RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive80

RobSmith
Longtime editor RobSmith ("Nobs") has done two things recently that are worthy of rebuke. I believe that they are worthy of Sysoprevoke, at a minimum, for two reasons:
 * 1) He has attempted to incite violence using RationalWiki as a platform.
 * 2) He bullied a fellow-Sysop.

Regarding Point 1: RobSmith made a statement in the Saloon Bar on February 14, 2019 alluding to the Pizzagate/QAnon conspiracies: "The SOTU left viewers with the impression Pelosi and feminists dressed in white were pro-human trafficking." While this may seem like RobSmith's usual nuttiness, it is not. Because of the context — of which RobSmith is fully aware — it goes well beyond this and enters into the realm of attempted incitement of violence.

The context is as follows: 1) Contrary to RobSmith's fantasy, the women at the 2019 State of the Union Address wore white in honor of women's suffrage. 2) Both the Pizzagate and QAnon conspiracy theories include baseless allegations that involve human trafficking. 3) Both of these conspiracy theories have inspired people to commit or attempt to commit violence (The "Inciting violence" section in QAnon, and Pizzagate). 4) A conspiracy-believing nutcase has attempted to assassinate a Congressional representative and did kill others during the attempt. 5) RobSmith is completely aware of the human trafficking elements of Pizzagate and QAnon; he has also tried to cast doubt on the idea that Pizzagate and QAnon are conspiracy theories. This is evidenced by his edits on Conservapedia; RobSmith has also falsely and maliciously claimed that Nancy Pelosi supports human trafficking.

Regarding Point 2: In the Saloon Bar, Rationalzombie94 came forward about the medicine that he takes for mental health reasons. In response to this, RobSmith made this offensive comment on February 12, "Seroquel? 'Splains it all." I find this comment tantamount to bullying, and it is not the first time that RobSmith has been called out for his harassment (See RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive78 and User talk:RobSmith/Archive 01).

Bongolian (talk) 20:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * If this passes (and I am not yet sure if I support it) then it may well be worth revisiting the idea of a policy on behavior. 20:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I've seen what passes for your idea of "behavior policy" and I'm not thrilled with it. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Anyways, back to topic, RobSmith is almost like a mascot token conservpedia editor. It's like instead of visiting the zoo, you just keep a wild boar in your living room, and sometimes your friends come over and poke it with a stick.  Every once in a while, someone comes along and says "Didn't you see that guy get gored, and aren't you tired of the piles of pig shit on the carpet."  And we all shrug and go "yeah, you're probably right".  In summary, yeah, you're probably right.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Then that raises the question of why we're just going for sysoprevoke? RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There is the teeny issue that he hasn't in any way misused the sysop tools. Or even used them at all much. Making sysoprevoke a rather odd remedy, because it wouldn't actually do anything to curb the behavioral issue presented by Bongolian. 20:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah his comment against RationalZombie was in bad taste but I'm of the belief that Sysoprevoke should be reserved for those who are likely to abuse it. --RWRW (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * (EC) Actually, in a way, it makes perfect sense.
 * Permabanning a user tends to produce a greater level of HCM than discussions of other forms of censure, such as the bin or promotion, and also tends to provoke more divisive debates here. I imagine that Bongolian and Ikanreed would like to permaban nobs, but Bongolian knew that this case would be sensitive (see the mod noticeboard for more information) and, as such, opted for the less controversial censure of sysoprevoke (or so I would imagine).
 * Sysoprevoke now makes a user ineligible for elected position, and this past year saw nobs run campaigns for both the Board and a mod spot, the former of which he almost won. If sysoprevoked, that cannot happen again. Furthermore, it is likely that nobs would LANCB if he felt he was treated unfairly and punished with sysoprevoke, meaning that there was no need for a ban in the first place. If passed, at worst nobs will be incapable of ever running for office again, and at best, the same effect of a ban was achieved with far less risk of HCM and failure.
