Forum:Nuclear Option

It's become pretty clear that all anti-trolling measures have failed utterly. Trolling this place is like shooting fish in a barrel (except that the fish don't fight each other), and it's getting beyond a joke. Without further ado, I propose enabling rangeblocks and hitting persistent trolls with them. There's little reason not to - we lose more legitimate members to trolling (Crundy being the latest) than we would lose to rangeblocks, and the whole 'don't be like CP' POV is ridiculous. EddyP (talk) 21:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If we're gonna use them, it should only be for the most persistent troublemakers, & only where it's been agreed by a few users first, not firing them off at every opportunity. & Unless we're going down the checkuser route, this is going to be effective on trolls who are too lazy to log in / create an account.  22:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd hate to see checkuser in use. I suppose it's impossible to lock our trolls completely, but perhaps it'll just be more time consuming to have to create socks. Kind of difficult to predict how that'd play out. Concernedresident  omg!!! ponies!!! 22:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree with your diagnosis, EddyP. If people ignore the troll there is no problem.  The problem is how people react to perceived trolling.  22:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Been there, done that, doesn't work -- Nx  / talk 22:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Before you take out the banhammers: the rangeblocking thing was a random aside and not a very serious suggestions. At most I'd block for a day, just to prevent the troll from popping up orange boxes for users, which is probably the main source of annoyance. I think a far better solution is to use bot rollback to get him off recent changes, so people are less likely to respond. -- Nx  / talk 22:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "The problem is how people react to perceived trolling". The related problem is that people are, well, people. All it takes is one or two people to start feeding trolls, and then suddenly recent changes has almost nothing but edits about this issue, and editors start calling other editors fuckwits, and so on. Nx's bot rollback sounds like a pretty good possible solution: recent changes stays clean of all the drama, and stupid edits can still be quietly rolled-back and ignored, which IMHO is the best response. alt (talk) 22:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Could the vandal brake be extended to allow range-binning? 22:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That would save us a lot of time, but I'm not sure of how much an effect it would have. As long as you had 15 different IPs it wouldn't be much of a hassle. EddyP (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If the vandal brake only allowed one edit per half-hour from that IP range, it would be just as effective as vandal binning a user who has only one IP.  23:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That would actually be a decent solution. For bonus points it'd be nice if vandal break also had an option to specify a period of time, but the latter isn't a deal breaker for me. Concernedresident  omg!!! ponies!!! 23:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree

 * In principle I'd say yes, but it depends on the details. Concernedresident  omg!!! ponies!!! 22:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My basic viewpoint at the moment is nuke troll now, sort out details later, but the suggestions below are along the same lines as my ideas. No range block without consensus, etc. EddyP (talk) 22:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Rangeblocks Ive had to use rangeblocks on Wikipedia before and Ill tell you theyre not all that bad. Though I must say this place would be rather dry without the drama. Fuck no on the checkuser though. Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 21:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Disagree

 * Absolutely and wholeheartedly. 22:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Why? EddyP (talk) 22:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Because I disagree with your perception of the "problem" and your proposed "solution". 23:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Yo 22:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with this disagreement. AceX-102 00:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Trent says it's unnecessary - we're talking about one person, and it's still far quicker and easier to block his IP than it is for him to generate a new one. Helpfully asymmetrical - David Gerard (talk) 00:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Jimbo says... it's far easier to ignore him than to delete every talk page comment you think is HIM, and block every IP in sight you think is HIM. Get a grip, David.  07:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * How's that approach workin' out for you so far? --Kels (talk) 12:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Rangeblocks and checkuser = I quit. P-Foster (talk) 03:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Trent had the right idea when he said temporary blocks (say an hour or two) are far better policy than rangeblocks. Also, if we install checkuser, I'm through here and, unlike other disputes, I'll stay away this time. 03:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * WE'RE NOT INSTALLING CHECKUSER. Jesus, this is a complete farce. WE ARE DISCUSSING THE POSSIBILITY OF ADDING RANGEBLOCKS. 09:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * --BobSpring is sprung! 07:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ...please stop making these fucking threads. There isn't a problem. 14:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A Very Bad Idea.--Tolerance (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We do not have a troll problem, we have a troll-response problem. If you don't like them then just ignore them, their sole aim is to provoke a response. Surely it can't be that hard? 09:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Conditional disagree/(agree)

