RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive9

Crank space
Many a year ago I floated the idea of a crank space, I think it is time to revisit it. Someone, ala Dirk Steele, who merely wants to flog a single issue can be relegated to only posting in a set group of pages. Letting them say whatever they want to say as much as they want to say it, giving anyone who wants a chance to respond, but keeping it out of areas of the site no one wants it. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not particularly different from forum space or Robrail. Are you suggesting the formalization of Robrail, or an official policy of moving crank speech to forum space?-- "Shut up, Brx." 22:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I am talking about a state of user rights that restricts them to a particularly space, right now doing this post-hoc is a pain in the ass, open to drama/reversion, and still pulls people into it that aren't interested. Restricting the posting abilities before hand keeps it cleaner. Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Would this mean the creation of a new user group -- Crank -- limited to only editing in that space? How would we decide to put someone in that group? A vote would be unlikely to survive the mobocracy. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 23:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I personally don't think formalization is needed until there is evidence of abuse. Spammers, vandals and cranks are easy to identify and I don't think there is much community disagreement about what these people are, just some disagreement about what to do with them. Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the first thing you should do is define what a 'crank' is. Someone who does not share your view? Dirk Steele (talk) 23:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If only we had an article about it. Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that this is a great idea, although the forum seemed to function fine in this capacity in the case of Dirk. I still think the heart of this problem is the innate human desire not to read things that we disagree with; which we here at RW are only slightly better than most at resisting. If  we can build systems/processes that deal with the "problem" of trolls/cranks then great, but  it would be even better to build a culture that is able to ignore them. Tielec01 (talk) 23:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The thing is, we've been dealing with Mr. Steele for weeks now, and we have been reading his crap, and responding to it. At this point, we're sick of it, and some of us, myself included, want to ban him so that we don't have to deal with his crap getting smeared all across the wiki.  Crank space would be a preventative measure that would deal with most of his antics.  I say keep him in forum space.  Move everything he posts to his own private forum, and maybe consolidate it all into one page and some subpages.  But first, block him.  Block the bastard for a couple of weeks to see if he'll move on.-- "Shut up, Brx." 23:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately Brx, we don't just block people and the vote isn't swinging towards it. Remember, you would have been blocked long ago if that is how things were played. Acei9 23:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the easiest first pass to do is simply create a "crank" user group and restrict it to posting in the forum space. That gives said user plenty of freedom to still write and communicate on the site, but keeps it out of the way of people that don't want to deal with. I don't think a ban is needed with such an arrangement. Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Aye, but can we choose the label carefully? I do not look forward to great gouts of crocodile tears accompanying protestations such as "why is poor me in the vandal bin? I'm not a vandal!!!!" I don't know, call it the specialty user group, or somewhat like that... Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 23:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Your lack of self-awareness here is staggering Brx; remember how viciously some of us fought to keep you from being banned for very similar accusations. Tielec01 (talk) 23:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I really don't think another round of "Hating on Brx" will be very productive now. Can we try to stay on point and avoid mission creep? Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 23:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It is easy to lose sight of the lurkers in all this. I do not see it having to do with a desire not to read things that we disagree with, but rather a desire not to have crankery wiped all over the wiki. It gives an unfortunate impression.
 * We seem to be having a "teach the controversy" moment here, where some people cast Dirk's views as "different, but possibly equally valid until proven otherwise." He has been answered by a few editors who, IMO, know what they're talking about, and has not responded in a satisfactory way, not even close. Those knowledgeable editors tend to answer once (or a very few times) and then leave the discussion. It isn't their job to engage every tedious bit of foam that comes along. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 23:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the point of creating a space or a user group for cranks. When we had a similar problem with JimJast, we blocked him from everywhere except his user talk page, which he then filled to his heart's content with his...whatever the hell it was...until he gave up and left, and we all got on with things elsewhere. Sophie Wilder  23:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that what Tmt is suggesting is a simplified version of the JimJast protocol.-- "Shut up, Brx." 23:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Am I missing something, because "ban from from everywhere except own talk page" sounds a lot simpler than "create usergroup and/or space." Sophie  Wilder  23:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're right. Misread what your wrote-- "Shut up, Brx." 00:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Re "cranks are easy to identify and I don't think there is much community disagreement about what these people are", I think there probably will be. Where would we draw the line? RobSmith? Maratrean? Lumenos? Tisane? Earthland? CUR? ListenerX? Proxima Centauri? The Randroid drive-bys? The AmazingAtheist fanboys? That guy who kept going on about Taylor Swift? Also, beware of getting trolled into making major site changes by a griefer. It wouldn't be the first time. 00:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not so big a change, it beats playing whack-a-mole and it allows for the possibility of reform. I think it's worth a try, as it is really very simple to implement. JzG (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Weaseloid. The idea of a "crank space", in addition to raising the question who and how will determine crankiness, reminds me of WikiSynergy, and not in a good way.--ZooGuard (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * speak not against the great protoprophet Zarnacy lest rocks plummet from the sky upon you ! *hiss mreow*  He might be crazy but he was fun *flappity flap flap* *darn bat* *mreowwww hiss* Terror Trinka (talk) 21:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Is the crank namespace going to be high walled? If people are placed within its confines will they ever be allowed to sit at the big people's table? If so, how so? Sounds like more bureaucracy fun for them what likes it like that...no so much for the other three people. 04:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC) C ® ackeЯ

