RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive14

JimJast
Shows no interest in contributing to the project as a whole. Concern troll who is essentially using RW as a free web hosting service for crackpot theories while doing zero heavy lifting to better the site, whether that be editing articles, finding WIGOs, providing lulz, or even just contributing to the general conversation. P-Foster (talk) 22:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Whereas I agree on the crackpot side of things (hell, I deleted his first "essay") and find his bizarre rantings fly in the face of what RW purports to be, we don't really have - AFAIK - a policy on not being a single subject grouch who doesn't do his bit for the community. I think we need to come to a decision on whether or not his work should stay on RW, even as essays. It seems odd that a site that purports to debunk pseudoscience hosts ramblings that are more at home on Timecube than here. -- PsyGremlin  22:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have a whole lot of respect for single-issue editors but in the end there's no rule against it, & I it would be a dangerous precedent if there were. The jury is still out on the purpose/boundaries of essay-space, being discussed elsewhere (Forum:Essay standards).  As for derailing discussions on other talk pages to promote his theories & essays, it's best dealt with by DFTT & moving off-topic threads to more appropriate places.  Re "using RW as a free web hosting service", is there any evidence that he's using RW essay-space as a wider platform rather than just putting his essays here for RW readers?  E.g. is he posting his essays here & then linking to them from other sites or forums?  If so, I think it would be reasonable to delete them as we don't want the site to be associated with his views in that way.  If he's just posting them for people who read RW to read, it's no different from anybody else posting a personal essay here.   23:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * While I agree JimJast's editing isn't ideal, I'd rather have somebody who single issue editors that restricts themselves to Essay space than ones who unilaterally reverse mainspace articles. I confess I have no ideas for dealing with either case, and I apologise for breaking my usual rule of "don't criticise unless you can suggest something better". –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes but Jim interpolates(right word?) his stuff into other places where it's not at all relevant. I suppose that's what's brought this up. --Scream!! (talk) 23:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think he is ok. He is a bit unconventional but he seems pretty good natured and prepared to debate his points with anyone who wants to.  It would be different if he just spammed his essays and left but he has shown that he will at least attempt to defend his points.  I also don't agree that he doesn't show interest in contributing to the site, I think the jury is still out on that one .  (edited at 19/04 - he's a troll, maybe he doesn't mean to be, but his actions are extremely trollish DamoHi 00:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought he was copying most of his essays from the pages he is somehow permitted to maintain on the server of the University of Warsaw physics department.
 * What I would like to know is, what course of action is being proposed here, and why is JimJast being mentioned by name on the Administrative Abuse page? I should think it would be enough just to delete his essays, unless he is resurrecting them without authorization. 03:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, JimJast annoys me, I can't make sense of anything he says. Then again, I'm sure many editors here feel the same way about me :) Rather than proposing to delete his contributions, I tend to just ignore them. -- 03:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no policy here against being a crackpot loon. Therefore there's no reason to bring him to this page. If you think his articles won't pass a review of standards by the mob, nominate them for deletion. If you're right then the content you find so offensive will be gone. There is no compulsion for any editor here to add anything to the conversations you take part in to remain a user at this site. -- 04:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I wanted to get the pulse for how the mob felt about people using the wiki exclusively as a resource for hosting their own independent stuff. Thanks, all, for your input. P-Foster (talk) 04:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * On that matter he's no different to everyone else. People here are using the project to host photographs of their cats and to store their rants on certain subjects under the Essay space. I don't have a problem with it being made into a delete on sight criteria, but if it is then it must be applied to all. -- 04:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The only reason I would support the essay deletions is to deny non-contributing editors carte blanche in using the Wiki for hosting. 05:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * " People here are using the project to host photographs of their cats and to store their rants on certain subjects under the Essay space. " Note my use of the word "exclusively," Iscariot. P-Foster (talk) 05:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I am aware he has done nothing which contravenes the rules of the site as they stand. The fact that he has done something which some editors are unhappy about is no reason for it to be on this page. If we want to change the rules and then accuse him of breaking them fine (or perhaps not). But looking at the description of the purpose of this page at the top of this page I don't even know why this discussion is here.--BobSpring is sprung! 06:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A couple of points. I agree with Bob that this isn't really a coop issue and also agree with LX about Essay space being for contributing editors to propound a POV rather than a dumping space for drive-bys.  Lily Inspirate me. 08:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Then the solution is that we more closely define essay space - if that is what the mob wants. Otherwise there is no issue.--BobSpring is sprung! 08:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's already under discussion in the Forum & it's best that the discussion stays in one place.  09:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It was not my intention to suggest otherwise.--BobSpring is sprung! 09:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Brxbrx
Blocking Occasionaluse for two days for "being a little shit". 67.159.56.162 (talk) 15:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Stop being retarded. 15:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * get over it occasionaluse/marcuscicero/duke/just about every troll on this wiki--Brxbrx (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Brxbrx, you can't hardly add, so I don't expect you to completely understand our regulations and rules (especially after the short time you've been with us). Quaru, is a two day block for "being a little shit" within our blocking guidelines? I know it's easy to ignore the rules when you don't like the person, but try and be rational. 67.159.56.164 (talk) 15:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, would "immature wanker" have been more appropriate? -- PsyGremlin  15:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I do believe "fun blocks" to other sysops fall well, well within the community standards. So stop being retarded.  15:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not a "fun block" when it's two days and against a non-sysop. Psy, I know I hurt your little feelings today, but be honest with yourself: is the block within the guidelines? 74.63.86.218 (talk) 15:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * a 2 day block for trolling seems fine to me--Brxbrx (talk) 15:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Read our rules and regulations and get back to me when you get it through your thick skull...or if you need help pronouncing any big words. 74.63.86.218 (talk) 15:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You've been unblocked. Don't disappoint me. -- PsyGremlin  15:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Can you remove the autoblock? And unban the HMA ip's Brxbrx banned? And maybe explain the blocking policy to him again? 74.63.112.150 (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait? Occasionaluse was promoted?   Sorry, I retract my previous statements.  2 days may have been excessive.  But still funny.  Funnier now, in fact.   16:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No prob. Now a little direction for Brxbrx, please? Occasionaluse (talk) 16:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * baaaw moar--Brxbrx (talk) 16:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm really sorry you don't like our rules. 95.154.230.191 (talk) 16:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Users who can't unblock themselves should only be unilaterally blocked for vandalism, spamming or clear and obvious trolling. Short blocks for stuff like edit warring should only be handed out after discourse on the relevant talk page has failed and with the agreement of some other sysops"

- EddyP


 * And oh yeah...the first line of that section. What was it? 95.154.230.191 (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I blocked you for obvious trolling.--Brxbrx (talk) 16:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Community standards...blocking section...first line...tell me what it says. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey now. I assumed you could unblock yourself.  Unless you're saying that we need to check the user rights log before we ever block someone ever again?  How about, "don't get your ass promoted" is that in there somewhere?  16:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Uhm...Quaru...the last thing I said to you was "No problem." But I see I did forget to sign... Occasionaluse (talk) 16:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * (EC)Right on, I missed that in all the new stuff here. (and lack of sig)  I was just arguing for a bit of lenience, in the "don't attribute to malice.." thing.  But with the "(EC)" I see I was mistaken...    16:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * i knew he was promoted. It was my intention to shut him up for a few days, maybe put him in his place--Brxbrx (talk) 16:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Right. I'm trying to explain to you how that's against our rules.
 * Next: Blocking IPs - simplified. Unless it's spam or vandalism: DON'T FUCKING DO IT. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * how about this: idc--Brxbrx (talk) 16:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't care about our rules. And you expect to be a sysop - let alone a member of this community? Jesus... Occasionaluse (talk) 16:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Fine, you have claimed to have blocked whoever it was for obvious trolling. Diff links please since his last ban for trolling that shows you banned and escalated appropriately. -- 18:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * where have you been this past day or so?, and (we all know Marcuscicero and occasionaluse are the same people, right?)--Brxbrx (talk) 19:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm unconvinced. There's no previous one day block in his history for the same offence and you block comment makes it clear that you were doing it out of personal dislike rather than as an attempt to protect the project or reform a user. Blocking a non-sysop for more than a day for a first time offence is unneeded. -- 14:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Vote
Please select one.

Yawn

 * BobSpring is sprung! 17:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Seconded.  17:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Leave it to bob to let personal feelings get in the way of ruling on a legitimate case. Did Brxbrx break the rules? Unequivocally. Was he warned? Unequivocally. Did he do it again (and again and again)? Unequivocally. But Bob doesn't like me, so yawn. Top notch, as always, Bob. And Wes, how could someone so tedious ignore this? Occasionaluse (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You've convinced me! I've changed my vote to goat.--BobSpring is sprung! 18:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We get it, Bob. You don't care about rule violations, or, by extension, RW. Congrats. Someone get him a TV guide and a can of prune juice. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You have a point, I just haven't been terribly active the last couple weeks to vote in a proper manner. Don't take my yawn as disinterest, just unfamiliarity.   18:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Understood. And I guess I don't blame you. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * seriously, I blocked you for two days. no big deal.  get over it.--Brxbrx (talk) 18:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand that you don't respect our rules, but the rules say it's a big deal. You were warned, you persisted. You don't deserve to be a sysop. At least not yet. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Goat

 * I always support more goat. ThunderkatzHo! 17:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't get it--Brxbrx (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Permanban both these idiots (OU and Brxbrx). No loss to anyone. --95.154.230.191 (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * but of course, this would be meaningless to you, since your socks could keep editing--Brxbrx (talk) 17:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * More evidence that you're just too fucking stupid (read: unfamiliar with our rules) to be a sysop. I'm not every IP editor. Also, not everyone using an open proxy is me. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * --BobSpring is sprung! 18:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Can never have too much goat. I Eat Glue (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * C ® ackeЯ and the lurkers in email +2000 for goat as well.
 * P-Foster (talk) 15:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Psygremlin
Renaming users in direct violation of RationalWiki:Community_Standards. Not only is this a clear violation of our community standards (the ones exact same ones Psygremlin was appointed to uphold), but pissing off someone who clearly has nothing better to do is super-duper-mega-anti-constructive. I propose that, if Psygremlin can't own up to his transgressions, he should be promoted. I'm sure no one cares about violations of community standards when the misanthrope is a cabalist, but it's just as important to illustrate that, too. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Occasionaluse that the username, while stupid and pro-vandalism, was not offensive. I do not think, however, that a demotion is necessary. I vote for throwing a long-eared jerboa at Psy's head as punishment. 14:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I say take away all his anime and manga for a week. ТyUser_talk:Ty 14:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And his teddy bear. P-Foster (talk) 14:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If he's not willing to acknowledge his wrongdoing and express his intent to abide by our community standards, he must be demoted. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I do agree that Psy should apologize for this. But I think promoting them back to "Sysop" in this case is like swatting flies with a machine gun. 14:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear Occasionaluse. I'm so sorry I offended your sensibilities, and that you bear a grudge from the last time I promoted you. Hopefully this grovelling apology will fill you with joy, so you can fuck off and masturbate yourself to death. -- PsyGremlin  14:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Truly spoken like someone who should be in charge. He breaks the rules and it's your fault for keeping him in check. Karajou, much? Occasionaluse (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * (EC) If he can neither abide by our community standards nor accept the outcome of chicken coop consensus, I don't see another option, because, if that's the case, the man clearly shouldn't be a bureaucrat. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But he named the user back to their original username. They reverted what they did, and that's what counts. Thus,  Case Closed!    14:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This page is for "conflicts which cannot be solved through normal talk page discussion". Closed indeed. 14:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The conflict wasn't resolved through normal talk page discussion. He still hasn't apologized for the wrongdoing. He still hasn't said he won't do it again, but he's a really small man, so I think we can take his tacit reversal of his actions in good faith. Case closed indeed. Thanks for all your help, Javascap. Very productive. Very rational. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I don't care.
I want to underline that I don't actually care that suspectedreplicant deleted my edit (http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SuspectedReplicant&lqt_method=talkpage_history#Welcome_to_Liquid_500)

I find it disgusting that this little twerp is allowed to circumvent the rules of this site in such a manner. There once was a time when deleting an edit was an utterly unforgivable offence. Now this site is over-run by boring little charlatans and attention whores like suspected replicant, and you people are too cowardly to do anything about it.