 * I haven't yet found any vandalism or breaking of certain other Community Standards, which would justify blocking anonymous "proxies", but perhaps this is only because it has been kept it out of edit logs. Details: ~ Lunemowse 20:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I recall that Human was not following your current Community Standards at WikiIndex. Nx ended up apologizing for their behaviour there. People could possibly be harmed in real life by exposing sensitive "mistakes" they have made. For example, by our Islamic terrorist brothas. <-- This <-- seems highly unlikely but compared to being called a fag or something... ~ Lunemowse 20:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What would our CS have to do with WikiIndex, and what on Earth are you on about? 04:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There is currently a "Community Standard" against googling "names" and posting what you find. If you "out" someone (by googling the "name") that could possibly be bad for their health. Something of that "magnitude" might justify blocking anon proxies, but I've only seen MC insult people. You do that all the time. Theemperor claims I "haven't seen the true evil of MC". This would suggest that MC may be more "evil" than what I have seen. I thought the worst things would have been at template:MC but none of that seems as bad as what you were doing at WikiIndex, IMHO. Then again, if MC had done something like that, perhaps it would have been appropriate to oversight it all. Hopefully, those who know the answer to this will count my "vote" only if MC was doing something as bad as what you did. Hopefully, I can make that clear without compelling you to start doing that again, like you kept doing at WikiIndex.
 * By the way, you seemed a bit nervous about having an article about you at WikiIndex. Why? You apparently put your real name and other personal stuff online. That seems kinda curious, in light of everything. Not trying to be all threatening here, just seems a bit hypocritical in a way. ~ Lumenos 07:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * SusanG claims she was blocked unintentionally, apparently by somehow acquiring a blocked IP. ~ Lunemowse 20:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Some options to consider

 * Duration: Limit range blocks to 3 months (or around that figure)
 * Project page where rangeblocks are recorded and explained. Range blocking shouldn't be arbitrarily or explained only in a short and snarky block reason.
 * As Armondikov said, leave the BoN talk pages editable. They should only be blocked if we have a serious legal/abuse issue.
 * Have a nominated group of people who'll do these range blocks. I don't think that everyone should be able to hand out range blocks - except in those emergency cases where a range block is done for a few hours to prevent a serious attack (i.e. something more serious and immediate than Marcus posting his requests for justice)
 * Precisely. If you can edit and protest then the harm is actually minimised. And definitely leave it to a small-ish group to maximise accountability for it - don't add exceptions, they're difficult to interpret and are liable for misuse and misinterpretation. The only unfortunately part is that we're in a position where this is being done for one reason, more specifically one individual, which is sad. Where it's done at Wikipedia it's for multiple reasons, blocking multiple proxies and organisations like Scientology. Also, consider this comment an "abstension" and I'll say no more on the subject. 22:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * DNFTT. Sterile 14:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Final solution
Someone on here has a script (written for Terry Koeckritz) that would finally put paid to all this trolling nonsense. 22:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll create a Dr Strangelove account specifically. EddyP (talk) 22:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What does the script do? ~ Lumenos 23:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