In which Dirk Steele jumps up and down and says Me! Me!! MEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!Let's talk about me and my interests!!!!!!!
00:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

OK Then
People seem completely unable to ignore Dirk. I have no problem with him - I can ignore him easily enough and he doesn't bother me. But you're mods and can't really act without someone bringing it to your attention so I'll do it now. He is being bumped in and out of blocks, vandal bin etc etc. Now the vandal bin isn't relevant to Dirk as he isn't a vandal. Nor has he done anything, save for being irritating, to deserve a block. So what do you, as moderators, do? Being irritating isn't justification for a block and he isn't a vandal. Therefore DNFT applies. Ignore Dirk seems the most rational response.... Can everyone start doing that now? Acei9 23:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We can but hope, but there always seems to be someone who cannot resist the temptation. Генгис silverbrain.png 23:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Moving his stuff to his own special forum probably breaks the spirit of the rules, but strikes me as a plausibly sensible response for the moment. He did ask to be blocked, but then if he asked to be unblocked that would reasonably follow. I suppose he's not going to be seeking to have his medication adjusted, after all. He's actually mostly harmless, just fucking annoying, but that's not, inexplicably, a crime. I dunno - David Gerard (talk) 23:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Rename the vandal bin to "burst limiter" or "spate gate" or "here's your hat, what's your hurry?" BAM problem solved. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well then, there we go. Ignore him. Problem solved. Acei9 01:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

We need another ninja Dealt with
Is this the right place to ask that Vox Humana be given ninja rights? A casual glance at RC will show you why. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 03:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah it might be a good idea. I tried doing the section header edits en masse but I kept getting lost and making mistakes, so my current method is the most reliable. But I'm also aware it completely jams up recent changes, for which I sincerely apologise. VOX  HUMANA  03:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Stop hitting the refresh button. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|68px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 05:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Prodigal
Has removed sysop rights from two users, including myself, without cause. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 22:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I blocked a troll. You unblocked the troll and made the troll a sysop. Conclusion: you are also a troll. Prodigal (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The user is not a troll.The user disagrees with you. I have removed your rights until a mod can sort this out. Polar Bear in the Jungle Peter Tosh > Bob Marley 22:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Per this, PolarBearInTheJungle is also a troll. Using a sock to enforce a POV in a discussion is pretty much the ultimate sin in wiki terms. Prodigal (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Prodigal has a cause, but so far as I can see it isn't very good. On what basis is Albannach a "troll"? Peter mqzp 22:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Albannach's status as a troll--which he isn't, hes a guy that Prodigal was in a tit-for-tat edit war with-- is completely irrelevant to the question of promoting me. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 22:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * (EC)That's true, but Prodigal's justification is the thing I'm not clear on here. Peter mqzp 22:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec)Look at the "contributions" to the Falkland Islands article. They consist of reversions of other people's edits in an attempt to make the article totally anti-British. On the talk page there's no serious attempt to engage with the history of the islands, yet we get three reversions. That's trolling. And note that "PolarBearInTheJungle" is now using his/her sock to make it appear that there's more support for Albannach than there is. Prodigal (talk) 22:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That's edit-warring, which is a little different. Peter mqzp 22:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * EC Get this -- edit-warring with you on one article and offending your Anglophile sensibilities is not trolling, it's not vandalism, and it's not something that gets a three-day block. Show me in the guidelines where it says that it is. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 22:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Instead of willy-nilly removing peoples' rights, why don't y'all address the root of the problem, the Falkland Islands article, on its talk page? Seems to me, Prodigal, that you jumped the gun.  I say let this discussion rest until some more discussion is had on the Falklands page.  Then, if the community reaches a consensus and Albannach continues to edit war, we can talk about removing his user rights.  And no, the edit history of Falkland Islands isn't a clear consensus. Take it to the talk page.-- "Shut up, Brx."
 * (ec)Offending the truth is the problem here. There has never been any south-American settlement on those islands so the deciding factor is this: to whom do the islanders want to belong? The answer has been given and it's the UK. Sorry if listening to the people offends your delicate US sensibilities. And PeterL, please respond to my comments re PowderSmokeAndLeather/PolarBearInTheJungle's blatant dishonesty on this matter. Prodigal (talk) 22:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Anyone who has been paying attention for the last few dozen months or so is perfectly aware of the various metamorphoses of PolarBearInTheJungle. That isn't dishonesty, and it isn't even all that blatant. I, for one, am willing to call it discreet rebirth instead. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 23:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Like I said, take it to the talk page-- "Shut up, Brx." 22:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The facts of the edits are not relevant to this discussion. The place to discuss that is here, a page that i don't believe you have edited, even though you are gravely concerned about the matter. What is being discussed here is the fact that you blocked a user and removed two users' rights for no particularly good reason. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 22:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * One was a troll. The other was defending the troll. These facts are beyond discussion. I acted correctly. Prodigal (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thats wonderful, but isnt enough. --MikallakiM 22:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, please show me exactly where in the sysop's guide or the community standards where it says you can drop a three-day block on an established user or unilaterally remove user rights for what you think is "trolling," or "troll-defending." Did he doubt/Or did he try? 22:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Prodigal, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are currently editing Talk:Falkland Islands preparing a post why Albannach's edits are incorrect. Then, because you wish to demonstrate good faith and clear dialogue, you're going to wait for Albannach to reply.  Following that, you, Albannach, and the any RationalWikian that happens by will continue discussing the merits of the arguments presented (none of which will be personal attacks, such as troll, anglophile, or vandal) until some sort of agreement is reached or until a noticeable majority comes out in favor of a particular resolution (following a vote, if need be).-- "Shut up, Brx." 23:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Brx, as I explained on your talk page, this conversation has nothing to do with the Falklands. I have no stake in that article, and have not edited it beyond some copy-editing. This conversation is about Prodigal's abuse of user rights.Did he doubt/Or did he try? 23:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * His abuse of user rights stems from his belief that Albannach's edits were incorrect. I feel the root of the problem should first be addressed, and then we can contemplate user rights abuse (a serious matter- at least in the microcosm of RationalWiki- to say the least). But that's just my opinion, and ultimately, if Prodigal refuses to take it to the talk page and the remainder of the community refuses to judge him for that, my posts won't matter and will be ignored.-- "Shut up, Brx." 23:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so Prodigal and Albannach were editwarring over issues that are largely irrelevant here. Prodigal, who was a sysop, blocked Albannach, who wasn't but would normally be given the number of edits they have made, for 314159 seconds (~3.5 days) which is excessive. PS/PJ/TOP/Foster/Whatever then unblocked and sysoped Albannach as a "target of unjustified blocking," and told Prodigal to stop it. Prodigal blocked and de-oped both PS and Albannach, and PS used one of his other accounts to reverse it and de-op Prodigal.

