moniker "reasonably respected user" applies to me in any case, but "bureaucrat" does, last I checked), but I hardly want to bust in here with an "I'll handle this!" attitude, and, indeed, I've stayed out of these disputes for a reason. I'd be happy to give input from a uninvolved, non-partisan perspective, if anyone wants it. DickTurpis (talk) 12:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, personally I think you might make a good candidate for the kind of role I was suggesting, if you were willing. Not that I have any power or authority to nominate anyone to be anything, of course. Another person that pops into my head is Goonie (again, if he was willing, and the powers that be, whoever they are, agreed to it). 12:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's part of the problem: you have no authority to nominate such a position, and I have no authority to accept it. Should something like that happen regardless, whomever was decided against could claim (not without some justification) that it was a kangaroo court with no authority. Being a bureaucrat is pretty meaningless when I can make 15 of them right now if I wanted (which I believe I technically have the ability to do, though it would undoubtedly create yet another HCM), and the basic lack of rules or authority on this site, which worked for some time, is not working any longer. I guess what we have to decide is what Psy hopes to accomplish and how he wants to it done. Removing Eira from the board is a pretty substantial action, as her position is one of the few official things about this site, which we couldn't accomplish here if we wanted to (I think). Are we looking for censure? Stripping of certain rights? DickTurpis (talk) 12:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * She must be removed as a Trustee and ideally stripped of her rights. What she did is bad enough for an editor, let alone a Trustee. It is not enough to demote her, due to the fact that she is a Board member and thus has to be held to a higher standard. She should have been one of those attempting to stop the HCM, instead she fuelled it and now hides behind the ban hammer when called out on her actions. --41.133.33.197 (talk) 12:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The position of Trustee is constructed by legal contract which contains no provision for the community at large to remove a Trustee. The Board itself however retains full rights to make their own decision about my removal from the Board. -- 13:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait wait wait... ok, first of all, this whole HCM is an outgrowth of an HCM that involved Human (a Board of Trustees member). Then another Board of Trustees member (Armondikov) goes and instigates the big shit by decratting everyone, and then followed up by Nx, who has special server access and thus the ability to do real harm to the wiki. So, I guess, I'm asking why am I singled out alone as being forced to set a better example? -- 13:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

This isn't the place to discuss proposed policies, & we really don't need policy discussions spilling over to yet more pages than they're already on. My understanding of the Moderators proposal is that they would be there to respond to immediate needs such as temporarily blocking a user who's edit warring or mass deleting until the community decides what to do with them, not to replace by Coop by making these decisions instead of the community. Anyway, take it up at Forum:Plan of action for user rights and moderation, not here. Either way, as a user is under discussion right now at the Chicken Coop, any decision should be made by the community as per the current system. 12:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Raised my proposals there. 13:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding Eira, edit warring in Community Standards isn't cool, but is hardly the worst thing we've seen in recent days. Invoking her trustee status is irrelevant since she wasn't doing it on behalf of the Board or Foundation or any such thing, only as an editor.   13:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Very well, then she must be demoted for what she did to the wiki and her role in the HCM and her subsequent actions and abuse of power. If the Board wants to keep somebody of that nature on the Board that is up to them. One would think that somebody guilty of bring the Board into disrepute would have the good grace to resign. Clearly not in this case. --41.133.33.197 (talk) 13:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Manitoba is fucking cold in winter. It has never been a provision or expectation that Mainspace articles cannot include profanity. -- 13:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The Loya Jirga established (as has been pointed out many times already) that removing personal attacks is acceptable behavior on a talk page. Blocking a BoN to enforce that is not an abuse of power, it's exactly what the powers are there for. -- 13:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Wandalism is a time-honored tradition at this wiki, even in the mainspace. and I quote: "Wandalism, therefore, should be funny at the very least so that archiving it is worthwhile. The very best wandalism simply becomes part of the article if the mob likes it, of course. This particular form may be indistinguishable from so-called "normal" editing here,[2] and often committed by otherwise "respectable" editors." -- 13:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't have a vendetta against Kels until we had the revert war on the Community Standards. My wandalism was actually prompted by Blue and Tyrranis bitching about one of my pet articles. -- 13:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec)And edit warring with Kels had nothing to do with it right? You just felt like adding profanity to main space articles? And then engaging in an edit war over it? And your block was a thinly veiled attempt to avoid answering question about your behaviour. The "personal attack" is a handy excuse. Will you answer the questions here then, in your defence? You are a Trustee. You should be above those things. Falling back on procedure to cover you arse for actions you know full well were done in bad faith is pathetic. --41.133.33.197 (talk) 13:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The profanity was there in the first edit I made. It had nothing to do with Kels. -- 13:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Immaterial. The fact remains you put it there, because of something somebody else did and then edit warred to keep it there. Totally uncalled for behaviour. --41.133.33.197 (talk) 13:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So you admit you edit warred with Kels, and that your vandalism was prompted by the actions of other users on a totally unrelated matter? --41.133.33.197 (talk) 13:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Those actions alone prove you are unfit to serve as a Board member. Instead of working with the Board to stop the HCM, you actively took part in it. --41.133.33.197 (talk) 13:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Stated above, ADK and Human were the instigators of the HCM itself... yet I'm singled out for being in the coop? -- 13:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Admit to it? I never denied it. It's in the freaking logs, and I specifically posted on her wall that she was not conducting a proper revert war. Sheesh... SRS BSNSS here now? -- 13:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Human was taken to the coop, ADK has resigned. You abused your trust as a Trustee and thus must be held to account too. --41.133.33.197 (talk) 13:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * YES, it is serious business. You are a Trustee elected to the highest position on this wiki, including it's financial management. And yet you did nothing to assist Trent with stopping the HCM, you in fact fermented it and you seem to think it's a joke. That is why you are unfit to be a Trustee. --41.133.33.197 (talk) 13:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Trent didn't really do a whole lot to stop the HCM either. And I've made constructive feedback about how to fix the HCM, and ensure that future HCMs don't happen. But that's being swept aside because I did a little bit of wandalism, amirite? -- 13:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I obviously haven't been hiding from my accuser, and I've been answering and defending myself against all the accusations here, and have even admitted to a few of them. (Which I also argue are inconsequential, as has been noted by others, if we held everyone to those standards, we would have no Trustees at all.) I even fairly left attack comments on my RationalWikiWiki page, despite the "This is not an attack site" policy of the page. I believe the only remaining thing to be "upset" about here is that I blocked a BoN that was making personal attacks on my Talk page. -- 15:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You haven't here, because you've had to answer them. When I raised the issue on your talk page, you tried to smart alec your way out of them, and when I called you stupid for doing so, blocked me. That's hiding from your accuser. -- PsyGremlin  15:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I blocked a BoN... I had no idea it were you until later. -- 15:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Sanctions
I am Undeserving of wiki-authority. Everyone happy now? -- 13:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, because you've been re-cratted and the whole position of crat is becoming redundant anyway. You abused the trust placed in you by the members of the wiki who voted you to be a Trustee. That is what you must be punished for. --41.133.33.197 (talk) 14:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all, it'd be nice to log in when making demands of the coop. Bunchanumbers here is speaking as Psygremlin, so I'm going to assume it's him for the time being. Now, Psy, or whoever, what punishment are you seeking? Removal from the board is out of the scope of the chicken coop, and seems to be overkill in the minds of many in any case. If you still are looking to get her removed from the board, I suggest looking into the procedure for doing so, if there is one. If there isn't perhaps inquire of other board members. DickTurpis (talk) 14:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

STOP
There has been massive HCM over the last week and nerves are still a bit strained. Can we PLEASE cut people some slack for a minute, give this poor page some time to relax, and take a break for people to calm down for a day or two BEFORE we blame/ban/piss off every remaining contributor? (& dftt as I'm already ranting) NDSP 13:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Please, everyone, look at the kitten:



Isn't it cute? 13:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a kitty! \o/ -- 13:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Lovely. But seriously can we forget the disputes until people have calmed down and it is less personal.NDSP 13:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, this isn't going to be swept under the carpet. The management and reputation of this wiki are at stake. We cannot let those elected to a position of authority think they can do whatever the hell they please. Eira needs to be held to account. --41.133.33.197 (talk) 13:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not saying ignore all the offences/slights, I'm saying wait until people are less angry and less likely to spew insults/LANCB. NDSP 13:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES HAS ASSERTED IT WILL HOLD NO AUTHORITY ON THE WIKI. -- 13:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Eira - take a couple of minutes and calm down, please. The wiki won't burn down if you take a few seconds off. NDSP 13:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am calm... just I don't think people will hear me when I say that the Board of Trustees has no wiki authority if I don't yell it. Because apparently some people have it in their head that the BoT does. -- 13:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Your actions on the wiki still make you unfit to serve as a Trustee. The Board can remove you as a Trustee. Not to mention you should be demoted anyway. Just because you are a Trustee does not make you above sanction. --41.133.33.197 (talk) 13:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 41, if everyone who wandalises an article to make a point is banned, it may get very lonely around here. NDSP 13:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