My work here is done
Geeks arguing about the best way to take care of a troll. My my, I marvel at the monster I've unleashed. Back to the foot fetish porn, boys. 86.40.110.220 (talk) 23:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You're into foot fetish porn? Not that there is anything wrong with that. 23:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You have the power to stop this madness, PIE. 86.40.110.220 (talk) 23:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay I'll give it a try. STOP THIS MADNESS!!! 00:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I am overcome with an overwhelming feeling of ... love! Nx ... I've baked you a cake - David Gerard (talk) 00:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've baked you a neurotoxin cake. WHO WANTS A SLICE!  -- 00:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I like to start my day with a refreshing cup of insect nerve poison - David Gerard (talk) 00:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It has its disadvantages, stick to your meatballs you weirdos. ~ Lunemowse 20:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's an idea
MC makes stupid trolling comment, comment reverted, account blocked, everyone carries on with life. Repeat as needed. Problem solved. AceX-102 08:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * But THAT PARTICULAR COMMENT WASN'T TECHNICALLY OBNOXIOUS ENOUGH FOR MY LIKING and YUO HAET FREA SPEACH TK and VANDALBIN DON'T BLOCK and BLOCK DON'T VANDALBIN and DOG SHIT ON THE SIDEWALK FITS MY DEFINITION OF COMMUNITY and that doesn't address the headless chickening - David Gerard (talk) 08:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that DG reverts any talk page comment anywhere he feels like by 86.x.x.x, I have no idea why. 04:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem isn't MC, it's you extending these extraordinary measures to other editors. -- Nx  / talk 08:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Say, thats great. AceX-102 08:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The reality is: MC makes stupid trolling comment, comment reverted, account blocked, revert reverted, account un-blocked, massive argument, more trolling comments, more reverts and re-reverts, blocks and unblocks, no solution. 10:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Then stop paying attention. AceX-102 10:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Someone always pays attention. See Pi's talkpage right now. EddyP (talk) 12:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Checkuser
OK, I'm no great fan of it, but exactly why are we so averse to it? Just because CP does it very creepily and with active disregard for privacy doesn't mean we need to do the same: it's not the extension that's evil, it's the abuse of it by administrators who are never held accountable for doing so. Admittedly, I think that it's fairly unnecessary, since it could be set up so that the rangeblock/bin/whatever was done purely server-side, with no-one finding out the IPs involved, but that's probably unpalatable as well. 09:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * When did we start talking about checkuser? -- Nx  / talk 09:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Weaseloid mentioned it above, and the "no to rangeblocks" people seem to be acting as if we're on the verge of installing it. In hindsight, I shouldn't have brought it up like this. 09:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like to make it clear that I don't want checkuser, despite that post; I just want to know why so many would leavve the site for good if it was installed. 10:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I mentioned it in the context of pointing out that rangeblocks would be rather futile without it. We're only discussing rangeblocks because MC has been using a limited IP range & been too lazy to create socks.  If he'd been creating new sock accounts all the time, instead of just switching IPs & carrying on as a BoN, we wouldn't even have this option on the table.  If we do allow rangeblocks (without checkuser) it just means trolls will create more socks instead of editing anonymously.   12:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Haven't we been having this same conversation for over a year now? AceX-102 09:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The only way checkuser should be installed is if I have access to it.  10:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Stupid boring repeatative nonstop conversation about MC is stupid, boring, fucking repeatative, nonstop and god damn fucking worthless. AceX-102 10:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to checkuser your ass Mr McWicked if you continue this talk talk talk. 10:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Piss on Checkuser I would upload a pic of the boy pissing on it but my phone wont let me. Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Can't Trent get anyone's IP address now?
Can't Trent get anyone's IP address and then give it to any of the bureaucrats Trent appointed? Perhaps another reason the RationalWiki Foundation bylaws might become important, someday? ~ Lumenos 23:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Why would I give away personal information when overseas pharmacy companies with great, great deals on ED drugs pay top dollar! Let the bidding start at $100...tmtoulouse 00:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, good one, Sir. Is there any technical obstacle to stop some bureaucrat from sacrificing a sock account to give themselves checkuser and record all IP addresses with a fancy script or something? (Of course we could always log in with TOR but sooo sloooow then.) ~ Lumenos 01:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Can Nx get anyone's IP address now?
Nx apparently has server access and Phantom Hoover claims Nx can change user rights without being a bureaucrat. Can Nx also get anyone's IP address? Can Nx do this without leaving a trace in any log? ~ Lumenos 13:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * NX is a stalker and a witch! We must burn him at the stake! Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 14:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Nx had server access and could change user rights without being a buraucrat. Nx could also get the IP address of any user who is still on the recent changes list (i.e. latest 5000 edits that are newer than 30 days, IIRC). And yes, Nx could do this without leaving a trace in any log. -- Nx  / talk 14:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Does Nx no longer have server access???? You put that in the past tense but said that Nx could get IP addresses (now). Thanks for the info! My consent is more informed now. :-)
 * I wonder why only Trent should be claiming the position of "Technical Director" for the "foreseeable future" (archive link). (In the foreseeable future, we will all be dead, but RationalWiki may live on.) Nx is/was apparently required or desired (now). I'm not sure what kind of "public" recognition Nx wants but it does/did seem likely he will/would have server access after the formation of the Foundation, since I thought he had it now. If a lot of people have privacy concerns, perhaps their consent would be more informed if they could look through the (unaltered) history of editors who are also "server accessers" or others who may get their IP address. That way we would know a little about them also (just not their IP address). Being that Nx apparently edits using anonymous proxies, this makes our consent, a bit less informed, in that area. No biggie (hopefully). ~ Lumenos (talk) (other talk pages: LI1, LI2, WP) 18:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you are rambling about, so I will instead try to answer your edit comment: No, it is not fair. If you do not trust those who have access to such information (in RW's case, those with server access, in WP's and CP's case, checkusers) to not abuse their privilege (is that the right word?), and are really worried about it, then your options are to either use proxies/tor, or to stay away. That's how it is. -- Nx  / talk 06:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well you have not said that you can get IP addresses of those who view but don't edit. Secondly, "we" do have a lot of information about you, and you seem to edit with your IP address quite often. So it is sorta fair for those reasons. You have many editors' IP addresses and your IP addresses are often publicly visible. It is just that you know with greater certainty which IP belongs to which user, so I suppose it depends on what the IP would be used for.
 * My other option is to get faster Internet speeds by editing in spite of the risks of trusting likely conspirators. ~ Lumenos 01:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