Given that, I would say that I see no reason for Albannach not to be sysoped at this point, that ToP's use of multiple accounts has the potential to be confusing, so he probably shouldn't do that in a situation like this, but I think everyone knows that they're all one and the same by this point. Prodigal should have attempted engage with Albannach before acting, and should not have done so to such a degree. If he agrees to take the original issue to the talk page then he should probably get his own rights back at some point. Happy? Peter mqzp 23:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm so happy. Also, For the record, I had retired PolarBear/ToP/PF when I made this account, and only dusted him off when I was promoted to undo the damage. I don't sock for votes or anything of import. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 23:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute. You're Theory of Practice?  Well I never.  DamoHi 04:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Can someone archive this so we can be done with yet another pointless coop. We've got bigger fish to fry. Moderator action really should be reserved for shit that matters. The coop discussions end up being more disruptive than allegedly infracting conduct. 06:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

You want this website to be taken seriously as a resource for dealing with the anti-science crowd?
One good step would be to not let someone use it to store an annotated guide to their favorite foot-fetish material. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 22:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Why don't you take it to the talk subpage? Sounds like a pretty moderate and rational thing to do. Civic Cat Talk to Civic Cat 22:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I did, Pinhead. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 23:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well goodness me, if you ain't P-Foster. Yes. I remember them days when I was ganged up on and blocked for several hours before I had that hissyfit. Civic Cat Talk to Civic Cat 23:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete the page - it is not on-mission, nor is it related to something which is remotely on mission. It is also ripe to be cited by people attempting to dispute our content on the basis of "these people support article like this!" VOX  HUMANA  23:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * VOXHUMANA, please go to the talk page of the SUB-page. You might find a decent explanation in sections 2 and can participate in 4. I don't think it's logical to go all over the varying talk pages save the one of the page in question, and that you too vapped. Civic Cat Talk to Civic Cat 23:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No, this is a moderator issue now. I read your explanation and it is garbage. VOX  HUMANA  23:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, VOXHUMANA, if you think it's garbage, then please go to the talk page, say so, and why it's garbage. Let's hash it out before you go running to the moderator, and if the moderator is reading this, I hope he/she note's that VOXHUMANA's case is that my SUB-page is off-mission (of course it is, it's a SUB-page) and he thinks it's garbage, (I can almost here him say "so nyeah, nyeah"). Civic Cat Talk to Civic Cat 23:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to be making any sort of case for why it should be kept at RW; just dragging the discussion down into petty sniping. What is your rationale for posting this list at RW rather than somewhere more appropriate?  00:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sniping or defending? Tell ya the truth Weaseloid, I can't find an alternative site. It didn't work in WP. I can think of no other wiki. The rules permit it here, and the outrage over it strikes me as somewhat lame and hypocritical. Civic Cat Talk to Civic Cat 00:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There are foot fetish sites out there. If you can't find one you like, make one.  You can create a wiki with minimum effort at Wikia or any of its alternatives, or easily set up a blog on any number of sites.  It just doesn't look like content that's aimed at the RW community, and using RW as miscellaneous hosting space for non-RW-related content is a problem.  00:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Nah nah nah. I'm not looking for some ED-like site. I want a wiki format. I don't want ads, pop-ups, spam, have to use my real name. You also know how incompetent I am with internet stuff like codes. I'm probably worse than PJR. As for using RW as a host, I agree it's bad manners if all that is what one does, though again, not forbidden. The fussing I've had really hasn't helped in morale dept: that's one reason for a lack of contributions on my part. I'll have to be going in a few minutes, but I'll be back, maybe tomorrow, and at least try to give some decent responses. Civic Cat  Talk to Civic Cat 00:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Community Standards