Where are the great heroes of your past? Why have they abandoned you? You're too busy pandering to middle rank minds like his that you have lost all sense of what you once stood for. MarcusCicero (talk) 21:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Your apathy is duly noted, and ignored. Have a fantastic day. ТyUser_talk:Ty 21:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it's even against the rules of the site. I think it's the rules of the site that are so fucked up. Allowing users to subjectively delete comments smacks of censorship. I can understand why the cabal would do that, as they are incapable of ignoring anything. The administration could literally be ground to a halt if they weren't allowed to silence people they are incapable of ignoring. The problem is that the cabal isn't rational. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that no-one cares about your trolling any more. -- Nx  / talk 21:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hence the response. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Just as I suspected. This website has been defeated by the dark forces of internet nerdiness and a lack of a sense of humour. Over-run by annoying little fascists with their massive e-dicks, they ejaculate every time they censor a comment on the internet, as this allows them the grim satisfaction of consoling themselves that every time they masturbate to midget porn, that they are somehow relevant to something in the cosmos. MarcusCicero (talk) 16:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And your point is? Jack Hughes (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * MC, if you don't care, why do you expect anyone else to do so? I normally don't get involved in this shit, but this one is so full of fail it somehow draws me in.--[[Image:TheEgyptiansig001.png|link=User:TheEgyptian]] 18:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yawn

 * --BobSpring is sprung! 18:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ТyUser_talk:Ty 18:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If the person making the complaint doesn't care, why should anyone else?  19:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think he means that even though that he doesn't care enough to put up with the cabal (who really doesn't care), he still believes the actions were wrong. Pretty fucking simple, I know. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * 19:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC) C ® ackeЯ

Goat

 * I always support more goat. ThunderkatzHo! 18:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * At least there is one sensible section in this clusterduck. --[[Image:TheEgyptiansig001.png|link=User:TheEgyptian]] 18:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The chicken coop is not a sham, no sir. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's one thing to raise an issue, but you have to resort to such transparent sock-puppetry to promote it... you really are pathetic Marcus. And Occasionaluse don't try and deny that you're not, because if that is indeed the case, then you are such a pale and shallow imitation of Marcus that you are even more pathetic. -- PsyGremlin  07:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure whether I can vote on my own Coop call, or whether it's okay because he's not actually bringing me to the Coop anyway

 * Err... –SuspectedReplicant retire me 20:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I suspect you won't last long round here. This site is a phenonomonal place, once overcome by great intellects and worthy debates. Now it has become the haunt of your kind. Be kind, and leave sir. MarcusCicero (talk) 21:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * He has been around for 2 years come the 26th. ТyUser_talk:Ty 21:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but Rpeh was a lot cooler. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "I got trolled by Marcus Cicero and all I got was this lousy sense of déjà vu". –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no case here

 * It ceases being administrative abuse when the editor who was acted upon was not originally acting in good faith. 22:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

On a related note, since I got into trouble for doing it unilaterally last time
Why is MC a sysop? I suppose, if I stretch a bit, I can maybe think of like two flimsy justifications for banning him, but there's no way he should be given sysop powers. Seriously, there was a big debate about that sometime early last year, and I could have sworn that the conclusion that he shouldn't be a sysop was reached, even if consensus wasn't achieved on banning. So if no-one can come up with a decent justification for his sysopship ("has trolled slightly less recently" and "will troll more if we do do so" are not acceptable"), I'll just go ahead and remove his rights. -- 23:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll give you a chance. You do not want to make an enemy of me again, Emperor. Walk away now. MarcusCicero (talk) 00:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Do we really want somebody around who's going to make this kind of pathetic threat? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 07:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Forgive them, for they know not what they do. MarcusCicero (talk) 09:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If we are not going to ban MC he might as well be a sysop. He might do something useful with it. --62.142.167.134 (talk) 00:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, whatever a sysop can do can be undone easy enough, but it is annoying and can cause problems as people fall over themselves trying to fix it. But regardless of whether it can be undone, sysop rights can cause the wiki a right pain in the ass. ADK ...I'll incarcerate your broadsword! 07:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * But Marcus doesn't do that sort of damage. He can be the worlds biggest arsehole and, as such completely full of shit, but he's a troll, not a vandal, and he's earned sysop powers by persistence if nothing else. Jack Hughes (talk) 11:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * What is the point of plastering that template everywhere? It's about things that happened nearly 12 months ago, or even 18 pushing 24 months ago. He did this in the past, he did that in the past, how is that relevant to today's MC? -- 12:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Leopard. Spots. Stick around - it's always fun to watch a n00b have his innocence stripped away. -- PsyGremlin  12:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatever his other behaviour now, is he abusing his sysop powers? Has he done so recently? To my knowledge the answer is no, so it would make sense to leave those powers alone. That he abused them a long time ago (for some meanings of 'long time') doesn't mean he's doing it now or in the future. If he starts to abuse them, take them away. -- 12:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Criteria for promotion
AD has just promoted MarcusCicero out of sysopship. Maybe he's done the right thing, maybe he hasn't. But I would think, shouldn't there be some discussion about whether a user should be promoted? Obviously non-Bureaucrats have no way of stopping Bureaucrats from promoting anyone, but wouldn't it be better to have some open discussion about the topic first? Sometimes if a user is actively abusing their sysop powers, it will be necessary to make an instantaneous decision without any prior discussion - but this doesn't seem to be the case, since AD's logic seems to be more "he is not a fit person to be one, he can't be trusted with these powers" than that he is actively abusing them right now.

I'm not really criticising AD's actions however, because I am not aware of any rule he's broken. But I'd suggest maybe there should be a rule against what AD's just done? -- 11:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, there's some slight discussion here, just above this section... Theemperor advocating MC being de-sysopped, Armondikov says things that sound supportive but doesn't explicitly agree. But still, I think it would be better if there was more discussion of this first. -- 11:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems like you've confused this for some place where you take legitimate concerns. Occasionaluse (talk) 12:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * One can only try. And if doesn't work, try again. -- 12:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * More power to you. Fight the good fight. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Human
General douchebaggery, and then promoting me for "accusing him of being a troll" (he has paper-thin skin, apparently). To make this more ridiculous, he had just finished accusing me and SuspectedReplicant of being trolls. I don't even. 02:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Human has had a history of decrating people he has been in an argument with at the time. Pink for example. To be honest, I would say he is the one with the problem. -  π    02:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, Pi guy, you break my heart... 02:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Promoting people cos you are pissed off at them is uncool. -  π    02:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * They warred against me crating Sterile, dude. 03:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I was not against the demotion of Sterile, nor against you being the one to do it. 03:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (e/c)Blatant misuse of the 'crat bit. Promotion to sysop is the least that is required here. It's even worse that this individual is a trustee and LJ member. He should know better. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 02:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As the plaintiff here, I shouldn't really participate in that bit of the discussion, but I fully agree. 02:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (ECX3) Didn't this happen last winter? To the same editor? LJ is irrelevant, noone even remembered to hold the election in February, but a trustee should know better. ChristopherS (talk) 02:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

As I've argued above, promotion (whether from sysop or crat) should require discussion first, rather than being the unilateral decision of a single crat (genuine emergencies excepted of course). I think the same principle should apply here. -- 02:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The "douchebaggery" should not be a Chicken Coop offense, but Human did break the rules by stripping Blue of her rights. 02:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * True. Striking from the OP. 03:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

This entire thing is a sham - Blue when you were promoted, Human said it was temporary - that's in your user rights log. Also - shenanigans on you LX - he didn't violate the "site rules" - in fact, the page you linked specifically says that its contents are guidelines and NOT site rules.--Danielfolsom (talk) 01:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I need to point out that that is factually incorrect. I was (I think you mean this word) demoted by Gooniepunk2010, after the de facto end of the temporary arrangement. 01:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am mistaken. Although pertinent question: what gave you the right to de-crat Sterile ... and if that right exists why couldn't Human use it to decrat you?--Danielfolsom (talk) 03:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

RW
We need moar rules, and less emotional bitch-fits. srsly. The crats are acting like children. I am the only one that gets to act like a child around here.---brxbrx 02:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Concur. Rationalize (talk) 04:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure there's at least one bureaucrat reading this
Recrat Blue. I'm amazed I even have to say this. 02:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And me while you're at it, I seem to be incapable of leaving. Nutty, Scream, Isacriot, Ace, etc. can shove it. ChristopherS (talk) 03:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So what does the "new cabal" want this site to look like? When I click "recent changes" I see only one mainspace edit in fifty...  03:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Try a 90/10 rule. I'd love to contribute to mainspace, but I'm hounded, stalked and reverted instantly, most recently by you. nobsdon't bother me 08:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Something gothic. Grey stone, high ceilings and stained glass. 03:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I always wanted a castle. ТyUser_talk:Ty 03:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And so, RationalCastle was born. 03:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So sorry I left, I'm touched that you missed me. ChristopherS (talk) 03:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * One mainspace edit in fifty... and how many of them were from you, Human? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 03:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This month? He's made a whopping 10. ТyUser_talk:Ty 03:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not a forum for comparing edit counts or discussing the future direction of the Wiki. 03:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Point taken. ТyUser_talk:Ty 03:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I know it's not, but Human seemed to be claiming it was some kind of big deal, hence it needed commenting upon. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 03:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 03:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