If "not ever being a petty little bitch" is a requirement for being a "crat"/"trustee"/"moderator", then we're all out of those. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, Eira has decratted herself, so this coop is no longer relevant and should be declared closed. 13:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, she's been recratted. And this is about her as a Trustee, not a crat. Demotion from a crat means nothing, seeing as all the posts are becoming redundant soon anyway. --41.133.33.197 (talk) 13:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There is nothing the Chicken Coop can do about me being a Trustee. As I have noted, I have a legal contract binding my position. If you wish to actually bring something forward to remove me as a Trustee, then you can talk to any board member. Well, actually, I am a board member. I'll go ahead and push the motion out for you to the other trustees. -- 14:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (EC) The Coop has no authority over the Board, just over Crats. If the goal is to decrat her, this process is the right one. If the goal is to deboard her, this process is the wrong one. The correct process to deboard her, is to approach the Board and convince it to vote to expel her. If your goal is deboarding, the Coop should be closed as use of the wrong process. 14:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well it's on the record for the Board to respond to. I have also written to Trent, Punky and Human personally to raise the issue. Let the Board decide her fate. I have raised the issues as to why she is unfit to continue as a Trustee. She still deserves to be demote as well. --41.133.33.197 (talk) 14:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I already decratted myself... I'm not arguing that point. And as for the matter, I've brought a motion for no confidence against me on the board. -- 14:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

My view
Here's make take on the situation: I hope this helps, though I'm not holding my breath. DickTurpis (talk) 14:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Eira's position as a board member is largely irrelevant to this. She was not acting on behalf of the board, and the coop has no power to remove her from that position. If there is a way to do so, this isn't it. The best suggestion is to make this an issue when elections come around again, should she run.
 * 2) That being said, we should expect board members to behave as well as, if not better than, the typical user.
 * 3) Adding some joking snark to the community standards page is hardly the end of the world (a violation of WP:POINT, should that exist here), but edit warring over it ain't cool. Repeatedly re-adding it when removed by a well-intentioned user (as far as I can tell), and turning it into a personal vendetta makes the situation a lot worse. That the edit warring stopped when a third party reverted makes it appear the dispute was personal.
 * 4) Getting bent out of shape when behavior that could reasonably be described as "childish" is, in fact, described by a user a "childish" isn't helpful. It could even be described as childish.
 * 5) Announcing that you are hoping a "power mad little bitch gets kicked off her pedestal" is likewise not helpful.
 * 6) Everyone should calm down and try not escalating situations for once.
 * Oh, and having an account and logging into it when involved in coop activities gives you more credibility. DickTurpis (talk) 14:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The edit war was never personal. My last revert comment was "Now you're getting it" followed by a Star Wars quote... if Kels had reverted that revert, that would have been the end of it... that someone else did it instead is kind of an accident/incidental. -- 14:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Like I said, it makes it appear that way. When it would have ended isn't terribly relevant. It went on too long. DickTurpis (talk) 14:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point. -- 14:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * While getting into an edit war over posting something weird at CS is not the most sensible thing to do, it's hardly got anything to do with being a board member. If people think it does they can bear it in mind when the next elections come round.--BobSpring is sprung! 14:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact remains that as a senior elected official she acted in a manner contrary to the best interests of the wiki, allowed personal feelings to cloud her judgement, dodged questions when asked about her actions and finally abused her blocking rights to prevent any more questions being asked. All of these are inexcusable. Even more so for a Trustee. -- PsyGremlin  14:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I blocked a BoN who was making personal attacks. I didn't know that those BoN represented any particular editor here. It very well could have been MC for all I knew. -- 14:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I would like to reiterate Dick's point #1 - Eira was not "acting as a trustee". There really isn't a way to do such except to post meeting agendas and minutes and results of fundraising and spending on the wiki. Also, regarding terminology, RW:CS is not a "mainspace" "article". 16:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Actions on RWW (separated from previous section)
Still the thinnest of pretexts to avoid answering questions. Btw, are you a RWW Trustee too? because your recent actions there were very illuminating. -- PsyGremlin  14:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * RWW is currently owned by the RationalWiki Foundation. (Unless we've managed to approve the sale to Goonie already.) As such I suppose the answer is "yes", because it's running on RW hardware. My wikithority there has no attachment to my state as a trustee however, as far as I know -- 15:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * But your abuse of power there further reflects on the fact that you should not be in any position of authority. -- PsyGremlin  15:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it would be best not to further muddy the waters by bringing RWW into this. But if you have to, it'd help to be more specific than "abuse of power there". DickTurpis (talk) 15:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My abuse of Power? You mean, the temporary blocking of you while I copyedited an attack that was later removed under the RWW policy of "this is not an attack site"? That was released immediately after the edits were made? So, let me get this straight. I willingly submit to an open personal attacks on me on that page, edit it only for formatting and details, and this is somehow supposed to impugn upon my character? I wouldn't have even blocked you if you hadn't attempted to block me to stop me from correcting details. I think if anything, I've been overly accommodating and rational in this matter. -- 15:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep thinking that sweetheart, the board will decide. My 30 sec block was in order. Your actions were not and you know the rules. I still don't think the additions constitute an attack, just highlighting your actions here. But Punky's the boss. You could have brought objections up on the talk page like other people, but no, you abused your powers. -- PsyGremlin  15:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The Chairman of the Board has already stated that he won't consider my Motion for No Confidence if it is founded on wiki politics. So, the motion is dead. The Board won't even hear it. -- 15:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So you can basically do whatever you like and we must just suck it up? Nice. No wonder you fought to hang on to power. --41.133.33.197 (talk) 15:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't make any decision in the matter of whether it would be heard or not. -- 15:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think everyone here needs a review of the roll of the Board of Trustees. Insofar as the dispute itself is concerned, I want not approve on it, I think polite post. 17:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Physicians who drive at 66mph in a 65mph zone should have their medical licenses revoked!
What, they're better than me? They can break the motor SAFETY LAWS with impunity?! "NO!" I say. Hangins too good fer 'em! Now dance for me, entertain me! I DEMANDS IT! C ® ackeЯ
 * [[File:Ymca.gif]][[File:Waves.gif]] 17:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Resolution
Alright, it seems quite established that Eira isn't about to get kicked off the board, so is there some sort of resolution which can leave everybody equally unhappy? Eira promoted herself back down to mere sysop, but that didn't take (through no fault of her own), though if there were significant support for this it might happen for at least a while. It seems to me Eira didn't behave well, not so much from the initial change to community standards, but from the edit/flame war afterwords. The subsequent block was also probably over the line, though it was only for an hour, and it was after Psy called her "stupid" a few times. Can we get Eira to admit her behavior at community standards was dickish, and Psy to admit his personal attacks were as well, and both to agree to give it a rest? No long term harm has been done, except perhaps a LANCB by Kels, which, let's face it, is her choice that she can reverse at any time. And Psy, you have an account, let's use it, okay? Insults from bunchanumbers make a lot of people assume it's Marcus Cicero or the like, which stacks the deck against you from the beginning. Putting a name to comments can help diffuse situations. DickTurpis (talk) 17:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As noted, I didn't know the BoN belonged to Psygremlin. I would have passed a lot more deference to the comment had I been aware it were Psygremlin, and he had used his own account rather than a BoN. As in, I still would have deleted the comment, but I wouldn't have blocked the person responsible. And I've already admitted that the flame war was a flame war and trolling, and that the revert war was childish. I also think I pointed out, that's part of how everyone has fun, is to throw responsibility and maturity out the window for awhile. -- 17:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You could just ask not to be recratted. --85.76.153.109 (talk) 17:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Eira reinserted the same comment in Community Standards (which is not a mainspace article as people seem to be asserting) five times over the space of six hours. On the scale of other edit/revert wars I've seen, that's pretty low key.  I don't condone it, but it happened at a time when a tensions were running high among a lot of editors about a lot of things.  Better just to draw a line under it & move on.  I don't know why Eira is being singled out, & certainly don't see this as an abuse of power, trust or Trustee status, just as someone in a bad mood being a bit of a prick.   I don't think any sanctions are necessary.   17:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In my opinion the longer you keep it up the worse you are. --85.76.153.109 (talk) 18:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you can admit you were being childish, but the idea that trolling and flamewars are "fun" I still have a problem with. The block wars we sometimes engage in are fun (though I know some people think they're stupid, I don't think anyone gets offended), telling people to fuck off isn't generally fun. The problem here, and I don't just mean with this case but with most of the petty fights that have oventaken the wiki of late, is that people just can't seem to help baiting one another. I'm not saying we all have to be Gandhi here, but, Christ, does everyone have to seemingly purposefully try to escalate situations until the wiki equivalent of a fistfight breaks out? (Again, this is for everyone, not just Eira and Psygremlin.) That's my take. So, Eira, if being insulting is your idea of fun, please download freecell or something like that and find a new hobby. I'm not saying this site has to be completely serious, but we really should make a semblance of an effort to get along with one another. DickTurpis (talk) 17:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * People are missing the point. Regardless of the role of the Trustees, she is elected to what is essentially the highest position on the wiki. She acted in a manner detrimental to the wiki. She refused to answer questions on her behaviour until brought to the coop. This is a person abusing the trust placed in her by members of the wiki. Saying that a trustee isn't responsible for what they do on the wiki, is like saying a director isn't responsible for fucking up his factory. Trustees need to be held to a higher standard than any other wiki member. -- PsyGremlin  17:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point. We (users, sysops, crats, etc) currently have no say in the matter of her membership on the board of trustees. Especially not here. Regardless of her infractions, her trustee membership, for the intents and purposes of the coop, is wholly irrelevant. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So once they're a Trustee, they're inviolate. That's handy. --41.133.33.197 (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No. Trustee membership is outside the purview of the coop. That is all. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Her actions were a bit odd but she was not acting as a board member at that time. She was just a member of the wiki doing, well, something odd.  If you hold that against her then, when the next elections come round, don't vote for her or remind people what she did or stand against her.--BobSpring is sprung! 18:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Psy, if you want to be Schlafly to Eira's Menendez, that's fine. Just don't do it in the coop. That's not what it's for. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (EC) The solution to that is to vote against her at the next election then. Encourage others to as well. After this I'm not terribly inclined to vote for her, to be honest, but that's neither here nor there. She's admitted she was trolling and being childish, and if she learns a bit from this I'll be satisfied. If crap like this keeps happening, that's a different story. In the meantime we've established that even if there was a substantial movement to kick her off the board (and there isn't) it would not be an easy and straightforward thing to do. So what do you want to happen? I guess she could resign, but you seem to be the only one pushing for that sort of outcome, and I doubt she's inclined to offer. Even if she did, I'd discourage her because then we'd need to elect someone else, I guess, and we have way too much on our plates already. So, Eira, you've been reprimanded by Dick Turpis. Play nice in the future. Same goes for you, Psygremlin. Let's try to move on from this. DickTurpis (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. That's like saying a director who embezzles money wasn't acting as a Director at the time. If nothing else, we voted for her, we should be able to recall her, if the Board won't act. Why should somebody who's abused her trust be allowed to serve her term? --41.133.33.197 (talk) 18:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you can produce a letter from TMT to his nephew extolling the benefits of such an ad hoc recall, I'd like to see it. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The RW Foundation Board is not the "highest position on the wiki"; it's an administrative role in the site's financial & legal maintenance. It does not entail any authority in on-wiki activities & Eira does not seem to have been attempting to impose any such authority.  When other Board members were playing power games & unilaterally dictating what's best for the site, why is Eira being singled for an alleged abuse of trust over a few spats with other editors?  18:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Talk to the board about instituting some method of a no confidence vote. But Occasionaluse is right, this isn't the place for that. Also, since you seem to be the only one advocating her removal, I think it's pretty safe to say, even with the mechanism in place, nothing will come of it. I agree that board members should be held to a pretty high standard, and some dickishness there does make me question Eira's judgment, but it's not worth a recall over. I think you're blowing this out of proportion. DickTurpis (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure I have a heartfelt e-mail of his somewhere. Jokes aside, if the mob is happy to have somebody who acts against the best wishes of the wiki, abuses her rights and avoids answering questions on her actions, responsible for the day-to-day management of the wiki, so be it. I've raised my objections. The rest is on your shoulders. --41.133.33.197 (talk)
 * I understand where you're coming from, I'm just not sure I agree that we should have ad hoc recalls. I think the most productive thing to do would be to put this under your hat and bring it out during elections. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As I chew upon my hat I'm forced to say I agree with OU. While Eira's actions weren't worthy of an adult, let alone a trustee member, I think that discretion is the better part of valour in this case. Everyone's tired of arguing now, and there's enough going on without a recall vote and possible new election. We'll do it later. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 18:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Random link
How timely:. DickTurpis (talk) 18:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That needs going where everyone can see it. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 18:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Dismiss this nonsense already
I am amazed you people can't see that this is just an attempt by an attention starved brat to get people to notice him. There is nothing in the evidence that comes close to warranting any action from the Coop. This is just trolling from a guy with nothing better to do than throw the whole place into HCM for his own amusement. Ace or someone similar should blank the page like he did with the last ridiculous and spiteful Coop action that Psygremlin brought (and Psy should grow up). --DamoHi 21:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