I don't really have an opinion one way or the other on this, but rather than getting into a tizz over it I think we should look at the relevant community standard, which is User Pages. Now the only way this could be deleted would seem to be if it is 'patently offensive'. Maybe it is, but I find that somewhat of a stretch given that they are generally mainstream videos with a particular feature. They are not, so far as I can tell, R-rated or pornographic under any sensible criteria. Certainly if it is then we would need to remove much of Psygremlin's Userpage amongst other things. Perhaps this sort of thing should be banned, but if so it will probably take a revision of the Community Standards. DamoHi 00:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you Damo. As I said in the 4th section of the talk page, "You don't like the rules, change them." Civic Cat Talk to Civic Cat 00:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Civic (and Damo) raise a good point - 'if you don't like the rules, change them'. I've got no issue with user subpages being collections of relevant (or even vaguely relevant) material, mine own is full of half developed ideas and incomplete projects. But is RW trying to be a social media site or a genuine resource for rational thought? If the former, then Civic Cat's stuff is fine. If the latter, then a laissez faire attitude to user pages can only be detrimental in the long run. VOX  HUMANA  00:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Damo is indeed sage. I wish he'd take a bigger role. Sure, this page is "patently offensive" if you're prude about feet, I guess. It's definitely grossly out of character for RW. However, I don't think user talk pages are indexed by Google (if they are, this needs to get deleted immediately, whether or not it takes consensus to get it done), and I've been occasionally making the point that readers who ever look at user talk pages or recent changes are outnumbered by many orders of magnitude by readers who come here for legit content. Trent or David can give current numbers. In short, nobody but us will ever have to even consider whether to give a shit about this weirdo's foot fetish. We've got bigger fish to fry. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|68px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 00:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Userpages are indeed nolonger indexed by google. Peter mqzp 00:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Indexed by Google is one thing, but the fact is that most wiki devotees use Recent Changes as their home base, so a potential new user would easily see this and get the impression that this is a fetish site of some sort. I have no problem with fetishes, I have a few of my own. But i don't share them with every community I belong to. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 00:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * (EC) Search engine indexing isn't the only issue. If we host content that doesn't really have anything to do with the site (not only in this case but other cases where editors use essay/user space for oddball personal projects), it may get linked to from social media, blogs & other sites, bringing attention to embarrassing aspects of the site.  Ideally I think essay/userspace pages should be nominatable for deletion like other pages.  Obviously they wouldn't be subject to the same mission criteria as mainspace articles, but the community should still be able to veto unwanted content in other namespaces.  00:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Weaseloid is spot on. No, a user page doesn't have to be rigidly on-mission, but there should be at least some tenuous connection to RW's objectives. VOX  HUMANA  00:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * So no more pictures of dicks or booze? [[file:Nuttysig.svg|68px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 02:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * For me it just comes down to - what are we (RW) trying to achieve? Is the stated mission really our mission, or is this just a social media site? If the latter, then sure - dicks, booze and foot fetishism is all OK. VOX  HUMANA  03:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not a moderator issue, it's community standards/mission. I remember one editor at TOW who basically catalogued all the commons porn images on his user page. If you really don't like it then get the site rules changed. Генгис silverbrain.png 07:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've tried that. If you go to the Community Standards page, you will find my raising of the topic, along with a post from Wealeloid telling me off for forking the discussion from this thread. VOX  HUMANA  08:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The Community Standards aren't "rules" as everyone seems to be claiming these days; they are a summary of community practices. This is a community-driven website much more than it is a rule-driven one.  We seem to be in wikilawyering territory here where Civic Cat's only argument seems to be "the rules say it's OK so nobody can touch it" which is really missing the point of the standards and their basis within the community.  I do think we should look into updating the standards, as I suggested above, but really what's important here is what the community wants.  If they want to get rid of that barefoot females page, that's what will happen.   12:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm tempted to just take it out and shoot it myself. Any serious objection? - David Gerard (talk) 13:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You mean besides from our resident sock-sniffer? Prolly not. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 13:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It is vaporized. Loathe as I am to meddle with userspace, that page was just ridiculous.  We don't have to host spankbanks under color of free commentary.--[[Image:adsig.png|25px|link=User:AD|AD]]talk 15:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking at the deletion record, I see the community has indeed expressed its opinion - David Gerard (talk) 16:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