De-'crat Human: the vote
This poll should remain open for 72 hours and an intercom message should be sent out about it. 03:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Point of order: can my sockpuppets vote? 03:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * One vote per user; no votes from known sockpuppets. 03:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Does the work by IP? mayhaps we ought to use that? C ® ackeЯ
 * Yes, that works by IP. 03:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Some of us have dynamic IPs. Best to use signed votes, to keep it honest. ТyUser_talk:Ty 03:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That was what I meant. If we went by IP, I personally could vote three times right now, seven by noon tomorrow. But this is all rather moot, since the vote is already ongoing. 04:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I see. Good points. I do recall that voting was always done openly: we didn't expect cheating or sock voting. I'm sure that if (for some reason) we went with IP voting nobody would abuse their ability to use dynamic IP's to vote more than oncest. 04:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC) C ® ackeЯ


 * Ty's got a horde of sockpuppets and collaborators in his little cabal of truly vile pals. I'd approve of an IP check but it's the least of the problems with this kangaroo court. Nutty Roux (talk) 04:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Yea

 * Yay. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 03:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Good luck with that. 03:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure this is where all the smelly socks pour out of the cupboard. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 03:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yay. 03:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yay Rationalize (talk) 04:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I hesitate to do this, as I'm sure many of you will interpret this as nothing more than spite, but as far as I can see Human isn't prepared to acknowledge the rules for user rights, even when repeatedly referred to them. There is no reason for him to be a bureaucrat, unless that title is still just a status symbol. I'd love to say this isn't personal, but actually it is -- unilaterally removing someone's user rights purely because they've annoyed you is a personal insult, and the privilege of editing user rights should not be used to insult people. 04:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I like Human and all, but removing another users rights just because you had an argument with them is not on. Sorry. -  π    04:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Shit, what do you suppose happened to my user rights? nobsdon't bother me 04:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like P-Foster plays with you a lot. We should probably have a vote on it to decide what your actual status is, trusted contributor or tolerated troll. -  π    05:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeaaaahh boiiiii. Not cool, Human. <3 – Nick Heer 05:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ListenerX convinced me. -- 06:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's about time. 09:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yet more drunken nonsense from Human, who's been here before. (there's an older one but it was here.) Also, recratting of Human to be discussed at some future point. Real first name and last initialTalk, talk, talk skim my contributions 09:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actions like this coming from a guy who gave a "good post" defending Legalism breaks more then one irony meter. Sorry, Stuff like this pisses me off. --UHM"rambling incoherently" for 20+ years! 10:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yay. Sorry Human, but it's just not on... OzdemocracyTalk! 11:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a pity, as he's done so much for RW, but that does not make him a god who can do what he likes. Also, he blanked NR's talk page because apparently NR needs to be insulated from the consequences of his actions. It also strikes me that "Accusing long time user of being a troll, complete lack of judgement" are all things which NR, who Human is defending, could be accused of too. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 11:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yay. Sorry human, eveen a mobocrasy has rules.--Thunderstruck (talk) 13:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Payback's a bitch. nobsdon't bother me 13:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * RobSmith's vote should be stricken. He states in his reason that he's doing it as payback for human opposing him being a sysop. That's not a legitimate reason in the context of this discussion. (No offense Rob, personally I think you should have sysop rights)--Danielfolsom (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If Rob is a member of the community and entitled to cast a vote, then his reasons are his own. 22:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, first nobs stop being an asshole. Second, everyone above has been given pretty good reasons and I've come to agree with them.  Third, and I really hate to be the one to say this, using admin status as a club over petty grievances is the sort of CP bullshit RW was started to oppose.  Why accept it when it's "one of our own" doing it?  Either this behaviour of randomly abusing your powers every so often stops or you lose those powers.  Since you're been given a ridiculous number of chances to do the former, the latter is left. --Kels (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * yah well you sure sound different today when I was saying what you're saying now after I lost user rights punitively by an abusive bureacrat. nobsdon't bother me 15:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * yay, I haven't been here long enough to really know human, but from what I can tell from the user rights history, he was arbitrarily altering user rights, which is kinda a dick move
 * This isn't the first time and it wasn't amusing. Frankly I don't care if someone's a 'crat, a trustee or the person paying all the fucking costs for the site, rules are rules. Human has demonstrated that he cannot be trusted with 'crat rights, therefore those rights should be taken from him. Frankly I'm more than a little disappointed that it hasn't already been done by the other 'crats, if a sysop was behaving like this there'd be instant removal of rights. All that being said I expect sock puppets to appear shortly and render this whole process moot. -- 17:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yay. Considering the offense and Human's disgusting attitude toward resolution, it's time to go. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yea.  19:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yea. Human's undone edits of mine without giving a good reason, and on a wiki (especially Wikipedia) that's usually only done for edits consisting of vandalism. As stated on my user page here, most of my edits are minor (either small expansions, pedantry, footnotes, or links to other wiki articles), and the entire reason I was made a sysop was because I don't vandalize wikis. --GastonRabbit (talk) 20:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree conditionally upon the fact that it be temporary, and after a month or so another vote be carried out to determine whether he gets his rights back. If this is a permanent deal, then I vote nay.  -- 20:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that is a given around here; precedent has certainly shown that promoting someone and barring them from ever being demoted again are two different things. I suspect that in a month everything will be forgotten anyway. 22:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The irony being it already would've been forgotten if it weren't for this show-trial.--Danielfolsom (talk) 22:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yea, the full reason for my decision can be found HERE Kidding, but my decision stands. --Lairju1 (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I move this vote be stricken from the voting records as the rickroll clearly demonstrates utter lack of mental facilities. -- 21:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have moved this vote to its correct position but why a noob who can't even post an edit in the right place gets a say in this is beyond me.  Lily Inspirate me. 08:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yea. (If you insist) - Gameboy (talk) 22:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yea. Forgive me if I seem presumptuous, since I'm fairly new and I don't edit much, but I believe it says in the community standards that de-opping people needs to be discussed first. From what I've heard, this isn't a first offence on Human's part. Back to lurking! Kimmo Alm (talk) 23:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yea. This vote is probably pointless, but ethics damn it. ТyUser_talk:Ty 03:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, and desysop as well. This reflects poorly upon RW. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 04:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yea. People who dick around with others about following the policies should follow them.  ~ Subsound ~ 05:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Apparently he thinks that if he has a button to do it, he can do it, screw everyone and everything else. That's not cool. -- Nx  / talk 07:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So by - for a minute - de-crating him to prove your point, you violated the "rules" that he's being brought up on.--Danielfolsom (talk) 07:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really. If I pick something up in a shop, look at it, then decide not to buy it and put it back, I'm not guilty of theft during the few moments I had it in my hand without paying for it. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 07:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, although that's not reflected in the guidelines the yea voters are pretending are strict rules.--Danielfolsom (talk) 07:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No-one is pretending the guidelines are strict rules, Human. We just think you should accept that this is not your playground and you can't do whatever you want. -- Nx  / talk 07:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Woah buddy. I'm not human. You want proof? You can videochat me on skype - danielfolsom.--Danielfolsom (talk) 07:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. -- Nx  / talk 08:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries! I don't think less of you for your vote; I just wanna be clear that just cause I support Human doesn't mean we're the same guy.--Danielfolsom (talk) 08:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Even if it's only temporary or symbolic, it shows rules are applied evenly and consistently. It has nothing to do with "strict", it is what will be done if another user starts being a real dick.  Otherwise RW just becomes another CP.   ~ Subsound ~ 17:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Human's actions are just paradigm of how RatWiki is always in HCM and doesn't even realize it. Abusers should be punished. That said, craziness and HCM at RW is what makes the lulz, and without the lulz, RW would be a pretty boring and pathetic wiki. If RatWiki stops being funny to read, and Rats stop beating each other with sticks, many people will stop reading it, which is a good thing in my opinion. DMorris2 (talk) 12:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yea, Human seriously overstepped and needs to be decratted. Human is a dick for doing that to Blue. John Lennon back from the dead (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * YES, Human blocked one of my socks, by all means decrat his ass. Barbra Brown (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Definitely. I can't understand why this has not already happened. Nutty cooked mixture of butter or other fat and flour used to thicken sauces, soups, etc (talk) 18:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * YES. I have definitive proof that Human is WELSH, which should disqualify him from any and all roles immediately. Self-declared footpuppet (talk) 18:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Burn the bastard now. He cares about this wiki far too much, especially as he is now unblocked at CP. Trolls have votes too (talk) 18:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * After much reading and research in the middle of the night, instead of studying Physics...Yea.--Dumpling (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yea Weres da beef (talk) 02:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A bit disheartening that one of my first major interactions here is promoting an elder member, but this seems to be what must happen, I am sorry. --JabberwockDownTheHole (talk) 02:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yea, sadly. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 01:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I urge Human, pain-in-the-ass he is, be reconsidered for remotion after either an anger management or driver's training course.
 * I wanna cut his epaulettes off with my sword, can I? Huh? HuH? (No, Susan, those dangly things are not his epaulettes.)