This is why RW needs a meritocracy, not a mobocracy
And no, not that type of meritocracy nimrod, I mean an actual meritocracy based on votes, maybe something similar that Wikipedia has (for bureaucrats only) because this wiki, the way it's run now, is a joke. People don't take this place seriously. 72.45.254.78 (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * People take this place too seriously. Hence all of this malarkey.  BTW this isn't a good page for suggestions about site structure.  Try Forum:Plan of action for user rights and moderation‎.   22:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree... I think a lot of the problem is that people lost sight of the point that we weren't supposed to be taken seriously... We were supposed to be considered despite not being serious because we're right. (like The Daily Show, or the Colbert Report) -- 22:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * {ec}people in power need to be elected for their reasonableness and emotional stability, not their popularity or time spent here.--Foucault5.jpg-brxbrx 22:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no 'power' here, when will you get that you snivelling little nerd? This place MUST be a hub of ideas and dissent, any intervention or any tendancy to embrace authoritarianism will stifle that. You can't even have a debate on racism here anymore without it getting deleted and locked down. This place really has become some inverse parody of conservapedia. MarcusCicero (talk) 22:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The ideas and dissent you want tantamount to trolling. Reasoned debate is welcome, inflammatory posts are not.--Foucault5.jpg-brxbrx 22:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Who are you to call dissent trolling? And posts inflammatory?  07:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone with a working brain? -- Nx  / talk 07:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Dissent = trolling to you? And posting = inflammatory?  You really are a clueless idiot, aren't you?  07:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, learn to read. -- Nx  / talk 07:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * agreed. you are only here to piss people off.  rights should be given to those that would use them wisely, and mc's behavior should be discouraged, same with the behavior of Nutty Roux, Human, and anyone that thinks it's okay to act like a dick.--Tiberius Gracchus (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If you don't want to be offended, join the boyscouts you mediocre imbecile. MarcusCicero (talk) 18:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Brxbrx
Aggressive blocking for the type of wandalism that usually calls for a binning after repeated instances, not one single edit. Not giving a shit about the rules. P-Foster (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I see nothing wrong with blocking a troll for 3 months. Do you want to condone trolling or not? Although I agree binning would be preferable, without the "piss off" king of the rats do you wanna kick it in the backseat? 22:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * One act of wandalism =/= trolling. P-Foster (talk) 22:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * But this is. -- Nx  / talk 04:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * See SYSOP. Neither the IP nor the user account here had been vandal binned which is the proper response.  AFAIK 3-month blocks are only supposed to be handed out summarily to spambots.  Ordinary vandals/trolls shouldn't be blocked for that length of time unless decided here at the Coop.   07:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Discussion
I cannot think of a more open and shut case of a guy who should lose his sysop powers. I can. Are we going to bring into question the competence or integrity of Human, Nutty, P-Foster, Eira, etc... as well? -- Nx  / talk 09:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And Nx, the hater with an agenda that overrides all other commentary. 07:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, you just had to come here and take a swipe at me and brxbrx long after the discussion was over. Who's the real hater? -- Nx  / talk 07:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Never saw it before. And you named me, not me you here, so fuck off.  07:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We are currently discussing Mark Antony. Lets keep the comments germane huh.  --DamoHi 09:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is just a Stellvertreterkrieg, so little chance of keeping it germane - as you did with your little aside: I also think that his original demotion seriously brings into question either the competence or integrity of the person who originally demoted him, Nx. 09:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to agree... if someone wants to bring Nx to the coop, then one should bring Nx to the coop, not through one of his socks. -- 10:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, Mark Antony is not my sock. -- Nx  / talk 10:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Right... sure... anything else you want me to believe while you're at it trying to convince me that he's not your sock? Do you have a bridge that I can buy? -- 10:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Like I said, you had your chance. I have nothing to hide. -- Nx  / talk 10:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course you don't have anything to hide... because you have server access, you could perfectly hide your tracks if you wanted to... -- 10:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh wow, you're paranoid. -- Nx  / talk 10:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but you are worse. You are consciously aggressively hateful and unconstructive, and you use the server rights Trent gave you to fight for your causes.  07:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I use it to fight for my causes, which is to make RW a better place, one where trolls like MC are not welcome, and drunken bullies like you won't drive away useful contributors. -- Nx  / talk 07:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's worse than that: the repetitious accusations aren't even funny ;-) 10:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that it's not funny anymore is precisely why it's funny! lol ... plus, Nx overreacting is pretty funny as well... -- 10:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I should make clear that I am not bringing Nx to the Coop. I am just following the procedure to get Mark Antony promoted back to regular user.  I have my suspicions about who M.A is a sock of, but that is immaterial to the case of whether he should be promoted or not.  DamoHi 10:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes

 * --DamoHi 10:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * --Scream!! (talk) 10:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

No

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

Goat
Marcus Cicero and similar trolls should not gain powers. In fact, I would rather like to see them in the vandal bin (for the literalist: let's rename it trollbin - or trollandvandalbin) 09:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * MC is not a troll. 07:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes he is. -- Nx  / talk 07:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Silly Nx, that was clearly his brother. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 13:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Then why are you abstaining? If you think that he should not have sysop powers, then you should vote for his sysop powers to be removed (am I missing something here?). --DamoHi 10:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The coop is already defunct, and while we're still working out the details of a new moderation system, I see neither the point nor much of a chance in passing judgement in this manner. That said, It's still idiotic to resort to trolling and abuse of privileged server access just to make a point. I also don't think that MC or other trolls should be sysops, but it's not like that status helps them in being disruptive either. It's a minor issue that definitely does not warrant another HCM. Röstigraben (talk) 10:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Dismiss this nonsense already
I am amazed you people can't see that this is just an attempt by an attention starved brat to get people to notice him. There is nothing in the evidence that comes close to warranting any action from the Coop. This is just trolling from a guy with nothing better to do than throw the whole place into HCM for his own amusement. Ace or someone similar should blank the page like he did with the last ridiculous and spiteful Coop action that Damo brought (and Damo should grow up). -- PsyGremlin  10:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Nx is bored. PS, Psy, are you still lying about me on your tragic blog? 07:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * PS, Human, are you still spreading the lie that you were declared innocent by the mob? -- Nx  / talk 07:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * At least now we know whose sock this was. And Nx, I was declared "not guilty" by a majority vote of some sort.  If you disagree, you are wrong, and if you continue to insist I was not, you are a vicious liar.  04:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Human, you ignore Nx's contention that your absolution came with a firm rebuke. Trying to make this into an either/or thing is dishonest, since the people who voted yes, no, or goat, each had their opinions and reasons for voting.--  04:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And in the end I was declared "not guilty". The voting system, flawed as it was, did not allow for +.75 -.25 type votes. yes, people often gave reasons or other comments with their votes, but the votes were either "yea", "nay", or "abstain".  You are simply wrong here.  06:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No. In the end the mob decided not to punish you, even though many of the "nay" voters also agreed that you were guilty. -- Nx  / talk 06:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No. You are simply wrong.  I was acquitted, so no punishment was required.  Your rewriting of history to fit your imaginary view is getting irritating. It's called "lying" and RW frowns upon people lying about facts. I was acquitted.  Check the records.  There was lots of commentary, I agree, but the votes were either "yea", "nay" or "goat".  There was no provision for allowing commentary to carry any weight.  05:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Also we are way off topic. 05:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The vote was whether to de-crat you, not whether you were guilty. Several of the "yea" voters cast that vote on the condition that the de-cratting not be permanent. That condition was agreed to. AD, Genghis Khant, Senator Harrison, EVDebs, Rabbitxhamster, PACODOG, Clickbot, and Lefty (roughly a quarter of the "nay" voters) stated specifically during the vote that you were guilty but should not have your rights removed. 05:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Reckless Noise Symphony
Unilaterally blocking me, and wheel-warring when I unblock myself. Ironically, I was trying to do something constructive when he started chiming in tonight. DMorris2 (talk) 02:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * While I think there is no case as DMorris is a sysop and can unblock himself thusly, I think, should I be found in the wrong, I should be locked in a closet, tied up, and whipped in the back until I scream out "DMorris!" 02:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't been watching this but here is my solution. How about RNS stops blocking DMorris, DMorris stops doing what ever it is that makes RNS want to block him and we all behave like adults for a change? -  π    02:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Works for me. 02:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Except I don't see what I'm doing that makes RNS so hostile. While I don't mind an occasional joke block (that't the norm here I see), when RNS reverts my edits, bins me, blocks me, repeats the cycle over and over again, and even admits he's in the wrong, there's a problem. See this for example. As far as I'm concerned, this case can be closed as long as he's not going to continue to bully me or anyone else; no use in starting an HCM. DMorris2 (talk) 03:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess the joke blocks are going to just take some getting used to for me. DMorris2 (talk) 03:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll cease my hatefest against you. 03:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If I had any respect for a RatWikian other than Rob, it would be you, Ty, or Human. I'm trying to find some common ground, and to be a little more constructive. DMorris2 (talk) 03:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * *feels left out* -- 03:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So shut up if you aren't involved/included? 06:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Ace McWicked
Repeatedly vandalizing my user page  and talk page, deleting/hiding my comment on his talk page   and attacking me on my talk page. -- Nx  / talk 08:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I should be punished. Ace of Spades 09:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Let him dangle. [[file:Nuttysexpistols.png|60px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]][[file:Nuttytalk.png|35px|link=User_talk:Nutty_Roux|never mind]] 14:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Pistol him, pistol him!" --OompaLoompa (talk) 14:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, maybe Ace could try not doing this for a while? What do you say, Ace? TrickyDickTurpis (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe you could stop trying to look like you give a fuck and know better when you're just as drunk, angry, and stupid as the rest of us. [[file:Nuttysexpistols.png|60px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]][[file:Nuttytalk.png|35px|link=User_talk:Nutty_Roux|never mind]] 16:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Maybe I could. Although right now I'm sober (check back in about 10 hours), and I'm not nearly as angry as half the people here seem to be these days (what's the deal with that anyway?). As for "stupid", well, I won't comment on that. TrickyDickTurpis (talk) 16:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You better turn right around and check your motherfucking attitude before you set foot in this house again, mister. [[file:Nuttysexpistols.png|60px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]][[file:Nuttytalk.png|35px|link=User_talk:Nutty_Roux|never mind]] 16:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You're not the boss of me, Mom! I didn't ask to be born into the website you know! TrickyDickTurpis (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We should sacrifice him and feed him to our gods. MarcusCicero (talk) 16:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * s/gods/goats/; # FTFY 16:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to use any of the ad-hom invective that others might, but I'll just say this: it seems the best thing to do is to make sure Ace knows that he shouldn't vandalize user pages in bad faith, and consider further action if he continues. 17:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * veterans think they can just get away with whatever they want, and they turtle up every time we try and tell one of them off. This is not your circlejerk anymore (really need to find a less antagonistic word than circle jerk...).--  17:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Be quiet. The grownups are talking. P-Foster (talk) 18:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Brxbrx is more mature than the "grownups" here. -- Nx  / talk 18:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with MM. ТyUser_talk:Ty 18:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, using 4chan terminology here instantly loses you all credibility. 17:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatever, I'll be at the pub. Ace of Spades 17:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No point-making coop indictment will be enough. Punishment won't suffice. His rights must be removed forever and he must be driven from RationalWiki in order to make room for Brxbrx and his non-circlejerk circle jerk. Down with the veterans and their self-appointment! Rationalwiki is now a place for people who signed up a few months ago to express strong opinions about site policies, talk smack about those nasty veterans, and use the word "we" a lot. Make it so, Brxbrx. You are our only hope. [[file:Nuttysexpistols.png|60px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]][[file:Nuttytalk.png|35px|link=User_talk:Nutty_Roux|never mind]] 22:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Removing talk page comments that are not "obviously vile" is a breach of the community standards and editing a protected page for no purposes other than his own amusement is obvious abuse of his ability to edit protected pages. Yank his rights for three months. -- 22:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What would that actually achieve? 22:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing, really. ТyUser_talk:Ty 22:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So, he should get away with it with a "eh, whatever"? Right, this is why this page, and the community standards are a joke. -- Nx  / talk 06:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. That's why this was pointless. ТyUser_talk:Ty 11:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree, it's another example for why we need moderators. -- Nx  / talk 12:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Or at least a reason why you enjoy having unelected powers to protect your castle from edits you don't like. Nx, you really aren't thinking this through. You are the only remaining trent-empowered ubermensch, and you drag Ace to the Coop for doign something you were able to completely suppress?  05:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You really are an obnoxious idiot. They're not edits I don't like, they're vandalism, and in the case of my talk page, disruption, because he removed the lqt tag from the header. I reverted the first edit and made a sarcastic remark on Ace's talk page. I took it in good faith, in the spirit of RW, blah blah. But then he did it again and again, even after I asked him nicely to stop being an ass. And he feels this is justified because "I'm an awful person with shit for brains". This kind of abuse is why I don't feel like doing anything useful on this wiki any more. Your loss. On second thought... you don't care about the wiki, you only want to have your little playground. Fuck you. -- Nx  / talk 07:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone that wasn't a tech user would not have been able to prevent the vandalism, and Ace should not have vandalized the page to begin with-- 13:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * How are you disagreeing with me agreeing with you? ТyUser_talk:Ty 12:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree that this was pointless. -- Nx  / talk 12:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah. ТyUser_talk:Ty 13:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I dunno, seems like no big deal considering you desysopped him without discussion. Also, this place has a long-time tradition of messing with people's user pages and such. Keep in mind Trent's mantra... "it can be fixed with one click". 04:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. This page is being way overused.  It should be a last resort for figuring out how to handle people/situations causing serious grief to the community, not handing out weighty punishments for petty squabbles & minor transgressions.  06:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * He vandalized my talk page and my user page repeatedly, even after I asked him to stop. And it wasn't just a joke as Human suggests. Also, his vandalism of my talk page rendered the talk page useless since it uses liquidthreads and he removed the tag to display lqt threads on it. It seems that the only reason he stopped vandalizing is that I locked the page and the talk page header at the moderator level so he couldn't edit it. -- Nx  / talk 06:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Funnily enough I stopped before you locked your page. I didn't know you had locked it down. Anyway, do as you wish you mindnumbingly pedantic, asshole gouging, semen raking, ham-walleted banshee. If it makes you hard I say do it. Ace of Spades 07:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Funnily enough I stopped before you locked your page" - That's what he said; obviously you couldn't vandalize the page after he had locked it.
 * The standards will continue to be a joke until someone starts enforcing them, which I hope will be these moderators. 11:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I protected only my user page first, then a couple hours later he vandalized my talk page header again, so I had to protect that too. So no, you only stopped because you couldn't do it any more. -- Nx  / talk 12:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So you did right thing, by taking temporary action to prevent further damage. As A.McW doesn't seem to be doing further harm now, it's probably safe to leave your page unprotected, & I see no point in reprisals unless this incident is part of a longer pattern of behaviour by Ace, which you haven't presented any evidence for.   12:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that any punitive action would be pointless, but I was only able to stop Ace because I am a tech user, and because we have the moderator protection level and don't have any bureaucrats. Under the old system I would've had to desysop and decrat Ace to stop him, and then this section would be titled "Nx", not "Ace McWicked". -- Nx  / talk 12:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * True, so what do you suggest we do? ТyUser_talk:Ty 13:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, without liquidthreads I wouldn't have been able to protect my talk page - the only option I'd have then is to desysop and block Ace. -- Nx  / talk 12:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, you did the right thing by bringing it to the coop, then, though admittedly the effectiveness of the coop is, at best, questionable. Hopefully within the next several weeks the new system will be worked out. In the meantime, if we give Ace the benefit of the doubt that he's had his puerile fun and is done with his frotting I think it's safe to unprotect your pages. I think we can take this as a warning to Ace that "don't be a dick", while not a rule exactly, is certainly advice we should all try to heed. Wandalising others' pages can be passed off as basically harmless pranks if done once or twice, but repeatedly doing it is just obnoxious and exacerbates the already fucked up situation that has been encompassing RW for several weeks. If he does do it again, then would be the time for more concrete action. TrickyDickTurpis (talk) 13:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 1 more day until nominations... ТyUser_talk:Ty 11:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