A few notes:
 * 1) Must it be an either an either-or thing? What if this year 1000 people joined RationalWiki and each made 1000 edits this year, and 80% were in userpages, subpages, and fun pages, lots of social networking stuff, but in the process also collectively made 200 000 decent edits on main articles. Would this be good or bad? As long as the main articles remain on mission—as many cuurently aren’t, as well as a perhaps sticking to rules on the still poorly defined fun pages, why can’t the rest be laissez faire? Either my article is a personal fetish dump as described—and as fetishes go a pretty frikin’ mild one, or it's of interest to those who might also be interested in RW.
 * 2) How many times did I edit this page since creating it? Not many. How many pages do I have that are like it? No others. Now if allowed, there is the odd chance that someone will see it in the RC and be so disgusted that he or she will never come by again, or that if I get away with it, so will hordes of others, and we’ll have lots of freaks and perverts writing articles about their freakinessess and perversions on the sub-pages and occasional fun pages, and AGAIN helping out in the regular pages.
 * 3) Ghengis. Yunno, if I made it a subpage on WP or added it to WP:Nudity in music videos, I just might have gotten away with it. But no, I had to make it an article, and this happened: WP:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of music videos featuring barefoot females. Boo hoo.  ;-)
 * 4) Wikilawyering. It's not just the "the rules say it's OK so nobody can touch it" but also that if I violated standards and conventions, I'm far from being the only one. I also wonder if there isn't an element of tenure here. If I was a RW milord, I wonder if I'd be getting a fraction of the flack that I'm currently getting.
 * 5) "our resident sock-sniffer" Ewwww! PowderSmokeAndLeather! That's disgusting!! You really got a dirty mind—and the wrong number!
 * 6) For what it's worth Chances are, if nobody said anything and if so few were interested in this, it would have been forgotten, and maybe swept away in a few years.
 * 7) "Looking at the deletion record, I see the community has indeed expressed its opinion." I see 3 vappers.  Civic Cat  Talk to Civic Cat 19:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Go away - David Gerard (talk) 20:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That's what Ty said before he blocked me for a few hours for no reason. Not too rational, huh? As it is, this will likely be my last post for a few days. Civic Cat Talk to Civic Cat 20:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * C ® ackeЯ
 * I would say that it is patently offensive, Damo. That he insists on keeping the page here indicates a component of his fetish is sharing it with others.  I, for one, do not wished to be involved in Civic Cat's sex life.  There are places on the internet where Civic Cat can talk about foot fetishism.  I believe that there is even a wiki devoted to foot fetishism.  Civic Cat does not need to be here to compile a list of music videos that cater to his sexual proclivities.-- "Shut up, Brx." 03:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey Brx, aren't you glad there was a place on the internet for you to joke about a black man raping a white woman while laughing at her for being overweight? You must be relieved Encyclopedia Dramatica didn't disappear completely, right? In other words, I throw up a little when I see you concern troll as you've taken to doing. There is nothing sincere or good faith about you. Go away. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|68px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 13:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Give it a rest, would you? -- "Shut up, Brx." 17:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Nah, I think it needs to be brought up every time you concern troll - David Gerard (talk) 21:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * We're never going to come up with a perfect rule to decide what is acceptable and what is not acceptable in userspace, so I don't think anyone is interested (or fooled by) your attempt. As a general principle, though, I'd say that almost everything is acceptable in userspace or essays as long as it serves some reasonable purpose of commentary, even if that commentary is insane or wrong or whatever.  But if someone were to fill up pages on their userspace with random numbers or whatnot, and it posed some kind of problem, then community judgment is going to come into play.  And despite what you consider as the mildness of this pursuit, it's not something we're interested in.  We're too small of a site right now: a much-linked and full page catering to a fetish stands a decent chance of tarring us with a reputation.
 * Nor, as I pointed out, do you need us. Create a wikia page.--[[Image:adsig.png|25px|link=User:AD|AD]]talk 15:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There's no hope for consensus or hard and fast rules for something like this. Your proposal is overbroad in that there are certainly things in userspace that aren't commentary by any stretch of the imagination that it would frankly be community-destroying to see become the object of another purge. Over the last two years it's gotten to the point that most of these discussions are more disruptive than the problems they're poorly calculated to solve. I got no problem with you deleting that page by fiat. Does anyone, really? I leave it to y'all's good judgment and if I don't like it, I won't vote for you. *shrug* [[file:Nuttysig.svg|68px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 17:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