Nay

 * Mountain Blue (talk) 05:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 05:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I should also add: Human, chill the fuck out and quit tussling.-- 05:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * He has done this multiple times. At a certain point, giving him a stern warning becomes useless. 05:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Blue, it is not appropriate for you to comment on that in this discussion. 11:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * --Danielfolsom (talk) 04:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * nay --Scream!! (talk) 07:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Nay; I am uncomfortable with taking power away from the old guard, but then I am a Republican so my priorities aren't running 100% inline with the community as I see it. As for sterner warnings temporary suspension with set boundaries perhaps? =S --Opcn (talk) 09:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Based on this incident alone, there's no real issue. Human's a jerk sometimes, but so is everyone else. Revert and argue, move on, ignore the random rule proposals that follow. 10:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No. I agree with Kupochama and Opcn on this one... Seems wrong to penalise a long term contributor to the site for a promotion pissing contest. Let's just quit the drama and get on with life. It's not a dig deal. --[[Image:TheEgyptiansig001.png|link=User:TheEgyptian]] 11:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Nay. Icewedge (talk) 11:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Honestly, the wanna be rebels should find something better to do, like diddle themselves off. As to Human, meh. but all the bitches making a fuss need to realize revolution went out of vogue 60 years ago. 81.218.219.122 (talk) 11:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Are IP votes even counted for things like this? 15:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hateboy (talk) 11:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * --BobSpring is sprung! 11:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No. The issue is overblown. If people feel the need to punish then remove his rights for a week (this time) but not permanently. 11:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Nutty Roux (talk) 13:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Cluck, no.  Lily Inspirate me. 13:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is all so very stupid and pointless. I agree with GK above; if anything, make it temporary.  «-Bfa-»  13:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A rebuke is all that is needed, not a time-wasting ultimately pointless vote. Senator Harrison (talk) 14:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that one incident is reason enough to de-crat. People aren't perfect. - Jpop (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * sigh This is not the first time Human has done this. This is why most who voted yea are older members who remember him doing it before and know a rebuke is not going to make any difference. 15:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Nay, with a qualification: the slight was resolved, but a temporary suspension is in order, say a week or so. EVDebs (talk) 16:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * --Röstigraben (talk) 18:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No. This proposal is almost as dumb as the Llama Jism fuckwittery below. Tools. --Robledo (talk) 23:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * WTF?  This is ridiculous.   Human is part of the furniture, and even though he can be a cunt a times, well, hell, thats his prerogative.   Without him as a senior member, this place would be a fucking useless dump.  DogP (talk) 00:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Nay. Human pays the goddamn bills. That's a lot more than a lotta other whinny bitches who just harass people and don't contribute jackshit to manispace, as Human said. nobsdon't bother me 03:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Versine (talk) 12:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Nah. Although I like Human, what he did to Blue was not okay. Abusing his powers like that is wrong. That said, we all do stuff like that. Nobody's perfect. I contribute to Wikipedia, although I have vandalized it before to releive some stress. Just because Human's not a saint doesn't mean he should have his admin priveleges permanently revoked. He is Human after all. Rabbitxhampster (talk) 03:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The proposed change in user rights would not be permanent. No one has suggested this, but several people have voted with this imagined aspect of the proposal cited in their reasoning. The fact is, no one could enforce a permanent change in user rights, and no one would want to do such a thing. Please be aware of what you're voting for. 03:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 03:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC) C ® ackeЯ
 * PACODOGwoof, bitches 06:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Human may have been in the wrong on this one, but this is a fuckin wiki for christ's sake. It's not like there's a shortage of crats to reverse the premotion or demotion or whatever in question. He's a prolific editor with more contributions than anyone else here. Give him a break already and get on with your lives. Jeez. PACODOGwoof, bitches 06:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * NO!!! IT ARE MY SHIT PILE!!! I rule here!!! -- 07:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hell no. Make him stand on the naughty step but decratting is just being vicious. Clickbot (talk) 07:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No (based on a coin flip). --emc  [TALK] 10:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No. Moar drama pls. MaxAlex Swimming pool 12:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Really? No.  steriletalk 13:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No. 18:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Would this be a promotion, then? Too political for me.  Human's always been decent to me though. zieber (talk) 22:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Nay. Had he edit-warred whomever reinstated Blue's rights, I would vote otherwise, but it is something easily reconciled considering the number of 'crats available to reconcile said damage.   23:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Nay Jack Hughes (talk) 00:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Goat

 * 03:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Rather than focusing on whether one individual remains a crat or not, I think it would be better to focus on developing some policy around promotion. As I've argued before, the policy should be no promotion without discussion (emergencies excepted). If that becomes the accepted policy, then if a crat violates it, another crat can just revert their action, and life can continue on its merry way. De-cratting should only be for repeated offenses. -- 06:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (1) We already have a policy on this, which is what Human is accused of breaking; (2) as Blue has pointed out, this is not a first offense. 06:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought more about this, I agree with you now. -- 06:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The policy LX cited doesn't appear to apply to bureaucrats decratting other bureaucrats. Rather, it only discusses certain criteria for bureaucrats desyopping sysops, and even then is hardly a model of clarity since it refers to "vandal or troll" in one paragraph but acknowledges the right of a bureaucrat to unilaterally desysop a user "to prevent further vandalism or abuse" with the matter being up for discussion afterward. "Abuse" appears once and isn't defined. The single reference to "abuse" may look back to "[w]here a sysop is being particularly disruptive," but even then leaves the initial determination up to a bureaucrat's good faith and subsequent discussion. While these criteria may be instructive in the development of a written policy regarding the power of a bureaucrat to unilaterally decrat another crat, I am unaware of us having an actual written policy that addresses what Human did. In other words, while the site is attempting to come up with a policy for adding the crat bit it's mobocracy in action when it comes to removing one. That's nothing but a ramped up version of what Human is accused of doing. In the absence of any governing policy, because a bunch of people vote on something doesn't make it right. Jurors are instructed to follow the law. What's the governing principle here? Nutty Roux (talk) 14:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Fuck. I asked all these same questions and have been accused of trolling for asking the goddamn questions. nobsdon't bother me 17:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Our Bureaucrat Guide says, with specific reference to "[promoting] a user, from sysop to editor, or bureaucrat to sysop," "Bear in mind that no matter how annoyed you are at someone, you are not allowed to just promote them out of rage or spite. This is something that you are trusted, as a ‘crat, not to do."
 * But let us assume for the sake of argument that we actually have no policy concerning the removal of bureaucrat rights. By what right are you then objecting to this promotion vote? If we have no policy, the mob is just as well within its rights to promote Human as Human was within his to promote Blue. 17:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to say - this is a site that doesn't really take a lot of things all that seriously. User block eachother at random for "x thousand" seconds - all the time, without much thought. Granted, what Human did might be a slightly bigger deal - but ultimately he was reverted and the harm done was 0. There's no way, looking at Human's entire body of work, should he not by a crat.--Danielfolsom (talk) 06:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Joke blocks can be undone by the blocked user. Not so the removal of Blue's bureaucrat rights. 06:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not ALL users are sysops. And Blue's rights were returned within the hour. This is way too much fuss over a small deal.--Danielfolsom (talk) 07:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * All I hear is "whaaa"... seriously, don't we have better things to do than have penis measuring contests? -- 07:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Human's paid the fucking wikimedia bill for x number of years; that counts for nothing? just another revolt of the masses and tax the rich scheme, seems to me. nobsdon't bother me 08:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So what's your point? The people that make and finance the laws don't have to follow them? Although if that's the main thought on CP it explains so much... --UHM"rambling incoherently" for 20+ years! 10:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What Wikimedia bill? The software is free use in both senses of the word free. -  π    08:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * $130 bucks a month they pay, Human & Trent were nearly the only ones paying it except for the occassional beg-a-thon. nobsdon't bother me 08:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought we were funded by Soros. -- Nx  / talk 08:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And once again we see the same old names, who do nothing but concern troll, or troll their own made up religion on RW, stirring shit. Here's a thought - instead of being whining little bitches, learn to contribute constructively to the group. Then people might take you seriously. But this constant bitching on a site where you've been unproductive members for 5 minutes, does not win you any friends. If you don't like how RW is run, then fuck off to RWW and run that the way you want to. -- PsyGremlin  08:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yah, you got my contribs to Conserfvaleaks merged yet? nobsdon't bother me 08:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Come off it Psygremlin, neither Rob nor I have had anything to do with starting this little debacle. We have just provided our opinions. People can make their own minds up. And it seems really silly to be lumping us together in criticizing our contributions, when (1) Rob and I have ended up taking basically opposite positions here, (2) ignoring some comments I have withdrawn since I've been convinced they were mistaken, all I have said is that I agree with ListenerX. If anyone is whining here, it's you. -- 10:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Why hasn't anyone just re-cratted Blue so we can all get on with our lives? I liek goat. 09:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * From my rather noob-ish perspective, it seems that human is generally a pretty cool cat who is prone to going off the rails every once in a while and pulling some stunt for really no reason and then returning back to regular operating procedures. I'm tempted to vote yes just for causing unnecessary drama and butthurt, but whatever, I don't really know what's going on here. Take that for what it's worth, which is just my two copperheads. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 09:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to have him pegged pretty quick for a "noob". ADK ...I'll balkanize your juice! 10:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * And not one single fuck was given that day. ADK ...I'll deteriorate your gas tank! 09:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's really not that big of a deal. Blue can be re-cratted if that is deemed appropriate.  I would have voted nay, but I choose to abstain because this sort of attention seeking behaviour from human is getting old and I can see why some would want to take action this time.  Lets make this the last time huh human.  DamoHi 10:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Blue was re-cratted within the hour. 11:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a big part of why I'm trying to stay away from this place. Needless HCM caused by lack of basic procedures, humourless noobs, trolls getting full run of the joint. I'm gonna go to the park, smoke a big fat joint and read comic books all day. P-Foster (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyone who voted "YES" above should be promoted and vandalbinned as a noob. It's almost entirely noobs trying to change the wiki. I'm with PF. --Scream!! (talk) 14:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, look, you joined in March this year. Well, that makes you a perfect judge of who is and isn't a noob. 15:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm a noob? That's news. --Kels (talk) 14:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "almost entirely", Kels. --Scream!! (talk) 14:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Still wrong, unless you're calling Blue, Pink, Nick Heer, Nx, Pi and EddyP noobs too. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oi! 15:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Apologies - somehow I missed you off my post even though I'd included you when I was looking at the votes... –SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not almost entirely Kels. I'm 100% Grade-A Kels! --Kels (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Noob or not (and I'm not, I used to be someone else), I'd rather I was judged on what i actually said rather than how long ago I came through the door. If you like I'll change my sig to my old name and you can all go oh, well that's different even though my point would be the same. Real first name and last initialTalk, talk, talk skim my contributions 15:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I find it highly amusing how much some people can bitch about the fact that other people are bitching. --UHM"rambling incoherently" for 20+ years! 15:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Alyssa Bryant (talk) 16:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I like that Human <3. But I dont like his hastyness. I like Human too much to vote for promotion, but I think his treatment of Blue was very un-Mei, so I cant vote in support either, so Im going with goat. Alyssa Bryant (talk) 16:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Surely we can't decrat Human? It's his wiki! Doing that would be like putting google into google. That said if you do decrat him can I have his rights :) Crundy <font color="#00F0A20">Talk nerdy to me 19:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Another lurker/noob here, but it seems to me this is not so much a referendum on Human as part of the discussion over whether RW needs more rules and some enforcement mechanism (though of course his behavior is the immediate cause). A de-cratting vote might not be the most fruitful way for such a discussion to take place.  (opposed for now, but I'll let the regulars do the voting) --MarkGall (talk) 20:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That debate is going on over at Community Standards. 23:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Goat. Human is my friend, but he did violate site policy. However, I don't think an unequivocal de-cratting of Human for an indefinite period of time is the way to go on this one. Certainly, there should be some sanction. But is the one that's proposed the right course of action? I think not. 23:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It was suggested that if Human is stripped of his bureaucrat rights, we would wait one month and then re-nominate him. 23:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Be that as it may, I don't think I could vote for any sanctions on Human unless he were assured to get his 'crat ship back. Given how many users have voted above in favor of promoting Human who I can almost assume did so just out of spite, I could not vote in favor of holding a vote on his rights later.  00:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd have no problem with him being renominated later, or even getting his bit back. Just so long as he learns that there are rules for everybody. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 07:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think most of the Yes votes only want him temporarily decratted, if only because the idea of Human not being a crat is so foreign and strange. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 07:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * User:Me, The First is a wacky goat. 06:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sniff. MtD  Pinko Scum   07:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * GOAT!!! Infoseek (talk) 03:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I feel I should contribute to the democratic process, but I also haven't been paying any attention. Goat. Brianetta Brian Ronald, UK. Talk here 22:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Human's response
I filed a Motion to Dismiss and Statement of Defense, which is located here. Civil and constructive comments are welcome on the talk page of the motion. 03:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Motion to invalidate this vote
We have socks voting rather obviously, so as an actual vote this is now a sham. It should be retconned as a poll, and should not bear on a final decision in any official capacity. 18:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * To be fair, it was a sham from the beginning. <font color="#CC0000" size="3">ADK <font color=#330033>...I'll drink your cheese! 18:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. I'm surprised it took this long for the socks to show up. ТyUser_talk:Ty 18:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It was heading for a tie in any case. So who wants to claim all those socks now? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 18:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (ECx3) It would have had a shred of credibility if the exact crime and exact proposed penalty were put forth beforehand, rather than the truly vague "De-crat Human" for something or other. And the franchise should have been restricted, perhaps only to 'crats. But no, it was never really valid. 19:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I can say with certainty that none of them are mine. <font color="#CC0000" size="3">ADK <font color=#330033>...I'll edit your cheese! 19:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's all pretty pointless. As for socks turning up late in the day - with the processes we have in place we have no idea how many of those votes are socks from the very start. (But none of them are mine.)--BobSpring is sprung! 19:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So, next time I'm brought to the coop, all I need to do is create a bunch of socks and troll the page? Good to know. -- Nx  / talk 19:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this your first time in the coop? Why would you even bother making socks to rig an impotent vote? Occasionaluse (talk) 19:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup, if you think you might lose a vote here, just create socks to vote on it; if you don't like a WIGO at RWW, just edit war until Punky steps in. This isn't mobocracy, it's anarchy. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 19:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Cactus? Cactus? Cactus? Cactus? Cactus? I only made the first two votes, no clue who did the others. Cactus? 173.192.187.133 (talk) 19:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Seriously folks, we don't want this sort of crap again. We need to establish some proper order and ensure that only people with the long term interest of the site are entitled to vote on serious business. Because of the sock abuse I agree with the suggestion that we restrict the crats to an initial group of 12 (+ Trent) to be voted for only by the current crop of crats as I would hope that no socks have made it that far, and even if they have then it's only one vote. However, I would allow anyone to stand and would suggest that those who have resigned as crats for whatever reason also be allowed to vote as there was probably some good reason (like this fiasco) for them to withdraw from the fray. Cue HCM part II. 19:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The first step is to accept that there is no objective metric for determining worth. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Reducing the number of 'crats will do very little unless it is accompanied by rules and responsibilities. 19:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Reducing the number of crats is impossible unless preceded by rules and responsibilities. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have argued that. 19:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec)(ec) I agree to rules and fewer 'crats, but please can we decide if this is discussed here, in the forum, Community Standards on Trent's page so there aren't separate groups trying to do the same thing! NDSP 20:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So in order to reduce the crats so we can make rules, we need to make rules about reducing the crats. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Regardless of where the discussion is taking place, we do not need 12 'crats. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 20:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The number is fairly irrelevant at this stage, we need a consensus to slash the 'crat population first. Nevertheless, I would agree that 12 is overkill, but we don't want too few, to reduce the chance of cabal-ation. NDSP 20:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Any narrowing of authority must demand higher accountability. We have about 40 crats at the moment so reduction to 12 is not overkill, I think that crats should not be able to take action unilaterally except in the case of some vandal incident, it should be done as consensus/majority. Twelve seems a reasonable number to form a quorum allowing for temporary absences. One of the current problems is that people can promote/demote without any peer-review so trolls are allowed to get footholds while people can also be vindictive; that's something we need to put behind us. 20:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems to me that the only ones opposed to this so far are the ones who stand to lose their pissy play pen if we enact proper rules and accountability. All it takes is for one crat to line all the users up and remove the rights in one shot. That'll get it going. Then we build back up to 12 by fair nomination and voting and instil on them the rights to actually ban people. <font color="#CC0000" size="3">ADK <font color=#330033>...I'll steal your lisp! 20:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's vote on our Cincinnatus, then. I suppose Trent will always need to have 'crat rights, but besides him, whom might we pick to instate this martial law? 20:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Trent would need to be the one for such an undertaking. 20:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Since of the 40, only about 12 are active, reducing numbers to 12 will have no impact at all. There really, really doesn't need to be more than one or two (not including server access people). –SuspectedReplicant retire me 20:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "concentration" is more apt than "narrowing". As the maxim teaches, this will only cause more corruption, but I think those in charge will be fine with that. Let us proceed. This will be a fascinating disintegration. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Which is why suggest 12 is a good number, there is still sufficient diversity to supply a range of viewpoints. However, immediately decratting everyone is not a a good idea as we need someone to hold the reins. 20:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Twelve is awesome, with Trent in the middle of the table. Can I be the one to betray Him with a kiss?  Which of you will deny Him, three times?  And who will bring the whine (I think we've got that covered)?  Time to eat and drink!  06:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit Break
(is this the first level 6 header on this site?)