 * Please tell me I'm wrong, Bongolian. Please. I need to know this isn't your plan. RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If this is a way to pseudo-ban nobs, then please accept a virtual slap-on-the-back and "attaboy." 21:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Fuck this shit, I`m only in favor of sysoprevoke if someone has abused their powers. Nobs hasn't abused his powers, therefore Nobs does not merit being sysoprevoked. Besides, there are other users here just as bad as, if not worse than, Nobs and they get off (relatively) Scot-free. Nobs is a harmless old man, and a relic of a bygone era in RW history. Leave him be. —  Palaeonictis  Fossil beds  21:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, and never mind the "context" Bongolian presents here is totally the product of his imagination. (1) Where he connects the dots between Pizzagate and sufferagets no one can imagine (does Bongloian seriously want to litigate this?). (2) As to my Seroquel comment, I've been humbled and rebuked. As someone without a blind faith in Big Pharma, I will in the future pledge to be more sensitive to other users, particularly if they reveal what might be personal issues. nobspiss in my ear 22:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It heartens me to see you admit that, Nobs. I for one don't support placing you in sysoprevoke, you are an important part of RW history and I don't see it necessary to make such a fuss. This is pointless at best, and an exercise in futility at worst. —  Palaeonictis  Fossil beds  23:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

regarding point 2, a thoughtless, even insulting comment does not constitute bullying. you'd as little bit more on that score AMassiveGay (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It was clearly a pretty dumb comment. But in no way the worst around here. 23:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * To clarify, my aim has not been to permaban Nobs based on the behavior presented. I'd rather not let him think that he's a free speech martyr and let him go bragging on CP that "left-wing" RW is far worse worse than the right wing with regard to censorship. I also realize that some people find trolls amusing, Nobs in particular, so a total ban is also less likely to get a majority vote. My aim is to give him a punishment that he probably won't like, won't make him a martyr, and take away a tool that he can use for pushing his more virulent trollishness, including unsubstantiated attacks on people both here and IRL, as well as curbing some of his more offensive bigotry. The last of which has been manifesting itself in the form of some rather offensive conspiracy-minded antisemitism. The effects of Sysoprevoke will 1) prevent him from running for office 2) allow Sysops to block him temporarily, at least, for good cause and 3) hinder his desire to revert his bigoted posts that have been deleted. Bongolian (talk) 01:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Intreesting. Now all you need is evidence to support your conspircy theories. nobspiss in my ear 01:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm just going to throw my opinion in here since I saw this in recent changes, I don't know RobSmith, but it doesn't sound like he did anything bad per se, more like some people just disagree with him and was a little inflamatory towards someone, but a lot of people are inflamatory on this wiki, I'm finding. Public School Girl (talk) 12:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly. And he's already apologized for his insensitive comment. —  Palaeonictis  Fossil beds  13:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Plus, he didn't in any way follow the comment up, or attempt restore it when it was removed. 14:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Point of information. Bongolian has asked sysoprevoke status be applied to rob smith. The reasons given seem objectionable to many users. There can be no refuting that the accused is either a troll or an idiot. In either case he should not be permitted to hold any advanced authority for this wiki. Can this vote simply remove his eligibility to run for moderator? Perhaps elect him as chief of trolls. Ariel31459 (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes that is a valid option. We don't need to put him in sysoprevoke to remove his eligibility for the mod election. We could simply vote for him not to be able to run. 17:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd be cool with that too. 18:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That's BS because of possible election interference via socks. Bongolian (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Has that ever actually happened before? And wouldn't our voter registration system stop that? 18:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * According my calculations we only need two more legitimate users to start supporting nobs for him to be voted in without socks, assuming the rest of the support follows the last election closely. There was no socking in either of last years election, so that's unlikely. But nobs getting a seat, is highly probable. 19:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * So it seems that no one here has spoken to my Point 1, which I consider the more serious offence. Does no one consider incitement of violence something worthy of rebuke? Would specific advocacy of violence be worthy of rebuke? Nobs did not in fact apologize to Rationalzombie94 as far as I'm aware of, probably because the issue was not brought to his attention until now. I agree that that incident in and of itself was minor, but it becoming part of a pattern of behavior, and that's why I included it here. Bongolian (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Point of information: Who incited to violence, the President of the United States when he raised the issue of human trafficing in the presence of women honoring suffragettes or RobSmith through your convoluted reasoning? nobspiss in my ear 18:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Secondly, as to your alleged "evidence" that "he has also tried to cast doubt on the idea that Pizzagate and QAnon are conspiracy theories," the link you provide from another wiki clearly shows me re-categorizing QAnon into Category:Conspiracy Theories. nobspiss in my ear 19:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I have to say, I'm not sure I follow the logic here behind "incitement to violence." To put it differently: there are a number of far-right Christians who act violently towards abortion providers due to their beliefs. Indeed, there have been several deaths due to terrorist attacks at abortion-providing clinics already, like the murder of Dr. George Tiller and the Colorado Springs shooting. If a hypothetical conservative Christian editor who was fully aware of these acts said something along the lines of "Evangelical Christian activist 'Coach Dave' Daubenmire's latest vlog leaves his viewers with the impression that fetal tissue from abortions is used as additives in the food they eat," would they be under the same kind of trouble for inciting violence? Aside from QAnon being a lot more fringe-y and a lot less pervasive than Far-Right Christianity, how are these two scenarios different? ℕoir LeSable (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, nobs didn't use his mop to restore his supposed incitement. If he were genuinely inciting people to violence, we would be discussing a permaban at the very least, possibly even contacting law enforcement. But we are not, so again, why sysoprevoke? RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Here is how I see it as incitement, : Although the Coop case the I brought specifically pertains to Nobs posting here, it was necessary to confirm the context and intent of it from his actions Conservapedia. Nobs is trying to dog whistle his way out of this. Bongolian (talk) 21:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) The Pizzagate conspiracy theory was very specifically about alleged child sex trafficking, and alleged that Hillary Clinton was involved in it.
 * 2) A gunman believing in the conspiracy shot up the the Comet Pizza Parlor that is at the center of this conspiracy. He was specifically looking for evidence of child sex trafficking.
 * 3) The QAnon conspiracy theory has both Pizzagate and human trafficking contained within it.
 * 4) The QAnon conspiracy theory has also been associated with nutjobs committing violence.
 * 5) Nobs falsely and maliciously claimed, "The SOTU left viewers with the impression Pelosi and feminists dressed in white were pro-human trafficking."
 * 6) Nobs before posting this, Nobs knew about the child trafficking elements of both Pizzagate and QAnon, and furthermore specifically targeted the Speaker of the House with slander on Conservapedia saying that she supported human trafficking.
 * What do you say to Mr. Omar Navarro and dozen's if not hundreds of other youtubers and twitter users who had the same reaction to people sitting on their hands when the subject of human trafficking came up in the SOTU? Pizagate, QAnon, Gabby Giffords or none of your other hallucinations have anything to do with the slanders you are directing at me.  nobspiss in my ear 22:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Let's look again at the cite from Conservapedia you posted here.  And you have repeatedly made reference in other discussions about the link I posted to exopolitics there as well. I clearly, clearly, in that edit disposed of QAnon as a conspiracy theory, which the article failed to do before my edit.
 * Now, whenever you are ready, I can likewise dispose of all your other "carefully crafted" allegations. nobspiss in my ear 22:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that post shows that you're equivocating about whether it's a conspiracy theory or not, "is considered a conspiracy theory by some". You're casting doubt by not saying definitively whether it is or isn't a conspiracy theory. In that edit, you also falsely stated falsely and baselessly that it is a conspiracy theory that Democrats believe in, when in fact it's the exact opposite, that it's one tailored to Trump supporters. Similarly, for Pizzagate, you called it an "alleged conspiracy theory". Bongolian (talk) 00:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Is it possible that unequivocally saying that it is a conspiracy theory on CP would bring down the wrath of Schlafly et. al. upon him? RoninMacbeth (talk) 00:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Ronin: I wouldn't know. Is Russia collusion a conspiracy theory?