So....what the fuck? Are we done here? What is my punishment? Am I to be raped by leviathan or must I eyeball fuck somebody? Ace of Spades 04:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think your punishment is "don't do it again". And aural sex with Karajou. TrickyDickTurpis (talk) 04:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "aural?" like through the ears?  does Karajou have big ears?--  04:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, did I indicate who was pitching and who was catching in this scenario? Besides, we all know Ace likes it in the ear (unfortunately the photographic evidence seems to have disappeared). DickTurpis (talk) 05:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't do it again? Man, that's fucking wussy. Ace of Spades 7:24, Today (UTC+2)
 * Well, it's the Chicken Coop; we're basically impotent. DickTurpis (talk) 11:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Ace McWicked...again
For blanking an vandalising the chicken coop. Ace of Spades 07:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * meh-- 13:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

JimJast
Making sexist remarks against Eira as well as falsifying her signature. I've desysopped him, and think it's the very least he deserves based on the false signing offense. 00:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In defense, I offer this: One, he may have been referring to Eira's Pussy, as in the cat pictured on her user page (referred to as Eira's Pussy), and two, he may have been using Eira's signature in sort of a -esque fashion. Not saying it is true, jus' saying it is possible.   01:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * IMO, imitating someone's signature is ok if it's done for the lulz (although I wouldn't practice this here for fear of retribution). This was not the case, though.  He merely used it to address Eira.  As for sexist remarks, IDK the context and I don't feel like looking at it.  We do, though, hope to curb trolling with all these reforms, and Eira and JimJast were trolling each other quite a bit.--  01:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem like he was false-signing, just using her sig to address her. 02:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It is more the sexist remarks I am concerned about than the forgery.  02:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * But that's what you base your desysopping of him on. 02:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC) It's too early in the morning.
 * If we were to pretend we'd already elected moderators, I think we can pretend that both Eira and JimJast would have been reprimanded and disciplined for trolling.-- 03:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * False. I haven't seen any trolling from Eira in this discussion.  ThunderkatzHo! 03:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Reckless Noise Symphony is no doubt an agent of Opus Dei or bankrolled by the Templeton Foundation (and probably George Soros as well). Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You are correct, thunderkatz. I was thinking of Eira v. Maratrean.  In this case, she has been civil.--  04:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Trolling =/= incivility. 04:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Both links above are to things a week ago which JJ has already been told off about at the time and since (see User talk:JimJast) and I think it's fair to give him a chance to show they won't happen again rather than mete out punishment suddenly so long after the event. He wasn't signing comments as other people, just copy-pasting their signature templates when addressing them, which I've told him isn't cool & says he won't do it again. Desysoping is a pointless punishment for punishment's sake, and does not remedy or prevent either of these transgressions which did not involve sysop abilities. This is needlessly draconian & heavy-handed. 06:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's pretty clear from the diff link, that the signature was not "forged", but used - albeit in a very strange way - to indicate he was addressing her. It's clear that he's speaking as himself, and not as Eira. If this was the grounds for promoting him, then it needs to be reversed. In addition, as much as JimJast is annoying people, the fact remains that he's been allowed to edit here and it seems as if we're suddenly conducting a witch hunt to remove people with whom we do not agree. -- PsyGremlin  09:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As much as Psy seems to hate me, he's totally right here. He wasn't faking my signature, he was just using it to refer to me. (Which Weaseloid appears to have told him is a no-no.) I think the grounds for "promoting him" are based on sexist comments though. (As least I hope so.) I personally don't think JimJast should have permission to edit Essay or Mainspace, and his Essays should be deleted, because I believe that crankery shouldn't be allowed on RW without direct debate. All of our other crankery is posted with a side-by-side. P.S. Despite what I think, my opinion isn't policy, and he has his rights to edit here as well. But sexism, racism, and hate speech against homosexuals shouldn't be tolerated here. -- 06:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not you sweetheart. Just your attitude. -- PsyGremlin  12:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The sexist comment has been given the contempt it deserves. I think that's enough without any actual punishment or loss of privileges.  "Crankery shouldn't be allowed on RW without direct debate" isn't germaine to the two offences mentions (copying sigs & sexist remarks) & should probably be discussed elsewhere unless there are examples of JJ doing harm to mainspace etc.  07:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, this is why we can't have nice things "need" the moderator class of users
People running around telling Mom about how "he's doing it again" isn't conducive to a well functioning wiki. Someone got offended, on the internet!?, gods forbid! JJ might have been a dick. Pfft, so what? 04:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC) C ® ackeЯ
 * Indeed, JJ is another RW crank but he's mostly harmless. If ever there was a storm in a tea cup then this is it. Jack Hughes (talk) 11:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * People seem overzealous to use this page; even when basically nothing's going on, people get dragged here for something trivial. The Coop could & should be a useful place for settling the real HCM stuff, not for creating new HCM out of nothing.   12:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Dismiss this
This is the end result of me listening to Ty while drunk and running on two hours of sleep over a period of 48 hours. Thus, I move to dismiss this. 10:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Listening to Ty at all is its own worst punishment. -- PsyGremlin  12:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Aswh1
He's a persistent vandal who was already binned back in February, yet kept using his few remaining editing opportunities to insert crap into articles. His kind of vandalism isn't always obvious from watching recent changes - he never changed major chunks of pages and usually added edit summaries to make them look like regular edits. While most of his edits were reverted immediately, some of his vandalism went unnoticed, making it necessary to regularly check his contributions. That's a lot of work just to deal with one guy who does nothing but vandalize, so I finally hit him with a three-month block in May. This block has now been lifted on grounds of being incompatible with the community standards. I realize now that the standards suggest there should be a discussion preceding long-term blocks even for obvious vandals, so I'd like to get confirmation for reinstating the three-month block. Röstigraben (talk) 06:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I would also ask for the ability to re-block for up to three months without further discussion if Aswh1 begins vandalizing again after the block expires. 06:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Shitcan him. MtD  Pinko Scum   06:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Most of that looks like funny/not-unfunny vandalism rather than anything harmful. Vandal bin is fine for keeping it in check.  I don't see why a long block should be necessary.  07:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you volunteering yourself for putting the bell on the cat vandalism cleanup, then? 07:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What're you talking about? He/she hasn't edited in seven weeks.   12:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Being blocked prevents you from editing. -- Nx  / talk 12:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I didn't check the block log before commenting. 12:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This is really a community standards issue. Specifically about this point. --BobSpring is sprung! 09:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought at first, but then I saw that the current standards do already allow for blocking vandals longer then a few hours, provided that there's been a discussion. And cases like this one are rare anyway, most vandals give up once they've been stopped from doing lots of damage in a short time. Röstigraben (talk) 09:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see why this user is even a threat. He/she obviously has a Snarky POV, which is one of our things, & at least some of those edits could really have been incorporated rather than reverted.   12:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but look at the log of things they've, more or less, spammed our mainspace with. I've deleted more than a few "articles" they've created that other users would've been binned for as "vandalism" or "spam". And this was after (if you look at their talkpage) I warned them numerous times. 12:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's the POV from the fascist who wants the trains to run on time: If he has been blocked before, and is currently vandal binned, and still carries on vandalising (note: vandalising does not mean "saying something I disagree with") then I think anybody is well within their rights to send him to the Eastern Front show the offender the door, without going this route, or an HCM. -- PsyGremlin  12:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with the synopsis of the efficient railroads-wanting fascist dictator above me. 12:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur with the agreement of the gentleman with interesting hair. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So, do we need to have a formal vote on this, or can I just re-block the guy? Based on the comments, we've got three people (me included) in favor of it, one opposed, and three wo think the discussion isn't even necessary. Röstigraben (talk) 15:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not very many. & I think you can add P-Foster to the list of those opposed to banning, although he hasn't commented on this page.  See his comments here & here.  17:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Rodent. I do favour long bans when people break the fourth wall and get creepy/stalkerish or for using our blog as a forum for hate speech -- but for silly wandalism, the brake is the way to go. P-Foster (talk) 17:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, so that makes it six-two. Still, this is an open-and-shut case of vandalism, the user hasn't even bothered to appeal, and there's no guideline about how many editors need to participate in a discussion in order to reach a conclusion. Let's give it until tomorrow, but if there aren't enough other objections to even the tally by then, I'm going to reblock him. Röstigraben (talk) 19:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. He hasn't edited since May, and even then it's usually once every few days. He's just a low-level prankster rather than a genuine troublemaker. Click undo when he edits and move on. Real first name and last initialTalk, talk, talk skim my contributions 10:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * See above - they haven't edited since May because they have been blocked almost continuously since then (minus the wheel warring of the last three days). I think, if an editor isn't making any substantive contributions, it is fine to ban them. If they decide to come back and be constructive, there is nothing stopping them from creating a new account to do so. 11:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