First off, thanks to all for contributing to the discussion, particularly Nutty Roux. It's one thing to have a page deleted, and then deleted in another form, and when so many other at least apparent violations are going on in this wiki; but what really pisses me off is when people are afterwards terse with me and give me stupid explanations. I find it insulting, and when insulted, I sometimes get reactive and persistent for an explanation.

I'm not thoroughly convinced by the explanations. It basically comes done to many don't like having the page on this wiki because they don't like it. Still, as many of you have invested far more effort on this wiki than I have (or likely will), and you have given me your time, I will in turn give time in consideration. Therefore, I will will refrain from pursuing this, with 3 minor exceptions. First, I will restore the article in the future for a few minutes for a screen shot and then vapourize it. Next, if I start a wiki—I'm not really interested in foot fetish sites—I will announce it in the SB. I promise not to mention the word "foot" in the post, much less "barefoot females." Third, I ask if there would be any objections to me making a user sub-page with a list of videos and links—stuff I often listen to. I'll likely include a few videos in the list we've talked about, because after all, some are good irrespective of lack of footwear; but much will be of stuff like this:Iggy Pop, JMC Sloan, and Jane's Addiction. Many people have embedded YouTube videos on their user pages. I prefer links.

As for Brx's comments. No, the intention wasn't to share, save for both ways. I post stuff, others post stuff, to mutual benefit—typical wiki thing. If few are interested—say 1%, that's good enough for me; and again, the idea was also to possibly attract new users. The E.D. comments are quite appropriate. Brx seems to have a problem with, say, a video of mine featuring a barefoot Mediæval Bæbe, otherwise clothed, taking a bath with granny smith apples, whereas in E.D. we have pics of naked women defecating on themselves. Gee. Brx, I hope you'll recover from the trauma of seeing the former. It's also nice that David Gerard said something intelligent in this discussion for once. You you don't want to see the page, Brx, just don't click. By the way Brx, where is this wiki you talk about? Anyone objecting to Brx giving me a link here or in my talk page?

Again, I'm not really convinced by the arguments, at least for now, but I'll let it be. Thanks for the effort here. Hope it wasn't too taxing and may it be requited. Civic Cat Talk to Civic Cat 21:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If you want to view it you don't actually have to restore it. If you click here and then press "show preview" you should see what you need for a screenshot. Peter mqzp 21:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, very well. Thanks for the tip. Civic Cat Talk to Civic Cat 22:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Vox Humana is stuck being a bot
See RationalWiki:Technical_support. Needs a mod to fix it. Thanks, Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 01:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Promptly fixed. Thanks, Nutty. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 11:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Np [[file:Nuttysig.svg|68px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 13:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

"even by anyone else"
In the Tools section it says: "those actions should not be undone by anyone else." does anyone else mean anyone who is not a moderator, or anyone else even if they are a moderator? the second leads us into CPish NOYB terrory, so this should be made clear. Sophie Wilder  15:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It means by anyone who is not a moderator - although certainly mods shouldn't wheel-war, so a chat and working out agreement is probably the best course if a mod has done something you don't like.--[[Image:adsig.png|25px|link=User:AD|AD]]talk 15:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Any chance the last comment at Talk:Douglas Weller could be deleted?
I just discovered the last comment when someone at Wikipedia used it to attack me. If not, no real problem, there's worse out there. Dougweller (talk) 06:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If it's true (ie, you have no relevant credentials and you edit articles to remove information you don't like) then there's no chance at all of it being removed. Sophie  Wilder silverbrain.png 11:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Which comment, Dougweller? That looks like a drive by if there ever was one. It's not relevant to the article. I'm not inclined to say RW should be a dumping ground for that kind of thing, but I'm just a plebe. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|68px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 14:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to get rid of it because: 1. There's no way of knowing the BoN who made the edit is really the IRL person it claims to be, and the edit could therefore be a problem for the IRL person, and. 2. Bad enough we're a forum for Rome Vaharo and his detractors to engage in their stupid e-peen contests. we don't need this new crop of losers hashing out their little quarrels here, too. PowderSmokeAndLeather (talk) 14:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I, too, agree we should not be hosting that kind of crap. Unless there are any real objections, I see no reason to keep that around in any form. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 16:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Plebean approbation is what you'll get from me, about that. The offending text is still visible by viewing some diffs. I'm going to try to fix that. Wish me luck. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated. Supporters of pseudoscience and my particular bugbear, pseudoarchaeology(anyone ever see my website?) can get very hot under the collar when exposed. One of them even made up fake Facebook and G+ pages pretending to be my pages. Dougweller (talk) 09:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Muted and Deoped by Miekal
At 17:44 on User talk:Father Vivian O'Blivion User:Miekal reverted my post to User:Father Vivian O'Blivion, deleting my part of the conversation. When I reverted his edit explaining that you can't revert on talk page, he reverted it back and wrote "you can, if its trolling/vile". The content of my edit was in reference to a edit war I was attempting to resolve with User:Father Vivian O'Blivion. I would like it noted that the discussion page content was neither trolling or vile, and was in fact a genuine response with no personal slanders of discriminatory arguments. I was then blocked and removed from both autopatrolled and Sysop by User:Miekal with the explanation of "im going to say you dont deserve either of those". Aside from the fact that the reasons given for the deletion of my material from User talk:Father Vivian O'Blivion were not true, they are also not part of the community guidelines which state the possible reasons to remove talk page material as "patently offensive material, copyright violations or spam". This is also NOT the talk page of User:Miekal giving him even less authority on the matter. Finally, I would like to refer to "Permanent removal of rights or censure" which I believe User:Miekal is in direct violation of.