 * Bongolian:Don't think so. What is this, English Comp 101? In writing, one must keep in mind who the target audience is. That article read essentially, "liberals call it a conspiracy theory." I eliminated that biased slant, expanded the basis of as to why it's considered a conspiracy theory, and in keeping with Wikipedia citation policy, "an extremist source can only be used for itself," linked to exopolitics. nobsI'm all yea'res 00:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No one forced Nobs to edit those pages, so we can reasonably assume they're his opinions. Bongolian (talk) 00:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Prayingmedic had alluded to his followers about June 2017 that Q said "start a timeline," and recommended to his followers my Obama administration timeline, which created an impression among some that me & CP were part of the Q cabal. Not until someone created a QAnon page in CP did I have a chance to address it. nobsI'm all yea'res 00:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Truth be told, Bongolian knows more about Q than I do. I've never followed it, nor have ever used it as a citation. I'm not really qualified to speak on it. The only time I ever edited anything about it, I risked a potential conflict of interest because of the mistaken notion created on Twitter and youtube I was part of the "Q cabal," or responding to Bongolian's annoying references to it. Which tells me, Bongolian doens't know anything about QAnon, either. nobsI'm all yea'res 01:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It, er, looks like you just repeated what you said without addressing anything I said. I'll grant that nobs is acting pretty nobby, but I'm nowhere closer to seeing it as "inciting violence." ℕoir LeSable (talk) 05:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Just thought I'd point out, no one "shot up" Comet Ping Pong, someone merely brought a gun in there. Big difference. Someone brought a gun to my middle school once, but no school shooting happened. Conspirate (talk) 13:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I have noticed that it is common for users to be described as "seems sane" as the reason they have been given a mop. Why, on the other hand, is it unacceptable to promote someone when their edits don't seem sane? Pizza-gate is an insane conspiracy theory. Nobody uses "pizza" as a code word. It seems to me that this guy should not even be autopatrolled.Ariel31459 (talk) 02:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * While I think Nobs/Rob is either insane or just holds shitty opinions, it doesn't seem like he has abused his Sysop powers (on this site) and as such, I would advise against removing them. Other punishments may be required, but I fail to fully understand the train of logic behind this choice. 03:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Ariel31459: The problem there is I've haven't expressed an opinion pro or con on pizzagate anywhere, other than this one which Bongolian presents as evidence:
 * I'll wager $50 that when Trump-Russia gets put to bed for whatever it is, Pizzagate will be alive and well. See here's what's wrong: negotiators for the two sides should sit in a closed room and make the offer. You backoff your scandalmongering nonsense and I'll backoff mine. But that's healthy for the body politic and makes too much sense. They can't do it. RobS CIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 01:16, 18 April 2017 (EDT)
 * Now first off, pay me my $50 bucks cause Bongolian seems intent on keeping it alive; secondly, I'm still waiting for Bongolian to connect the dots between the Gabby Giffords shooting and human trafficking. Maybe he can connect the dots between Lee Harvey Oswald and human trafficking as well. nobsI'm all yea'res 03:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It is an endlessly asked question by new users, how did Nobs become a Sysop. The answer seems lost in the sands of RationalWikiTime, but it wasn't always a given. Nobs was desysopped and resysopped many times between 2009 and 2013. The view of him was not always so charitable during this time as evidenced by the frequent blocks for trolling:

Blocks for trolling So has as Nobs mellowed with age, or did he just decide to stay out of mainspace? Bongolian (talk) 03:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 2010: 2 days, "continually trolling members with his WP problems."—User:PolarBearInTheJungle
 * 2010: 4 days, "Trolling, bringing WP bizness to RW"—User:PolarBearInTheJungle
 * 2010: 31 seconds, "Borrowing from the troll MC's playbook. We are not amused"—User:Gooniepunk
 * 2011: 1 day, "ideological reasons, conservative vandal, conservative trolling, and generally being a dick. your move buddy"—User:Thunderstruck
 * 2011: 9 years, "Overstayed welcome. Troll"—User:PolarBearInTheJungle
 * 2011: 8 hours, "Blatant and persistent troll; do not revert."—User:䯂