Actually, the problem is that some rights traditionally assigned to sysops have had to be reassigned to 'crats here because there are too many damn sysops. If we're reducing the number of sysops to sensible numbers (ie, about 10-15), then they should get <tt>editinterface</tt> back, for instance. See Special:ListGroupRights for a list of rights and have a load more things to argue about. My 2p says we go back to WP-standard rights and THEN worry about numbers. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 20:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * YES! WP vanilla for an interim, until the trolls/HCM clear, then vote in a new system. NDSP 20:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I support this idea. <font color="Darkblue">«-Bfa-»  20:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * here is a list of crats. The strikeouts indicate the ones that haven't made an edit in the last month. <font color="#CC0000" size="3">ADK <font color=#330033>...I'll swirl your computer! 20:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I make that over 30 active or semi-active.--BobSpring is sprung! 20:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking through the list, they are all valued contributors to the site, but I don't think that is enough qualification for 'cratship anymore - no offence to the current 'crats. NDSP 20:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (ECx2)No, let's do the WP system in all its glory! That would be fun. I don't think we could get Trent or Nx to set that up, though. 20:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Buero(no spell checker)cracy! Meta-meta discussion! What more could we ask for? NDSP 20:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, well apologies for being so wrong on my initial guess. It doesn't change the fact that 12 is far, far too many though. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 20:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Back to the point that there is no objective metric for determining worth. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You need to be a 'crat to be affirmed in your "worth" to the site? Wow. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 20:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * How you came away with that, I have no idea. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * How about a new page for proposed changes (and no distracting trolls individuals)? NDSP 21:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. How about ? Loljk. 21:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * How about a new version of RationalWiki:Constitutional Convention? 21:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * RationalWiki:Constitutional_Convention,_May_2011 is up. I propose the page is used for the new constitution/draft thereof, and the talk is used for planning and arguing over it. NDSP 21:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have created that page. 22:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion
How bout just having crats vote on this? Real first name and last initialTalk, talk, talk skim my contributions 15:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh great, do you want the concern trolls to piss themselves and have kittens too? -- PsyGremlin  15:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well there is an issue on just who should be able to vote on serious matters. Criteria were established for the RWF but it's still rather hit and miss on general issues.  Lily Inspirate me. 16:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually I think the whole vote should be declared void as there was no discussion about any alternative course of action. It would seem that this is a case for wise heads rather than a popularity poll.  Lily Inspirate me. 18:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A motion is proposed, voted on, and if that proposal fails, alternatives can be discussed. There is no reason for voiding a proper vote simply because other things were not proposed at the same time. 18:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And that's exactly the thing that causes HCM. TK used to pull the same sort of stunt. If we want to progress as a site we need to approach the issues in an adult fashion not like dissed teenagers demanding trial by fire.  Lily Inspirate me. 18:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine, if the vote is inconclusive we'll subject Human to Trial by Fire, happy now? -- 18:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The vote will likely be close enough to be inconclusive. I agree that this should be decided by "wise heads," but we need to have elections for such a body. 19:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Lily, Human's guilt in this matter is not being seriously challenged. It seems it is allowed on all hands that there is no "legal" impediment to his bureaucrat rights being removed, so this vote is to decide, not between "guilty" and "not guilty," but between "mercy" and "no mercy." 23:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't say that in the "motion". Perhaps we should start again with your new wording?  00:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (EC3) One of the problems with referenda (of which this appears to be) is that those who pose the question can skew the outcome. Some jerk jumped in with a 'decrat Human' vote without even considering that there are other options. Also, people are being very legalistic over the rules but where does it prescribe what the punishment for any infringement is? I've had my run-ins with Human as I have with other editors but this palaver is completely ridiculous.  Lily Inspirate me. 08:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. People hiding revisions completely obliterated my posts! Thanks.  Lily Inspirate me. 08:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's my fault! Sorry first time hiding a reversion - put up a personal url that i realized was dumb. (Though fortunately now that I've edited my fb settings I could put it up again, but oh well).--Danielfolsom (talk) 08:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh noes!
WHAT SHOULD WE DO!?!?!?? Should we determine the vote of one member by their role within the site like in 19th century Britain?! Should only noobs vote?!? Should only crats vote!!? Should only sysops vote? Which of these should have more or less say!? WHAT ARE WE ARGUING ABOUT AGAIN!??!?! WHAT TO DO!!?!? WHAT TO DO!!?? WHAT TO DOOOOO!?!!!???11!!1112111!!!12!@341?1!@!1!? 16:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I note that this comment takes up as much space on my screen as the discussion it is claiming is running away. 17:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Loya Jirga
The opinion of a lurker-noob isn't worth much here, but it seems to me that this type of thing would be better left resolved by the Loya Jirga. Or are they now defunct? Chthonios (talk) 17:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There was supposed to be an election in February. Nobody remembered/noticed. ТyUser_talk:Ty 17:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (EC) While this idea might have merit, it seems surprising that a noob is even aware the the LJ exists.--BobSpring is sprung! 17:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've lurked for a long time, contributing only very infrequently. It seems like this vote is going to be very close and highly controversial, so it only makes sense to bring it to the Loya Jirga--if, of course, I understand their role correctly, which I might not. Chthonios (talk) 18:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We were supposed to have an election? Then we're overdue for one. Call one immediately. -- 18:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's the last anyone ever heard of it, and ironically, the one calling for a test case (which never occurred) for possibly disciplinary action is the above respondant. By precedent, mob rule & bureaucrtic arbitrariness remain the standing rule (kinda like CP). nobsdon't bother me 18:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Bugger that, elections mean I can accept kickbacks, I demand an election! You're a Republican, you know all about rigging them, go set it up. -- 18:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Considering that of the seven LJ members, one resigned and another is deceased, an election is very much in order. 18:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * To quote a great philosopher, "Make it so". -- 18:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Intercom/Saloon bar/both? ТyUser_talk:Ty 19:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You've been here for 6007 years, and I've been here four minutes, why are you asking me? -- 19:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm asking everyone in general, cause I have no idea. ТyUser_talk:Ty 19:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Let us convene the Estates General at once! Who's going to take charge of this? DickTurpis (talk) 19:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Now that they think the Foundation Board and governing entity is in place, they are having serious discussions as to a process for electing/selecting bureaucrats, which trickles down to an election process for sysops as well. Notg to mention codes of conduct, dispute resolution proceedeures, etc. At some point, a real Loya Jirga ay come into existence, with committed individuals who aren't just in it to wear a title. All this spells the end of mob rule. nobsdon't bother me 20:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Who are you talking to? Is it story time? Do you fancy yourself a bard telling some sort of epic?ТyUser_talk:Ty 20:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep'n, that's me. A chronicler of events. A seer of the true history. That's why they keep trying to off me -- I know too much. I know where the bodies are buried. nobsdon't bother me 20:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Every healthy community evolves over time. It may go in the way he suggests. --BobSpring is sprung! 20:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The Foundation Board are intelligent enough to understand that going against the will of the mob (especially concerning democratic elections) would be a stupid idea and would just leave them with a dead site with only a few arse-licking toadies whilst the mob takes their contributions to a new project. I highly doubt that the Foundation is going to pull a Schlafly. Regardless of what changes are made in the future, the fact remains that current procedure says we're owed elections and we're going to have them. Robo's just scared that if a more proactive group are elected he'll be shown the door. -- 21:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The discussion is right here, Nx says something similiar about the Trustee's & Bureaucrats function are separate and very different (although I'm sure he works cheap, I'd be wary of his legal advice). Nothing's gonna be done now, but maybe some rewording of standards. nobsdon't bother me 22:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The board of director's official position is pretty much that mob rule is the rule, and that the Foundation should not interfere officially in any regulation of content or policy. How the mob chooses rule itself (if at all), is up to the mob... If the mob choose organize, then they organize. But no one has any authority from on high to decree anything, not even enforcement of policy. So, rob: even though you seem overjoyed to see us straightening things up and becoming more regulated in the Foundation and providing the medium of RW... the official law is anarchy. -- 00:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yah but there probably gonna add input from the community before granting bureaucrat rights, although it remains obscure how bureacrats are granted now. The mob's never even agreed on what a consensus, AFAIK. nobsdon't bother me 00:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You're punking me, right? This has to be a punk. "The mob's never even agreed"? Like, do you understand what mob rule means? I find it difficult to believe that you're that retarded. But just in case: Mob rule means that if a crat randomly decides to demote someone else to a crat, they demote that person to a crat. There is no consensus, there is no debate, there is only do, and do not. If the mob doesn't like what you did, then the mob keeps reverting it until you stop trying to do whatever you were trying to do... that or the mob gets tired and just lets it happen. -- 01:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Mob rule means wheel wars and edit wars? That doesn't sound like an attractive way to run a wiki. 02:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * But edit rights warring is what you have been de-cratted for twice now. Interesting when one looks at the facts, as my friend nobs would say. 03:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It is just as inappropriate for me to do it as for you and Nutty Roux to do it. And you didn't cite such warring this time at all. 04:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Your constant reverting of my cratting Sterile (which as a crat I have a right to do - I have a button that says I can) was why I did it, silly. 07:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you think you removing Sterile's bureaucrat bit was just as inappropriate as Human removing yours and are prepared to admit there's no rule that directly prohibits what either of you did then I wonder why you haven't already moved to dismiss this sham trial. I suspect the answer is that like a few others here you're out for blood and like the attention. Is that about right? Oh and leave me out of this. Nutty Roux (talk) 17:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No. This is what I meant: a wheel war needs two sides. I was not solely responsible for the Sterile kerfuffle; I did attempt to "bring it to the talk page." And yes, you've got me pegged - I'm a nasty attention whore and the medium through which I seek it is the fucking "Chicken Coop" of a fucking wiki. 18:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Human acted unilaterally while a vote was underway. Showing contempt for other users by ignoring established democratic processes is not compatible with remaining a bureaucrat. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 17:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no rule against what Human's accused of. End of story. Broad pronouncements like yours that have no basis in the rules as they are actually written are nice aspirations but have nothing to do with what's happening right here on this page right now. If you think simply declaring what you call "showing contempt for other users" means anything coming from you I have to wonder if your venom isn't poisoning your judgment. This case is a sham. Nutty Roux (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You honestly think it's okay to preempt an ongoing election and say a big "I don't care what you think" to the people who voted in it? You are, quite simply, wrong. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 18:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh I see. So there's yet another charge in the indictment, except once again it's just more bleating from you about what you think the rules should be rather than what they are. Throw in misrepresenting the circumstances for good measure. 18:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm changing nothing. You started wittering on about Sterile's nomination and I'm responding to it. You changed the subject again but I just wanted to make sure you know just how wrong you are. He was wrong in both instances. That's clear. All that is being discussed here is whether or not he should lose his 'crat bit as a result, be it temporarily or not. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 18:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Moving on
It is increasingly clear that no consensus will be reached here. The purpose of the Loya Jirga was to intervene in situations like this; either we elect a new body, or we should create another entity that fulfils that purpose. 22:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well several people mentioned elections. Let's have elections. ТyUser_talk:Ty 22:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the Loya Jirga elections should be held, but disagree on Blue's point: this has passed the consensus-building stage and gone to majority vote. A vast majority of the abstentions appear to be from indifferent people. 22:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It also has not been 72 hours. But we really should hold elections. ТyUser_talk:Ty 23:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I have to point out that the ownership argument is pretty significant. If you're really determined to have a palace coup, fork it and start your own wiki. EVDebs (talk) 01:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Huh? 01:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Human doesn't own the wiki. He is a member of the board. ТyUser_talk:Ty 01:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * quite a bit of chaos seemed to ensue in getting the Longlasting Jonguelers elected. Has that group actually ever done anything ? why arent they doing something now ? what role has the Board, or is this just windowdressing ? This may be a entertaining site, but not serious at all. Hamster (talk) 03:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * They held one case. They are doing nothing because we forgot to hold elections in February, and one member has died. The board takes care of the financial aspects. ТyUser_talk:Ty 03:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Jesus. Life = Get
For fuck's sake, I've only just tuned into this recent ludicrous HCM. This fucking dump is now littered with concern trolls. Fuck off all of you and leave us in peace, we were perfectly happy until this "X should be disciplined by Committee Y because s/he said something that hurt my feelings" bullshit started. What a load of cobblers. It's a fucking webshite, you asshats, and a damned tough audience. I hate this lilly-livered shit. --DogP (talk) 01:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Say fuck one more time. Rationalize (talk) 03:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I find it to be one of the highest levels of comedy. And all put on for my benefit!  I feel so blessed. And on Mother's Day, to boot!  01:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know what lilly-livered means, but I guess I hate it if thats what this is. I mean, I get it, they are all chomping at the bit to find some thing to rebel against, the classic anarchist angst, I've had it too, but seriously their need for drama should in no way be indulged. Icewedge (talk) 01:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you feel that 23 members of RationalWiki are all "concern trolls" and "cobblers." It's particularly ironic, because Kels, who made the first fucking account, voted yes. Perhaps these people who you want to "fuck off ... and leave us in peace" now outnumber you. And fuck you for turning this into "us versus them." If I were Human, I would strip you of your 'crat bit. 01:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Kels, who made the first fucking account" - that is not a fact. Try to find my account creation in the logs, along with a few others.  Thanks for the gratuitous insult, btw, Blue.  02:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (ECX2)Rules means anarchy? Thought it was the other way round.ТyUser_talk:Ty 01:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This has been an interesting test of Rationalwiki's Mission Statement: 3.Explorations of authoritarianism.  The mob can have its says but fuck if the powers that be will allow itself to be challenged. nobsdon't bother me 01:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Seriously, what "powers that be"? They don't actually exist. The status quo is maintained because most of the mob works to maintain it. Are you really so authoritarian as that you require everything to be framed in authority? -- 02:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Ignoring the troll for a moment, the fact is that things like this hurt the credibility of the site badly. When we've got a bureaucrat taking a huge steaming all over the rules not just once but multiple times, and we can't seem to even do the simple thing of taking the powers they're abusing away because he's usually a nice guy (except when he's not), there's a big problem.  Why can't we just stick to rules?  Why can't we abide by decisions?  Yes, the squabbling and concern trolls above is annoying, but how do you think we got overrun with shit like that in the first place?  The anarchy might have been a blast when the site was new, but if we want this place to be more than a two-bit CP spinoff, we need to put in straightforward rules (none of this overly complicated LJ business) that everyone follows.  Including bureaucrats.  --Kels (talk) 02:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * First, kels, what troll are you referring to? And second, please name the "rule" I broke.  I decratted someone I once cratted on a temporary basis (see her link!) for repeatedly undoing a trusted user I cratted unilaterally - just like I did you.  The above entire discussion is so devoid of facts it amuses me.  03:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Holy shit, Human. The temporary arrangement ended months ago and I have been bureaucratized by two other people after you. 04:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Troll = Rob Smith. --Kels (talk) 03:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see, the collapsed bit. Thanks.  03:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Alright how does this sound: Human, don't be a dick and de-bureaucratize people just because they piss you off. Other folks, don't pretend an action that is so easily undone is some sort of federal offense requiring an inquisition. Can't we all just fucking get along? Let's move on to the more important topic of electing a new Loyal Jerboa and maybe standardizing a policy of how we make and unmake bureaucrats. Human, would it kill you to apologize for crossing a line by promoting Blue? It seems to me it was uncalled for, but it doesn't seem worth going to war over. Is this really the hill any of us want to die on? DickTurpis (talk) 02:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What sticks in the craw of a lot of people is that this isn't new behaviour by Human. Every now and then he gets the wind up and bullies new users or takes a huge steaming on the rules in one way or another, and nothing gets done.   There's "now Human, play nice" and then a while later it happens again.   Personally, I'd be willing to compromise and accept a real apology (no "I'm sorry  you were offended" bullshit, the real thing) ONLY  if there's some indication that the second chances stop and there's some indication of losing that 'cratship for good or something similar if it happens again, AND it's followed through on.  Otherwise you might as well put a "Not indended to be a serious website" banner on the front page and call it a day.  --Kels (talk) 02:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, if this vote does not go Kels's way the legitimacy of this website will be forever tarnished. I second the banner motion--Danielfolsom (talk) 03:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (EC)Kels, without links your accusations are, well, bullshit. You might as well be making this up.  Keep in mind who unilaterally, without discussion, cratted seven of the people who voted on this "issue".  03:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you four years old? --Kels (talk) 03:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No. Please back up your assertions.  03:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (EC2) This dispute is not about people being demoted unilaterally, but about them being promoted unilaterally. Pi provided a link above with an example of your promoting Pink unilaterally. As for the accusations of bullying new users and/or "taking a steaming on the rules," I seem to recall that there was some amount of evidence provided in a previous case here to the effect that you were reverting new users' edits without remark, which Bob cited as a violation of Wiki etiquette, and to which you eventually responded with a statement that there are no rules here on the Wiki. 03:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, Lx, the rules page you cited actually stated that it was not a rules page. To retroactively claim that the guidelines WERE rules and try to punish a user for breaking them would be enforcing an ex-post facto law, no?--Danielfolsom (talk)03:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * @DickTurpis: I thought the policy for demotions and promotions to and from 'crat was a nomination/election process. If there are other ways to do it, why not just ban all but the nomination process. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There is currently a proposal to that effect (at least on the demotion question) being held at Community Standards. 03:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * God Almighty, if this entire argument isn't an argument for the removal of all titles from EVERYONE, I don't know what is.  No matter who or where, give someone a fucking title and they'll get pissy about their title not being grandiose enough, or that someone else has the title and they don't, or whatever the fuck.   The extraordinary pettiness of this entire debate is pathetic, and I'm fast losing what little respect I had for many here because of it.   Is a nominal, meaningless title (which almost everyone on this site has anyway in what was intended to be a way to ensure this wouldn't become an issue, lest you fucking saddos forget), on an unimportant webshite with a few tens of members, so important that you'd start a petty little hissy fit over it?   Apparently the answer is yes.   Sad wankers the lot of you.   DogP (talk) 04:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * That say's it all. I voted with Blue & Kels and got trolled & blocked by Blue. What a bunch of dumb fucks. Not a clue about coalition building or how the game is played. Just puffed up egos and kicking and spitting on others to get thier way. Jeezuz. nobsdon't bother me 05:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