This is how MC wins
Come on guys and gals. Really. He's laughing his socks off at the way he's once again managed to get us all worked up into a tizz. This forum is a massive dose of troll food and we've guaranteed his presence for quite a while longer. . I'll say it once again. Jack Hughes (talk) 13:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not enough facepalms in the whole, wide world... --Kels (talk) 13:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * MC caused me to lose more respect for the RW community than I ever would have thought possible. 207.67.17.45 (talk) 13:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Strangely, I feel the same way. Not so much MC himself, but the community's inability to deal with something so obviously disruptive as MC in any intelligent fashion.  Seriously, how can such smart people be so dumb about stuff like this? --Kels (talk) 13:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My sentiments exactly. 207.67.17.45 (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is dragging on a bit. Maybe apathy is kicking in, but I'm kind of happy to ignore him unless he's screwing up articles or doing something that no-one would be allowed to do. I'm not particularly bothered if he wants to visit my talk page. How about we just treat him like anyone else and try to avoid excessive troll feeding. Realistically he's not going to go unless he wants to, even range blocking for the sake of one guy who's really more curious and mildly irritating than anything else is a bit heavy. An improved vandal bin though would still be nice. Concernedresident  omg!!! ponies!!! 13:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I say, MC is a pretty nice guy as long as he keeps away from SusanG. He is sometimes funny, sometimes annoying, but you all know that RW wouldn't be the same without him. He's almost like a mascot. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 20:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

OP, you imagine an MC who wants all this. Maybe ey just pretends to and they would really prefer y'all were not bothered. (Disregard this if I haven't seen the true evil of MC.) ~ Lumenos 00:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You haven't seen the true evil of MC. -- 01:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Has it been oversited? ~ Lumenos 01:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I probably haven't but that doesn't mean that MC is in it purely for the schadenfreude. It may depend on the reactions. MC claims some editors are for the liberty, and on MC's talkpage ey claims to like P-Foster. So I would expect that MC considers that they are bettering RationalWiki by supporting the "good people" and "trolling" the others. ~ Lumenos 01:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oooor maybe MC's only goal is to get anonymous "proxies" blocked. ~ Lumenos 01:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Marcus Cicero has once said: Let the punishment match the offense.

I don't know if it is any help. --Idiot number 57 (talk) 14:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposal
How about this:
 * 1) All registered accounts repeatedly engaging in trolling (engaging in trolling would be defined as "repeatedly taking a course of action deliberately designed to harm community dynamics") are to be handed the following punishments.
 * Warning
 * 1-day ban
 * 1-week ban
 * Vandal bin
 * KOS (killed on sight)
 * If a sysop is accused of this, it gets sent to Admin Abuse, or whatever it's called now. AA can strip him of his powers, and then he gets treated as a normal user as above if he does anything again.


 * 1) IP editors get "warning", vandal binned, and then are skipped straight to KOS
 * 2) All sock puppets committing a similar type of trolling, or that identify themselves as a banned user, get KOS immediately.
 * 3) Vandal bin may be used for pageblankers, vandals, etc without warning.
 * 4) (THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT BIT) Any bureaucrats or sysops who blatantly disregard these rules, by unbanning clear vandals, etc. are AA'd first time and stripped of their powers on sight next time. This should stop the constant banning/unbanning/binning/unbinning.

I fail to see anything objectionable about this system. It's far more lenient that just about anywhere else on the internet. There are no rangeblocks or checkuser, and there is no need for any sort of decision making group like the LJ that could create confusion or resentment. Now let's just vote and be done, so we can get this goddamn dram over with, okay?