I would like to request the reinstatement of my privileges and the reversion of User:Miekal's deletion of my conversation with User talk:Father Vivian O'Blivion. I don't want anyone to be blamed etcetera, I'm just looking for a fair system to voice my opinion without being blocked, called a troll and silenced.

Many Thanks Hobby (talk) 20:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly certain somebody else put the comments back in, if i remember right. As for your rights, permanent removing them would be putting you on sysoprevoke. or just banning you, somebody else if fine to put them back on if they think you should have them. But im saying messiah jumped the gun by giving you both of them and it was easier to remove your rights to stop the edit war then it was to protect it at moderator level-- Mie kal  20:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I had no problem with Miekal removing your shit from my talk page, as, for the record, I had previously removed it myself as I think you are were trolling, so the first part of your complaint can be dismissed without further consideration. As for removing your rights, I think you were given them prematurely. I would not have given the keys to someone who holds toxic viewpoints about feminism, much as I would not give them to someone with toxic viewpoints about racial equality. Father Vivian O&#39;Blivion (talk) 20:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It has been restored but not by you Miekal. I also don't see how removing the material in any way stops an edit war. In fact I was hoping to resolve the conflict, yet neither of you seem to keep on having an honest and open discussion on the topic.
 * As I've explained, I wasn't trolling. You also have no right to remove someone for trolling as according to the community guidelines this is not grounds for removal. It must be "patently offensive material, copyright violations or spam". As you have not sited any of these reasons you had no grounds to remove it. Hobby (talk) 21:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "an honest and open discussion on the topic" is one of my favorite things wrong people like to say.-- Mie kal  21:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Umm, if we define trolling as "anything that you don't agree with", then it's probably trolling. But if you define trolling as "wants to provoke you in a dishonest fashion", then maybe it wasn't trolling. Just sayin'. Nullahnung (talk) 00:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the trolling comes into it when you consider the scale of his edits. Saying there are issues with one or two articles relating to the men's rights movement is one thing. Trying to change our coverage of it across the board is probably missing the point as to why the articles are like that in the first place here and could fairly be considered trolling --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:35, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sufficiently advanced fuckwittery makes intent irrelevant - David Gerard (talk)
 * (edit conflict) Umm, no. We regularly get people, some of them cranks, who are unhappy with RW's coverage of certain subject(s) and wish to change it (or more stupidly, to have it changed). That's par for the course for such a place. It turns into trolling on when they change from "I want X to be changed" to disruptive behavior because their demands/requests were not met. A milder example would be someone starting to play the "I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki" spiel all over the site. A worse example was the racial supremacist blockhead who operated an IP-morphing vandalism bot.--ZooGuard (talk) 12:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Zooguard, though I think there's a danger to labeling the "this was supposed to be a rational site!" as a dishonest spiel, because let's be honest, the name "RationalWiki" practically is begging for anyone who sees it to get into the "a place for rational discussion" mindset. Nullahnung (talk) 12:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I used that as a placeholder for a more general "you people suck" attitude. I don't think that the "RATIONAL" complaint is dishonest in itself, it's just misguided, and can be easily abused.--ZooGuard (talk) 13:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, this discussion properly belongs in the chicken coop. Placeholder (talk) 13:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It properly belongs in redspace - David Gerard (talk) 14:08, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, no - David Gerard (talk) 22:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * After you have been trolled by MC everything else just seems like pale imitation. Tielec01 (talk) 03:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Collecting tears subroutine almost complete... 14:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not Facebook.--ZooGuard (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Aw, such party-poop. 14:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Obviously a case of parallel devolution - David Gerard (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide denial edit to Armenia article.
I just reverted this edit to the Armenia article, which denied the Armenian Genocide. That edit was made in 2012 but it apparently slipped through the cracks until now. I'm not an editor here, I don't know what if anything you guys would want to do with the person who made the edit (especially considering that the edit was made two years ago), I'm just letting you guys know about this. 96.241.169.252 (talk) 10:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Brxbrx
Somebody posted potentially libelous information on the talkpage for the Kevin Martin article. Nutty erased the information, and then Brxbrx proceeded to edit war with him over that fact. David Gerard proceeded to revision delete the posts in question under his authority as trustee, but Brxbrx seems to still think it was acceptable to have such information posted on the site and, worse, seems to be assuming there was bad faith in removing the information in spite of what a number of current and former RationalMedia Foundation officers have told him. I consider this conduct unbecoming a sysop and have removed his sysop rights pending a decision by the moderators. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 00:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Brxbrx seems to still think it was acceptable to have such information posted on the site and, worse, seems to be assuming there was bad faith in removing the information Oh, for fuck's sake, I've never said anything of the sort. David Gerard explained to me why Nutty Removed the information and why it should be removed, and I agreed.  The proof is right here.  Feel free to have a look.
 * I consider this conduct unbecoming a sysop What conduct?  Giving you a 0 second block telling you that I disagreed with you?  Then, when you blocked me for one day in order to reply, leaving another message disagreeing with you while unblocking myself?  Doing this both times you blocked me?
 * That's conduct you find unbecoming of a sysop? Of all the shit that's ever gone on here, that's what you find objectionable?  Disagreeing with you?  Jesus Christ, I left you that message (top item here) because I thought you might have some sense in you.  Because I figured even though you disliked me, you might be willing to recognize that "Hey, Nutty Roux has given brx a lot of grief.  It's possible brx saw Nutty Roux's actions as something other than they were."  Well, I was wrong.  Disappointing.-- "Shut up, Brx." 01:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