...You know, a more accurate mathematical representation of the phrase "Get a life" would be You + Life. Does anyone with a better understanding of notation have any better ideas? - Gameboy (talk) 05:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be: Youn+1 = Youn + Life -- 05:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, thank you, Ms. Eira. I knew there was some way to express it algebraically, but wasn't sure of the symbols. - Gameboy (talk) 05:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

RESULTS
--|Mr. Rogers

The poll closes at 3:22 A.M. UTC, 72 hours after the vote was first called. 01:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The poll is closed. I will now count the votes, as best I can. 03:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What constitutes enough to de-crat? A plurality? A majority? A filibuster proof 60%? Who decides this?--Danielfolsom (talk) 03:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should start another poll on how to judge the poll.--Danielfolsom (talk) 03:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Results:


 * Yea 31
 * Nay 32
 * Goat 13

Motion to promote Human dismissed by majority vote. 03:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Conditional No
I hate power abuse, but Human is one of RationalWiki's most prominent members, like it or not. We all know that Human occasionally acts in a rash, impulsive, and immature manner, and despite this, I do not believe in taking away rights that have already been given out merely to embarrass or humiliate (How he got promoted in the first place would have been a better question to ask). Blue was a good user, and you should return her bureaucrat rights. So, I vote conditional no. If you agree to stop abusing your powers (i.e. sock-puppets and ridiculous blocks) and return Blue's rights, then debate should be closed. User: Lefty
 * Blue's rights were reinstated in less than an hour.  Lily Inspirate me. 17:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not by Human, though, and no apology has been forthcoming. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 17:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Why should he apologize? He has a button, you know. 18:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "How he got promoted in the first place"?  Fucking hell, if you don't understand that for many years, this place WAS Human and in many respects IS him, you don't understand anything at all.   DogP (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As long as I make the cutoff, I support the gerontocracy. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

To the above user (Dog P), you can peddle your insults elsewhere. (By the way, f***ing h*ll is completely redundant.) If you think that we should excuse this kind of power abuse just out of years of service, then I give this analogy: A soldier, while fighting in a war, was found to have assaulted some individuals in a fight on the streets. This soldier was there in the war from the beginning, and did many good things for his country. Should his country excuse his crime and let him go free due to his other, good actions? Think about it. User: Lefty


 * Fuck off.  DogP (talk) 21:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You are being frustrating. I will start to use my xkcd words if you continue.......User: Lefty
 * NDSP 21:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well seriously now, if you are seriously suggesting that this website start minding it's 'P's, 'Q's and most especially 'F's, I think you need to look again at the website you've become involved in.  For many years we have happily existed here and reveled in our foul-mouthery.   And you'll not find much interest in changing that.   And, if you do, many of us from the past will leave - I for one, can't STAND this new RW of whinging and whining.   We had a user here decades ago who tried to have a rule for everything, and it failed then, thankfully.   If you lot succeed now, you'll kill the very spirit of the place.   I'm not interested in contributing to a child-friendly webshite.   --DogP (talk) 21:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not advocating for censorship. A bit of colorful humor, and the use of profanity are not wrong, but no one is saying that we all must go to your extreme! The old "system" may not be right, and it should be reevaluated. This is a political wiki, not 4chan, and your kind of comments would get you banned for "bad faith editing and trolling" on any other wiki. I am a rather level-headed person in real life; I avoid profanity because I do not see the sense in its use. It accomplishes nothing that reason and logic cannot accomplish more effectively. User: Lefty
 * Shouldn't this section be a subsection of my lunching attempt? I'll take a grilled cheese and Utz chips...  05:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Human, do you really think that this is a joke?--Lefty (talk) 11:02, 10 May 2011
 * YEAH HUMAN - --Danielfolsom (talk) 20:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh my fucking god
This place has gone to hell in a handbasket, overrun with twatty trolls and humourless obsessionals. Kick them all off or RW will lose what it worked hard to build up. Also, happy fourth birthday in a few weeks. Don't let it be your last. 86.157.97.15 (talk) (totnesmartin) 18:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Come on, if they come up with rules you can always ignore them. --62.142.167.134 (talk) 18:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I support these messages from the BONs.  DogP (talk) 20:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I am happy to be one of the above "humorless obsessionals" (obsessionals is not a word, for your information.) This isn't Conservapedia; it is not right for people to get rights taken away due to a difference in opinion. RationalWiki doesn't need this kind of debate; it is not constructive. Well, now that I know that Blue's rights have been reinstated, some of my concerns are alleviated. But even still, this kind of behavior needs to be addressed. User: Lefty


 * "Rights"?  You're not debating "rights", you're debating meaningless titles.   There are no "rights" to being a member of a webshite, not this one anyway, and the expectation is absurd.   Next you'll be expecting us to provide childcare facilities so parents can properly contribute.   DogP (talk) 21:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Special:ListGroupRights --ZooGuard (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed - I use the word "rights" purely in the technical sense as defined by that special page. In fact, of course, they are all "privileges". –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Shut up.
Just shut up. All of you. Now. 21:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes....they all have tried to shut me up on various wikis, claiming that my plans and ideas wouldn't work. But I won't! Prepare to lose all of your sanity through my eloquent ramblings! User: Lefty


 * ಠ_ರೃ --Dumpling (talk) 22:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I go away for one month and you fucks destroy the place
Fucking hell, two hours out from my flight with a rolling hangover and a terrible case of food poisoning which causes me to cramp and curse loudly in the street so I decide to step into a internet cafe for some laughs and I find Nutty has apparently LANCB, Human is back in the coop after decratting the lovely Blue, Rob has sprayed some vomit on my talkpage and Ken uttering some gibberish about my smoking habits. What the fuck is going on? Can't any of you slimy banshees be trusted to behave without my vicious tongue lashing and dry wit? I am back home in about 30 hours and I'll be jet-lagged, tired, drunk, half stoned on valium and suffering nicotine withdrawal and then I'll give you a piece of my mind...oh yes, tears will flow but it's for your own good. Ace of Spades 07:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You have no idea, Mr McW. JimJast, Manatrean, and now some arsehole called Lefty; there's no end to the madness. It's troll fucking city. (Is that a place to go and have intercourse with trolls?) Jack Hughes (talk) 10:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Lefty (talk) 11:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC) Hey! What did Manatrean do? (Besides inventing a religion?) Now, back to the subject matter, the above post shows that there are some real problems with our editors. Should I create a pie chart of how many are drunk, drugged, British, or just plain crazy?
 * I have created said pie chart for you Step3 circle.gif

Proposal
Okay, this is a serious proposal to amend the bellyaching process here.

I note the following:
 * RW's method of conflict resolution sucks.
 * The odds of this changing are minuscule because even if rules were introduced, they can be ignored - with the lack of serious consequences, the ease at which socks and proxies can be used and the high level of tolerance for asshatery contributing to this.
 * The discussions are mostly circular, repetitive, personal and idiotic.

I further note:
 * The Chicken Coop is currently flooding Recent Changes.
 * Meta-discussion such as this shouldn't be hidden, but neither should it be widely advertised as occurring to the degree it is and should not be presented as its focus.
 * This reflects very badly on the site as a whole.
 * This actively harms the site's credibility, lends solid ammunition to our critics and generally makes everyone look like a bunch of cunts.

I propose:
 * Delete the Chicken Coop.
 * Take all abuse discussions off-site to RWW.