Support

 * -- 21:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * EddyP (talk) 22:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

 * I virulently oppose this idea. Please see dissent below. Kindly yours, Libertarian1 (talk) 21:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Inherently too vague to solve without "HCM" community arguments. The bit about burs/sysops reverting each other might work, though. 22:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * RationalWiki is forevar trying to reinvent the wheel. ~ Lumenos 23:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion BELOW HERE ONLY

 * Hello. I'm a long term lurker and I like to continuously evaluate RWs rule structures. Here is my critique;
 * All registered accounts repeatedly engaging in trolling (engaging in trolling would be defined as "repeatedly taking a course of action deliberately designed to harm community dynamics") are to be handed the following punishments. Deliberately taking a course of action designed to harm community dynamics is a horrible sentance that should never have been introduced to the human vocabularly. Its the equivilent of saying that a Christian who disagree's with the prevailing atheism on this site should in effect pretend to not be a Christian. What is appealing about this site is its determination to maintain open-ness and reject authoritarian hierarchies as demonstrated by websites like Conservapedia. This is truly a horrible innovation.
 * The gradually increasing punishments seem stupid to me, as one person lower down in the chain could issue a warning, even if it is unjustified. Thus protocol will state that the next ladder will result in a block, and so on and so on. Whats even worse is that violations are inherently subjective. Better to not introduce this rule at all. Just ban people who vandalise pages or ignore those who are horrible to people. I see no reason to introduce wikipedia-esque discipline here.
 * In short it would truly be a shame if RW introduced this. there is no clearer case of 'making up rules where there are no need for them'. But then again, I am a Libertarian after all and thus biased. But I am also thick skinned and I don't believe people can kill their way out of problems. The solution lies in good faith, understanding, and debate. Not persecution. Libertarian1 (talk) 21:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * First, if you don't like the definition, propose a new one. I think mine covers the bases pretty well.  Second, we've been there and done that, and "good faith" and "understanding" didn't work.  I introduced the ladder because it would give a sense of structure, and provide a clear framework.  Personally I would just prefer a straight up KOS protocol, but I doubt that would be very popular, and it could get very arbitrary very fast.  Finally, the rules ARE needed.  We've been working on principles of "laissez faire" and "let everyone have their say whether we like it or not" up until this point.  Guess what?  It's not working too well.  -- 21:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I see it, the problem is with the reaction, not the troll. Ridiculous ideas like this are the problem. A mere handful get worked up by him and most don't care either way. Bottom line is that this site shouldn't be like wikipedia because this site is not creating an encyclopedia. Please take yourself less seriously. Also, I RWWed you and I see that you are a sock of MC. Good way of getting the community to talk about you again by mock proposing ridiculous new rules. Well done. Fucking trolls. Libertarian1 (talk) 22:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't believe everything you read on RWW. I've been an active contributor here for nearly two years and reader for longer.  I have thousands of contributions, and literally every right the wiki has.  You, on the other hand, are a n00b and a lurker who's not even a sysop, and throwing around accusations like that makes you look ridiculous, not me.  -- 22:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I could have been a sysop but refused it. Secondly, your attempts to garner self identity through authority is quite transparant. Thirdly, its obvious that you are a sock of MC. Libertarian1 (talk) 22:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I partially agree with Libertarian1 as authoritarianism is not the answer at all but having our heads in the sand to people like MC isnt going to cut it. Wikipedia has a gradual system like this and I dont see why it would be such a problem here. Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 21:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Though I myself am a libertarian I believe this user could be MC. I dont see anything on RWW about The Emperor. Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 22:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * [Its quite clear if you care to look]. This is identical to his previous attention seeking patterns. Libertarian1 (talk) 22:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoa, RWW has a theory about something that isn't remotely relevant even if it's true. 22:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment In all honesty I thought the MC HCM had died until I saw this and that everything was under control... Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 22:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The MC HCM doesn't die. It just drops to a low simmer when anything else vaguely interesting is going on & flares up when people have nothing better to do.   22:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be interesting to see how Wikipedia or Conservapedia respond to MC? Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 23:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Wouldn't it be interesting to analyse & refute the anti-science movement & document the full range of crank ideas?   23:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't forget ""explorations of authoritarianism", either! -- 23:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I was being sarcastic. My point is even CP wouldn't make such a big spectacular out of a simple troll like MC. Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 23:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's because CP would kill him the moment he appeared. Here, we bend over. EddyP (talk) 23:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats just it. MC knocks the soap out of our hands and we bend over for him. I dont suggest we aim to become like CP but going into these HCMs over MC is as looney as CP rewriting the Bible. Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 23:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Which is why I advocate attempting to end the MC problem once and for all. EddyP (talk) 23:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A notion I have already indicated support for. Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 23:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is absolutely the case, which is why I went to huff gasoline instead - David Gerard (talk) 23:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Huff kittens? What?  -- 23:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

What Ace reckons
AceX-102 01:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)