And if they decide to come back and continue to be a wandel, they can do THAT too. Then they will. Then we can banhammer them again. Then every wandel will become "icewedge" and we'll be overun with wandels. Let us circle the wagons now and just require "substantive contributions" from editors. That'll fix everything! 12:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC) C ® ackeЯ
 * Here's a novel idea: let's wait and see if they return BEFORE we block them for an extended period of time. Seriously, what places like Wikipedia don't get when they permablock vandals is that the odds of a vandal waiting out a block are very slim. Even though Aswh1 is a vandal of some kind, the fact remains that we are imposing sanctions on somebody who hasn't even been around. If we are going to do that, then I also think we should block HeartOfGold for vandalism and trolling he committed in the past but hasn't committed yet. In fact, we could call is psychic blocking! 12:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason Aswh1 hasn't been around is that they've been blocked, for three months, because they kept inserting nonsense into mainspace despite being binned and warned repeatedly not to do it. Then someone decided to unblock them because of the old "we don't block vandals" bullshit. -- Nx  / talk 12:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Lol, you call it "bullshit", but some of us remember the founding principles of this site. That you don't like them because they run you the wrong way does not mean you can do whatever you prefer as a psychotic tech-rights person.  No, Nx, we strive to not block users at all if possible.  Trent and I used to race each other to empty the "current blocks" list, and it worked well for years. Years before you joined.  07:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's bullshit. You have this irrational fear of blocking because Conservapedia abuses it. And what does this have to do with my tech rights or me doing whatever I prefer? I didn't even block the guy, all I did was voice my opinion. -- Nx  / talk 18:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no fear of blocking for the reasons you claim. FUCK CP. I also did not mention your abused tech rights.  08:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Then why did you bring my tech rights up? -- Nx  / talk 09:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but the facts remain the same. They haven't been back, and unless they return, re-blocking them for vandalism they might do on the odd chance they return after being blocked (even though they haven't returned yet) is nonsensical to me. 12:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that reblocking is pointless unless they return, but I also think that the original block was justified and should not have been undone. -- Nx  / talk 13:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, by-the-by, I've unblocked Aswh1, in case anyone feels the need to reblock her to keep us all safe from her terrorising us all with useless wandelism. Tsk, who the fuck cares? I mean, really cares, revert and move on, (it gives teh noob's something to do). 12:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC) C ® ackeЯ
 * After further review: How's about this, we reblock infinite but sysop the guy so's he can undo it....if he's got powerz perhaps he'll go easy on us the wandelism.
 * I also get the feeling that Ashwh1 (is this some leetspeek for asshole?), is someone's sock, purposely wandelising to shake things up and see what the community will do.
 * 13:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC) C ® ackeЯ
 * Meh, I'll stick to my guns here and say that, unless they return, we're making a mountain out of a molehill and should just leave the account alone until or unless other action is needed. 14:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You've got to be kidding me. We're not only supposed not to block vandals, but should give them sysopships? Interfering with vandalism will set us on the slippery slope towards CP-style authoritarianism? Let me describe the situation again: this guy did literally nothing but spam articles with idiotic non sequiturs. He did not voice dissent, make comments or interact with anybody else in any manner. This is not a free speech issue. I blocked him because the vandal bin was not working. Having to manually check his contributions was extremely annoying, and the end result was the same as if he'd been blocked - none of his "contributions" stood, it just required more effort on the part of serious editors to get there. Why the hell should we be expected to do extra work just so a vandal is not inconvenienced? Do the community standards say anywhere that we are not allowed to block others regardless of what they're doing? So I'm going to reblock him once more, and let's switch this around: if anyone cares, I mean really cares, about this guy being unblocked, then revert, but post a coherent reason why you think the rights of vandals are more important than the time and effort of normal editors. And regarding Goonie's point - no kidding, this is indeed getting way overblown. But what's the reason for that, the understandable desire to relieve ourselves of a persistent vandal, or the repeated unilateral removal of a perfectly reasonable block without majority support? Röstigraben (talk) 14:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Röstigraben, you've been here since, what, 2009? We don't block people for simple wandalsim. That's always been how this community rolls. Why get your panties in a knot over something that can be undone with a simple click of the mowse? P-Foster (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Because it was not "a simple click of the mouse", because - as I have now explained three times - some of it was overlooked and made it necessary to regularly check this guy's back log. The fact that I haven't dragged every vandal I've encountered to the coop should be evidence enough that I also think the brake works perfectly fine for most cases, but not in this one, simple as that. I also asked for a coherent reason why I'm supposed to put in the extra effort just so this guy can keep vandalizing, not "that's how it's always been", especially when that's not even true. Check the relevant section of the Community Standards and tell me where it says that vandals are not to be blocked, ever. We're supposed to have a discussion in such cases, so that's what I started, and there's a narrow, but steady lead for the sentiment that the block is OK. And calling me a noob because I've only been here for, like two years? Seriously? Röstigraben (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * When Proxima turns up, it seems like I am the only one doing the work of checking every one of her edits. Some are good, and some are pure garbage.  Yes, it's not as easy as a "mouse click" - it's work separating the wheat from the chaff.  Should I block her for her awful edits so I am spared the task of maintenance?  NO.  I will continue to do the work I have been doing since I encountered her first article here.  And why?  Because some of her edits are good. I forget the topic.  Oh yeah, whining about checking edits.  08:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * She's not a vandal, and nobody has suggested binning her. I've got no doubt that she sincerely tries to make articles better, it's just that she's either a legasthenic or can't be bothered to pay much attention to style and spelling. I know it's frustrating to clean up after her, I've been doing the same thing. But when I'm doing it, at least I feel like I'm working with another editor, instead of against an obvious vandal. Aswh contributed exactly nothing of value, PC has brought a few good references and new points to the articles. Röstigraben (talk) 08:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1. I wasn't calling you a noob. Just the opposite -- I was saying that as someone who's been here a long time, you should know we don't block wandals (...and that there's a difference between wandals and vandals). 2. From the community standards: ". Sysops should limit most blocks to an hour or two in case of vandalism. Blocks longer than this should be discussed first before implementing." we're discussing -- my take, we don't need to block this guy for any longer than a couple of hours. If he's not a sysop, he leaves a red exclamation mark in Recent Changes. Part of a sysop's job is to patrol those obvious edits, so if the sysops do their job, nothing will sneak through. P-Foster (talk) 15:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, sorry for taking that the wrong way. What you're proposing would work, but only if people bothered to actually patrol edits by IPs or non-sysops. Unfortunately, they most often do not, and neither do I, admittedly. This guy was also low-profile and sneaky enough that not everyone was aware of his past vandalism. I usually don't check edits by named users very often, and I guess the same thing goes for most others. If something slips by, it has to be dug out of the edit history, and that work will fall on the few people who had an eye on this guy. I started this discussion because I wanted to explicitly avoid the kind of unilateral action and wheel-warring that sparks HCMs, but at some point, there needs to be a decision. Most others can't be bothered to weigh in on this, and to be honest, if I didn't have a personal responsibility in this matter, I wouldn't either. By my count, the supportive voices are still in the majority, 8-4, so it's simply unjustified to unilaterally remove the block again, as Cracker did. As I said, as soon as there's a serious argument for unblocking him, I'll be happy to oblige. If this is about revamping the Standards to either rule out long-term blocking altogether (or reserving the ability for mods, perhaps), or, on the other hand, allowing editors more discretion in this, that's something that we'd have to tackle separately. Röstigraben (talk) 15:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, you've made your case. I try to patrol all the exclamation points I can. I wish more people would, too. If you hit him with a block, make sure dude can still edit his talk page so's that he can appeal our unilateral fascist undermining of his internet freedoms if he ever comes back. P-Foster (talk) 15:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I usually try to avoid editing while "under the influence", but am I correct in assuming that we have decided our vast legion of sysops should be capable of dealing with this intermittent editor? Or does he/she/it represent such an existential threat to the site that extraordinary measures and changes to our standards are necessary? --BobSpring is sprung! 21:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But why should "our vast legion of sysops" be forced to deal with this editor? Just because of our irrational desire to not use blocking ever? Also, the answer is no, this edit, for example, was only reverted a day later. -- Nx  / talk 21:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