This is a minor change to the conflict resolution and merely puts it "out of sight and out of mind" but I don't care. Rarely do any HCMs result in anything so it really doesn't matter where they occur, just so long as it's not out in the open where we're harming the site as an entity. <font color="#CC0000" size="3">ADK <font color=#330033>...I'll suffocate your neck! 09:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Good idea. But the problem I see, some editors see RWW as more their playspace/hangout than as something serious. Your proposal would give it a more serious purpose. Will this work, or just result in culture clash? -- 09:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If RWW is being used for official RW business, does that mean the RWF will contribute to its upkeep? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 09:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Your comments are very reasonable, but I see some issues.
 * RWW is not RW and it wants to create a more independent existence. As RW I'm not sure that we can off-load this onto them. (It would also substantially increase their bandwidth, though I imagine not overload it.)
 * As RWW is not RW I'm not sure that we can reasonably say that any decision taken there would be binding on RW. In fact, I think this would be a bad precedent.
 * However I most certainly agree that getting this debate off-site would be a good idea. What about reopening the old RW forums? Or is that technically difficult?--BobSpring is sprung! 09:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) No, and the suggestion isn't valid anyway, seeing as RWW is a bit of a joke, and merely a place for a few obsessive-compulsives to hang out.
 * Also, by taking things "off-site" we are guilty of exactly the same things we accuse CP of. -- PsyGremlin  09:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My thinking is that decisions made on RW are rarely, if ever, binding. This is just an excuse for people to duke it out. All I want is it off the site so that it doesn't clog the place up. So this wouldn't be "official" business, just a "you want a place to shout at each other, here it is". <font color="#CC0000" size="3">ADK <font color=#330033>...I'll bust your fork! 09:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If RWW is left to police RW, who will police RWW? RWW often completely ignores its own policies, it's even worse than RW is. Trying to argue about whether X obeyed RW's policies, in a place with even less adherence to its own policies, is not going to work. -- 09:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Off-site" can still be in the open. I just don't like the fact that drama is flooding RC and reflecting badly on the site. I'll explain a little more thoroughly: towards the end of last year I was pondering writing to well-known skeptics either asking them to publicise, comment on or perhaps do an interview for RW as a means of expanding the site and giving stuff back to users. Or perhaps even contact the people we disagree with and whether they'd like to have any chats, debates or whatever. This, I thought, was a really good idea as a way of not only asking things from users but giving something back and generally growing the site in a positive way. Except there's one problem: what do people see when they come here? Bitching, whining, crat wars, people chanting about mob rule. This place looks like a play-pen for a bunch of immature prats. So instead of developing good relationships with others, we'd get "hey, look at these idiots". This is just bitching and whining and fighting more than "resolution" so we need a realistic way of curbing it. <font color="#CC0000" size="3">ADK <font color=#330033>...I'll baste your cheeseburger! 10:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: Copy WP's ArbCom model. Setup a separate Wiki called e.g. 'MetaRationalWiki', purely for the use of RW-ArbCom, and similar official/semi-official things. Leave RWW as-is. You could have unified login, like WP has, so MetaRationalWiki has the same logins as RW.... -- 10:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (EC)(EC)(EC)(EC) Some good points ADK but definitely no to RWW. I hate to say this but at one time CP had a private sysop namespace which didn't show up on RC for non-sysops. So do we wish to hide discussions from ourselves or just from random passers by? Trent set some lofty goals in his RWF mission and to meet them we need a proper structure, we need to define what each user-level can or cannot do, and everyone needs to know what their rights and responsibilities are. It may seem like being over-officious but we cannot progress and expand with cyclic HCM. The mob lets in too many yahoos who can override the long-term user base and in my opinion that is not a good thing; after all, some people have invested several years in building this site. RW is a community as well as a project but if we are to move forward then I think that we need to focus on mainspace material and not just CP or Saloon Bar chat and certain voting rights (such as for who is a crat or not) should reflect that. I think that the overarching need right now is to establish stability rather than this buffeting from pillar to post.  Lily Inspirate me. 10:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * RWW was merely the suggestion because it is there. <font color="#CC0000" size="3">ADK <font color=#330033>...I'll vote your random string of characters! 10:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with any off-site discussion, even if official, is that members should be aware of it. I don't think anyone really likes RC being flooded with bickering but part of the problem is that there are few formal rules for arbitration and calling for new elections to the LJ in the midst of HCM is hardly the best time to pick. Dickish lynching votes are not a satisfactory way to proceed for a rational community. Also I'm sure it is not beyond the wit of of Nx and Trent to devise a community namespace which can be opted in or out of to show up in RC.  Lily Inspirate me. 10:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * PROTIP -- Nx  / talk 10:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of that. Several issues: 1) WIGO and SB are both in that namespace 2) You can't set it as a default for everyone. <font color="#CC0000" size="3">ADK <font color=#330033>...I'll crystallize your chiffon! 10:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's really only one or two pages that are at issue and it doesn't alter ADK's desire to reduce the visibility of HCM from casual visitors.  Lily Inspirate me. 12:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a chickenshit idea to me, with a very poor justification. Think the invitees are gonna click "recent changes"? More likely, they'll go to whatever link you send them, then perhaps follow links from there or hit "random page". They won't be interested in the back office stuff, but the articles. Oh, and people complaining about RC getting "overrun", don't you have watchlists? The WL only shows the last edit to each page you are watching. Very economical. 02:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * also, people don't seem to realize there's such a thing as enhanced recent changes.--Foucault5.jpg-brxbrx 03:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

No. The main reason for taking it away from RW cannot be
''' OMG! Whatever will the neighbors say!!!!?!!?! '''

It makes the wiki look bad.

Who the fuck cares? C ® ackeЯ
 * I care. Quite a bit, in fact. It's a major barrier to RW actually growing to be something and justifying its hosting costs. The fact is that the place is a laughing stock because people bitch and moan constantly and the only reason that this happens is some crappy appeal to tradition made by the Old Guard who think this who mobocracy thing is The Only Way because it's How Things Have Always Been Done. <font color="#CC0000" size="3">ADK <font color=#330033>...I'll cuddle your clock! 12:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It never ceases to crack me up about how, despite the liberal membership, conservative the site's userbase can be if confronted with any sort of change. ТyUser_talk:Ty 13:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So, end the mobocracy and impose rules. A bad precedent was set when I was desyoped for proposing dispute resolution. You have unmerited sysops and 'crats more interested in currying favor with the mob through arbitrary actions than builing a community of diverse users. nobsdon't bother me 12:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I honestly cannot believe I am about to say this but: I agree with Rob Smith. <font color="#CC0000" size="3">ADK <font color=#330033>...I'll lick your yogurt! 12:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. Rationalize (talk) 13:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (e/c)I do too... let's hope I don't start seeing commies everywhere I look now. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 13:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree except, about the desysoping of Rob. That is a perfect precedent of when a concern troll should get slapped. 13:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course I would expect that under any new rules he would never have been elevated to sysop status in the first place. He complains of arbitrary actions but his initial 'demotion' was arbitrary as well so he can't have his cake and eat it. Nevertheless I agree with ADK that the underlying point is valid.  Lily Inspirate me. 13:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec x 3, bastards!) So do I. But that's partly because I want something from Rob... -- PsyGremlin  13:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A stopped clock is occasionally right. ТyUser_talk:Ty 13:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Rob's first sentence. The rest is the sheerest bullshit, of course, but we've come to expect that from him.  I do find it hilarious that he complains about "unmerited sysops and 'crats" when he comes from CP, of all places.  --Kels (talk) 14:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Counter proposal
12:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC) C ® ackeЯ
 * We demote/promote (however ye wish to use these terms) to a place where there are only 12 crats and 36 sysops.
 * We make New Rules® that haz it teeth.
 * Enforce the rules with strictness, (no exceptions for "didn't know" or "I forgot" or "But I been here since 2006!")
 * Have a nice Xmas since by then this wiki would be gone.
 * This a similar to what I proposed on RationalWiki talk:Community Standards so I suggest that this be redirected over there.  Lily Inspirate me. 12:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So you're saying people only stick around here because "OMG I can haz sysop and do what the fuck I please?" When there were 20 of us, with a common goal that was cool. Now that every little tweenie and ex-EDer has found us - not cool anymore. If people don't like structure, they can fuck off. -- PsyGremlin  12:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't really follow what you're saying in this thread Psy.  Lily Inspirate me. 12:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I was replying to Cracker's "dead by Xmas" drivel. -- PsyGremlin  12:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I do have to agree with Psi. The site is growing and we face a choice: we either become better, more serious and adapt, which means structure; or we continue as normal and turn into one big chicken coop. <font color="#CC0000" size="3">ADK <font color=#330033>...I'll feel your band!  12:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I already got that. We have some suggestions but how can we thrash them out and implement them without everyone complaining? At the moment things are getting a little fragmented and this goes beyond community standards and into how the whole site is run.  Lily Inspirate me. 12:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm now a firm believer that this place is destined to fail. Let's add some gas to the fire. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The only reason this site will fail, is if we give in to whining shits who do nothing but moan instead of getting off their fat arses and actually doing something. -- PsyGremlin  13:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's why we need guys like you to make snap decisions based on emotion. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Or the people who call for snap decisions whether to decrat one of the founders of the site? Give me a break.  Lily Inspirate me. 14:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you calling this clusterfuck a snap decision? What a dumb bitch... Occasionaluse (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Some people seem to think so. It's the second day of a snap decision after the nth time Human did the same thing. I'd hate to see these people try to work out where to go for lunch. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 14:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sigh... <font color="#CC0000" size="3">ADK <font color=#330033>...I'll envision your zebra! 14:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Currently we have some loose standards of what is acceptable behaviour but none concerning what sanctions should be applied in the event of their transgression. So bringing up Human's history is immaterial, if people thought it so terrible he should have been sanctioned at the time; not storing it all up to use in some belated act of vengeance. 18:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This is me rhetorically wondering how dumb of a bitch any user would have to be to call this clusterfuck a snap decision. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If anyone thinks a this is a snap decision, then that person is a dumb bitch. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I hope this helps. --UHMrambling incoherently for 20+ years! 14:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

ListenerX
I wish to bring ListenerX to the Chicken Coop to answer for the following charges, primarily of bringing the wiki into disrepute:
 * Pursuing a personal vendetta against certain editors
 * Attempting to push his personal agenda onto the running of the wiki, to further said vendetta
 * Consistently ignoring the advice of long-standing and respected editors of this wiki
 * Insulting said editors by insinuating they have no moral authority
 * Instigating, sustaining and fermenting a level of HCM not seen since the days of TK
 * General trolling

For this the user should be sanctioned, promoted and banned from the wiki for a period to be determined. -- PsyGremlin  08:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to think ListenerX has a personal vendetta against Human. Can you explain why he failed to vote "yea" on the vote to decrat Human, even though he was present at the very end of the alloted time, when the vote stood at 33/34, and could therefore have swung the result singlehandedly? 08:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I'll offer the following evidence:
 * ListenerX set the time for the voting, as you can see in the intercom records.
 * ListenerX was present two hours before closing, making this edit.
 * ListenerX closed the vote himself when the time had elapsed.
 * Thank you for your time. 08:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Because he'd realised by then that propular opinipon was against him, and had moved on to other measures to disrupt the wiki. Hence all the proposed "constitutional amedments" -- PsyGremlin  08:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * He never voted at all, which suggests he moved on before he actually "instigated" the HCM in question. 08:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In addition, nowhere did I mention Human's name, therefore by bringing it up, you imply that he was going after a specific editor. -- PsyGremlin  08:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You last comment is not even wrong. -- PsyGremlin  08:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You mention Human's name here. I assume this is an entirely separate theory of yours about ListenerX proposing constitutional amendments because of personal vendettas. 09:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Discuss
PG, where is your evidence? You have presented a bunch of assertions; do you have citations to back them up? From what I've been observing (and admittedly recently I have not been paying complete attention), LX has been doing a good job 08:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * RationalWiki talk:Constitutional Convention, May 2011
 * RationalWiki talk:Elections to the Loya Jirga
 * []
 * He has been told on numerous occasions to back off, that the situation with Human has been resolved, that Trent does not want to run the wiki by himself, yet still he persists. This has gone beyond the pale and is now out and out trolling of the site. -- PsyGremlin  08:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

This is ridiculous and should be dismissed immediately
Lx has read all the people who say they want constitutional changes and has attempted to facilitate that change by making proposals. I can see nothing that he has written that was not a good faith attempt to improve the wiki.--DamoHi 08:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And yet he steadfastly ignores advice from other editors. Hardly 'acting in the best interest' -- PsyGremlin  08:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Where has he steadfastly ignored advice from other editors? And even if he has, is it a crime to disagree?  DamoHi 09:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I know of one instance where you think he is "ignoring advice", but I think you are the one who is wrong does this mean that I too should be brought to the coop?  People are free to disagree if they like without people impugning their motives.  DamoHi 09:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Nay
--DamoHi 08:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 08:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * LX has behaved admirably. This is just sour grapes. 08:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * He's kicked off way too many initiatives at once, but that's hardly trolling. Let's not dive straight into the next HCM. Röstigraben (talk) 09:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)