RNS' allegations that I'm very naughty
Someone posted some discussion on Talk:Kevin Martin. Unaware of any taboo regarding the topic, I joined in the discussion and offered some commentary of my own (please note that this was before User:David Gerard made this post to the page). Nutty Roux came along and removed the discussion, by both the original poster (can't remember his name, and it's since been oversighted), without saying that he was doing for legal reasons on behalf of the Foundation (which, as far as I knew, he had resigned from). So I reverted him, twice (Nutty Roux has a history of removing talk page content either because he didn't like it or because I was involved- - I figured this was the case). At some point David Gerard came to my talk page and explained what was happening. I accepted David Gerard's explanation and agreed to do what he said. That would have been the end of it, except that RNS couldn't handle a block log comment. To be clear:  I have no objection towards removing content that could result in legal action towards the RMF . I was unaware that the discussion Nutty Roux removed was problematic (especially given that the rest of the talk page contained discussions in a similar vein that Nutty Roux did not remove). Had I known, well, I wouldn't have participated in the first place, and I wouldn't have reverted Nutty Roux.-- "Shut up, Brx." 01:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Why I should be remade a sysop
That's it. Figured it was important
 * 1) I use my sysop powers to do things like block spammers, bin vandals, delete spam, and protect pages from vandalism or spam
 * 2) I need the ability to unblock myself. Nutty Roux has a grudge against me, and has repeatedly tried to permanently ban me from the site  While this may not be an issue for other users, I need my sysop powers simply to be an ordinary editor, because otherwise Nutty Roux would try and ban me again.  He's quite fixated.
 * 3) For unknown reasons, I am unable to use the "Email this user" function. I try emailing people, and they don't get my emails.  Until this is resolved (and it won't be resolved tomorrow.  David Gerard and Trent Toulouse have more important things to do than fix a problem that affects a single user), it is much more difficult for me to notify someone if Nutty Roux has blocked me.

Moderators
We haven't had moderator elections for some time, now. The rationale behind this was that there hadn't been any HCM for a while, so moderators were obsolete. See here. Reckless Noise Symphony's appeal to the moderators lacks a certain amount of relevance. Shall the current moderators take care of this? I'd love to hear what MarcusCicero has to say-- "Shut up, Brx." 01:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Resolution
It seems that after Brx issued his groveling apology that RNS, in his magnanimity, has decided not to pursue this further. Although I can't be sure, not being able to read minds, I think this highly important and possibly ground-breaking case of Brx acting silly can be dropped. Let's celebrate the wiki not descending into HCM; who needs moderators? Tielec01 (talk) 02:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)