How fucking hard is this? He's a wandal. A tedious one. Cleaning up after him is a schlepp. Block him but leave him with talkpage access. If he comes back and wants to be a good lad, unblock him. If not, well fuck him. MtD Pinko Scum   21:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But then we'd be just as bad as Conservapedia!!!!one!!! -- Nx  / talk 21:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm not going to get into a debate about this user. But as I as I said above this might need a change in community standards and perhaps other places.--BobSpring is sprung! 21:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Then let's do that. We don't normally impose long term blocks but if you're going to make a 5 star cunt of yourself, such a block can be arranged. With a little bit of thought I'm sure we can make this RW the repressive, terrifying place it so clearly needs to be.  MtD  Pinko Scum   21:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm with Bob The Obvious on this. And Nx is clueless about how mediawiki works, obviously, and oddly. Sysops deal with red marks, they patrol edits, its their job, not something to protect them from.  08:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You know what sysops also do? They block vandals so they don't have to waste time cleaning up after them. -- Nx  / talk 18:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Nx, you really have no clue about the founding principles of this place, do you? 08:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We were talking about how mediawiki works, not the "founding principles" of this place. And these founding principles you keep bleating on about seem to amount to "CP blocked us for ideological reasons, so we're never ever going to block anyone, let them crap on our articles instead". --  Nx  / talk 09:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd assumed he wasn't a native English speaker. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 08:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Naw Nutty is just a bit awkward, that's all. MtD  Pinko Scum   08:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Check out a few of his edits, for example the one Nx linked to right above. That's clear and obvious vandalism, not the result of language difficulties. Regarding changes to the Community Standards, they already allow for longer blocks provided that there is a discussion, although they could apparently use a clarification. If that would help avoiding massive discussions and wheel wars in such clear-cut cases, I'm all for it. I just wonder whether we shouldn't postpone it until after the mod elections. Röstigraben (talk) 08:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you've got a point. When do those elections end? Tomorrow? MtD  Pinko Scum   08:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Tomorrow evening 7 PM EST. I'd also be in favor of reserving the ability to block for longer than a few hours for mods, but that would probably require yet another change to user rights or something. Röstigraben (talk) 08:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Our vandalism guidelines are that "funny" & "not unfunny" vandalism should be tolerated, in moderation, & serial "unfunny" vandalism should be handled with the vandal break or short-term blocks. I don't agree that this user was nothing but a griefer; I find some of his edits quite amusing. If y'all don't, well maybe you just have a different sense of humour, but either way this kind of playful minor edits to pages isn't comparable destructive vandalism like page blanking or goatse bombing etc. I find it sad that this community is becoming so joyless that frivolity is seen as a banishable offence. 21:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

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


 * 1) (show/hide) 11:40, 3 July 2011 Javascap (Talk | contribs | block) blocked MarcusCicero (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 31.41 minutes (autoblock disabled) ‎ (General persecution. ) (unblock | change block)
 * 2) (show/hide) 11:38, 3 July 2011 MarcusCicero (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked MarcusCicero (Talk | contribs) ‎ (STOP BULLYING ME)
 * 3) (show/hide) 11:35, 3 July 2011 Armondikov (Talk | contribs | block) blocked MarcusCicero (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 3 months (account creation disabled) ‎ (unblock | change block)
 * 4) (show/hide) 11:33, 3 July 2011 MarcusCicero (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked MarcusCicero (Talk | contribs) ‎ (piss off)
 * 5) (show/hide) 08:57, 3 July 2011 Psygremlin (Talk | contribs | block) blocked MarcusCicero (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 3 months (account creation disabled, cannot edit own talk page) ‎ (Repeated trolling, boring repetitive reversions to his trolling) (unblock | change block)  MarcusCicero (talk) 11:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Aw! Poor widdle diddums. Here's a hint: For once in your life stop acting like the pathetic wanker you are and maybe people will want to keep you around. You were blocked for your repeated trolling, reverting edits and personal attacks. -- PsyGremlin  11:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * How about you stop being an asshole first?  04:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like yet another sock and he’s promising supporters rewards come the revolution. Marcus, if you want to avoid a permaban sober up, stop taking whatever you’ve been taking and cut all that out. I&#39;m not Jesus (talk) 17:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

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


 * You're a liar and an ass. 08:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoever trolltopped my comment, present your case. Psy is a liar, I cite his blog, and an ass. 04:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But then WELL BE LIEK CONSERVOPAEDIAAEA!!! 12:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Do with him what you will. I have long ceased reading his screeds, since they only seem to add what he thinks are big fancy pompous noises. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 12:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have stopped caring about MC so long ago, so do what you will with him. The right to dissent is not the same as the right to call other members cunts. Also, maybe I have rose-tinted glasses, but when did the use of the world cunt become acceptable on this wiki rather than being viewed as offensive? I remember the glory-days this website was far more female friendly than the 4chan outlet we are now. -  π    12:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. I cant stand this guy. RatMaster háblame 12:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, really brave guys. Not only do you desysop me and block me for 3 months, you then proceed to carry out a trial against me without even affording me the pleasure of an opportunity to defend myself. Well done, you've once again proven that gits like Psygremlin rule the roost here and the rest of you goosestep to their whiny, insecure neurotics.
 * The truth is this. Pys is a needy controversialist massive twat who every month or so has a mental breakdown and sprawls his angst ridden muck on this website. He already retreated to a blog where he bitched about the politics of this site. he promised to 'leave and never come back', a promise he has broken. Now he can't handle the fact that someone is telling him the fucking obvious - that he is an attention whoring brat who deserves to be held in utter contempt. I'm not surprised that an alliance of virgins and aspies have united in trying to get rid of me. But remember this; you can never kill off an idea, and MarcusCicero is most certainly a great idea. I will NEVER leave this site. Try to ban me? Then I'll unleash a fury of shit so profound on this place that not a single one of you will ever want to post here again. Come on. I dare you. Do it. Ban me. See what happens. Cunts. 86.45.239.9 (talk) 12:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow, almost had me there. RatMaster háblame 13:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * See, that is why he should be blocked. -  π    13:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Noooooh! Marcus is the only reason I visit this site. His wit and wisdom are like flowers among thorns. He should be free to make a fool of himself in whatever way he feels like. Steven Kavanagh (talk) 13:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The bow is bent and drawn, make from the shaft. I bet you idiots don't even get that literary allusion. Now get out of my sight. 86.45.204.60 (talk) 13:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You have to laugh at the maggot's logic: "I really, really hate you all, so let me troll here, otherwise I'm really going to troll you." Marcus, take a break, go for a walk, smoke a joint, throw yourself under a train. Whatever floats your boat. Just grow up. You are sad and pathetic. -- PsyGremlin  13:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. The guy is a cancer.  He spreads and grows and so far excising him hasn't worked.  We need chemo.  Permaban him.  Or wait for the moderators to do so, idc.  Block him, block his socks, and give temporary blocks to anything that resembles him.  If he were a lulzy troll, we would tolerate him.  But he is only annoying, rehashing the same tired "fascist!" cry and flaming editors.  He adds nothing to the site.  We hold fine discussions without him, articles are created without him, all he does is cause HCM.--  13:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * FFS guys. He's a troll, he doesn't cause HCM it's only those who respond who up the ante. How many times must it be said DFTT! Ignore the silly git, he's probably just had a few too many bevvies after a lunch time down the pub. 16:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sure - and the guy that starts a war isn't the one firing the first shot but the one that shoots back. --uhm, t! 17:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What bollocks. MC is not firing shots he is trying to provoke people into over-reacting so he can claim the injured party. It does no harm to ignore him; have you no idea how to deal with difficult people other than be authoritarian? 00:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It does no harm to ignore him It also does not work, someone will react eventually. -- Nx  / talk 07:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * How about trolling the troll? It's fun, and when he's pissed enough, he'll leave. --uhm, t! 01:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want to stick your fingers through the bars then that's fine but don't complain if they get bitten. 01:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. I want to see him try something on the 'eighth'. It will amuse me. --Danfly (talk) 16:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support No further comment, lest people somehow accuse me of being a sock of MC for wanting to ban him.  -- 18:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Just because I wanna see how his wrath looks. Oh, yeah, and he's the most annoying person I know. --uhm, t! 18:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Against Why can't people see that MC encapsulates the spirit of this site?  It would be an outrage of calamitous proportions should this series of proposals be enacted.  Titus Atticus (talk) 01:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, this is the site MC encapsulates. What with all the shrieking about freedom and fascism, it's only the fact that MC can spell that helps me distinguish the two. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 08:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support So now that we have moderators, maybe we can finally kick the troll out and keep him out. -- Nx  / talk 07:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

BAN MARCUS CICERO
I don't really know who he is, but I'm sure he's a cunt. He should be enbanninated. MtD Pinko Scum   15:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well maybe you're being a bit harsh Matty. Why not check out his posting history? MtD  Pinko Scum   15:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason MC isn't banninated is the same reason that guy on the corner screaming about Jebus all fucking day long isn't in gaol/hospital; yes it is unpleasant, no-one enjoys it but there it is. What are you going to do, kill the guy? C ® ackeЯ
 * According to P-Foster MarcusCicero has episodes when he's useful and episodes when he's a counterproductive troll. We don't know what in his personal life causes this but there is a case for giving him time to get over his present trouble and letting him back later. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's give him a medal instead
and all queue up to plant our obeisances on his geranium-scented rump...

If anyone would like to point out instances of MC's utility to the mission and the community, here is a place for it. Otherwise, I'm willing to go with the rat turd model: one of those will spoil an entire bowl of soup. Put enough of them in the stock pot, and the whole batch is ruined.

I, personally, do not have a problem with the use of "cunt" from anyone speaking certain Irish registers of English, no more than "twat" or "berk" bothers me from an Englishman, nor "bitch" from an American. I's been desensitised to that. That to which I do object is self-inflating noise, where I use "noise" in the sense of a signal contaminant, freely available and of little value.Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * “If anyone would like to point out instances of MC's utility to the mission and the community, here is a place for it.” Okay, here are a few:


 * 1
 * 2
 * 3
 * 4
 * 5
 * 6
 * 7. P-Foster (talk) 17:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Seriously? 7 edits? And that justifies him being allowed to act like the neurotic troll he is? On those grounds, we might as well hand the server over to Rob, because he's made far more interesting edits to RW. -- PsyGremlin  10:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not at all what I'm saying. I just pointed out that he is able to make non-trolling edits when he wants, and backed it up when somebody called me out on it. Not that big a deal, Psy. P-Foster (talk) 12:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The republic of Ireland one I'll give you, but the rest (especially the Forum:Moderation etc.) we really could have done just fine without him.-- 17:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Seriously Brx, you wanna decide who gets to stay or go because of based on your take of the quality/quantity of their edits? Fuck you. I can go through the list of a number of respected members of this site who've made almost no "productive" mainspace edits, and who do nothing but hang out on talk pages and the Saloon Bar. 'Cause that's how we roll here. Stop, for once, being an annoying little noobish git. There may or may not be a case for dealing with MC's trolling, but he can, when he wants to, make good edits, or at least edits that have better syntax, grammar and proper use of upper- and lower-case letters than yours. P-Foster (talk) 18:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry P-Foster, but bitching and moaning on a forum page is not "refuting pseudoscience" or anything like that, it's bitching and moaning on forum page. Except if you think that rules are pseudoscience... And that has nothing to do with the question who does that it's just not that. (end wut da fak iz ap weeth thet gramma thang off ur's?) --uhm, t! 18:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Bitching and moaning on talk pages makes up about 90% of my contributions -- and those of several other long-time editors of this wiki. If quality/quantity of mainspace edits is going to be the gold standard for booting people off the site, then there's quite a few of us who will have to go. As for grammar/spelling, etc; if part of our communal identity is of being basically intelligent people, writing at a third-grade level actively undermines that. P-Foster (talk) 18:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with you, but it's just not fitting of what I understand as usefull to the mission statement - I mostly bitch, moan and mock too. I'd never make the point that somebody should be kicked because she/he doesn't have enough mainspace edits. As for the grammar thing, you are free too correct anything I write, but I'm not gonna pull my left arm out for some guy who reads what I write. Content not appearence it is for me. --uhm, t! 19:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The thing is, you bitch and moan politely, constructively, and sincerely. MC is rude, irrelevant, and an admitted troll--  18:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The thing is, you bitch and moan politely, constructively, and sincerely. MC is rude, irrelevant, and an admitted troll--  18:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem with Marcus Cicero is not whether he is contributing to the mainspace or not, it his stated intention to drive good-faith editors off the site. -  π    23:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur. I just wanted to point out that he CAN, if he wants to, make productive, or at least non-trolling, edits. P-Foster (talk) 23:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposition
Shoot this billowing headless chicken mode in the foot and put it off until tomorrow, and let the elected moderators have their first serious go at conflict resolution. 17:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know why no one's thought of that-- 17:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But... But... Today we still have the chance to kill kick him mob-style! --uhm, t! 18:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Javascap's dissertation. Let's let this be the first item on the agenda of the new moderators. 19:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Does anyone think moderators have the authority to block Marcus long term? I don't. This also isn't the kind of situation I'd describe as urgent enough to justify moderator intervention. That said, I'm happy to participate in helping come up with a solution as a member of the community. I'd suggest before anyone starts talking about the merits of whether Marcus should be community banned we discuss process. If Marcus pops up being disruptive the mods can address that immediately, but let's preemptively come up with a process for dealing with what happens after that - that is and always was on the community, not anyone else. There's no reason to wait for another HCM to talk about getting this right. 16:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, moderators only have the ability to interpret and enforce community decisions. If the community has a vote or whatever on what to do with Marcus, the moderators' job is to tally votes, working out any ambiguity, and then enforce the decision the mob makes. If someone really wants to make this a case I suggest it's done with more specificity than "he's a troll". Provide evidence, in the form of links and diffs, to build up a narrative of MC's long term behavior on this site, and allow him to defend his actions. We've all had encounters with Marcus, but many of us (me included) have ignored him enough to not really have a solid view of his history, and his negative actions relative to his positive (or at least neutral) ones. Yes, I'm sure such a case will tell the vast majority of editors here what they already know, but if this is going to be done it should be done right. Start over with a real proposal backed up with evidence. DickTurpis (talk) 17:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * To get a full picture of MarcusCicero's activities, several editors would have to testify, but Template:MC contains a collection of examples that some people pull out when arguing that he is a troll. 23:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The Usual Suspects
I'm going to ask for sanctions for the following "people" (though I have a sneaking suspicion there are only three real people here:
 * Ace McWicked
 * AD
 * Genghis Khant
 * Nutty Roux
 * Pi
 * P-Foster
 * Weaseloid

For future abuses of powerz grant to them by the community. We know they'll be guilty, why wait for the drama before we act?

So much for "the honeymoon".

16:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC) C ® ackeЯ
 * We don't really have any powerz beyond the ability to intervene in urgent situations and we're not in a leadership position so for longer term and less urgent issues we ought to just be participating with the community making its own decisions. We can't block users for any longer period than anyone else can without putting it to the community. Within those constraints we can fully abuse our powerz as much as possible. I only ran for moderator to get tons of ass and trade special treatment for booze and pills. You should probably community ban me now before I proposition every single one of you for anonymous unprotected sex (I guess some of you know my secret identity so we'll have to actually make eye contact when we couple - I'll wear a wrestling mask for the rest of you. I'm not very tender.) and steal your home electronics to sell for drugs. Olé olé olé. 16:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm more curious about Cracker's suspicions of sockpuppetry. who does he think is whom? P-FosterCan't we talk about this, baby? 16:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I was going to bring up the fact that there's only three people on the internet, but then I realized that that joke needs to be updated. Sadness.    ThunderkatzHo! 23:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure Cracker's just joking.-- 23:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)