 * 2011: 3 seconds, "Stop trolling Rob. Please. That last comment about the scientific method was about as trolling as it gets"—User:DeltaStar
 * 2011: "I have reported you to the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services: Nazi commie cheerleader loving, fascist troll with no life. Also lacks machismo"—User:Enchanted13
 * 2011: 1 day, "Turning every thread on TWIGOCP into a Rob thread, being a concern troll."—User:B♭maj7
 * 2012: 90 days, "Why do we insist on putting up with this mendacious, delusional, mean-spirited troll?"—User:PolarBearInTheJungle
 * 2012: 1 day, "fuck rob, he can deal with not being able to troll us for a day"—User:Paravant
 * 2012: 90 days, "Why do we insist on putting up with this mendacious, delusional, mean-spirited troll?"—User:PolarBearInTheJungle
 * 2012: 1 hour, "Trolling is not a debate. Use the hour to look it up in a dictionary"—User:Psygremlin
 * 2012: 1 hour, "Still trolling? I told you I'd send you to the naughty step"—User:Psygremlin
 * 2012: 8 hours, "At least troll on-topic. Now go away and grow up, you sad little wanker"—User:Psygremlin
 * 2012: 8 hours, "I'm going to work now. use this time to learn the difference between 'trolling' and 'response'"—User:Psygremlin
 * 2012: 5 minutes, "Trolling the coop now?"—User:Psygremlin
 * 2012: 100 millennia, "Trolling; hygiene issues."—User:PolarBearInTheJungle
 * 2012: 4 year, "Ragtops? Doing away with racist troll"—User:PolarBearInTheJungle
 * 2012: 90 day, "Go fuck your mother, yo t grave-dancing troll"—User:Psygremlin
 * 2012: 8 hours, troll—User:Bicycle Wheel
 * Since the day RW was founded & I signed up, I've advocated for rules of civility versus the mobocracy. Nobody in RW history has advocated that position as long as I have. If you are going to troll me, get your facts right first. nobsI'm all yea'res 04:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * If I had taken that bet, you would owe me $50. Pizzagate is long dead while Trump's Russia scandal is hot as a two dollar pistol. Ariel31459 (talk) 03:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Nope
Nothing Rob did is any reason to take away his sysop powers. He didn't abuse them so he keeps them. That's all there is to it. Acei9 03:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe. But his edits are always suspect because his sanity is widely doubted. If he can be a sysops without being autopatrolled, OK. But he needs to be supervised. His edits are crap. That is harmful to the wiki.Ariel31459 (talk) 03:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Ariel - that's bullshit. Rob as been active here 6 years longer than you and I have been here 2 years longer than him. We have managed so far to avoid Rob being 'harmful' (whatever the fuck that means)...so no, he doesn't need to be supervised. Acei9 03:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It always come down to what words mean. The tighter the spot one finds oneself in, the less they seem to mean. I don't mind if Rob is let go to shit on the carpet. Someone has to walk the dog. Is that you? I have not been here very long. And, I don't necessarily want Rob to be promoted. I want him to stop annoying the moderators. Is that too fucking much to ask?Ariel31459 (talk) 03:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I have been cooped more times the Rob so no, Rob barely bothers anyone who dosn't directly engage him. He isn't doing anything more than being a dick. WHich isn't a Coop case. Acei9 03:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * IMO Sysrevoke should only be for people who have abused their largely defensive weapon of mop- like the unanimous verdict of my own Coop case back when I was BP9, when I rage-blocked a mod in a drama episode caused by sleep deprivation-induced irritability. I have since repented and learned to count to thirty before posting a comment or blocking a user if I am very sleepy or in a bad mood. Anyway, as far as I know, nobs hasn't abused his mop. So as usual, his shitstorm is not deserving of sysrevoke. True, he may be working for a sworn enemy of ours and he may try to smear liberal politicians, but he doesn't deserve to be stripped of his sysop rights. -- Goatspeed. 05:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * No this is personal and not dealing with any sort of abuses of sysop powers. Commie Lib (talk) 05:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's more ideological I think. This whole Bongolian vs nobs debate is largely based on a left/right political divide between them. 10:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your opinions, but I still maintain that there should be some sort of punishment for Nobs. No, I wouldn't call it ideological in the sense of political spectrum, . At first like most people I generally ignored Nobs. My real issue with Nobs is that he is ideologically opposed to RationalWiki's principles in his support for conspiracy theories — and I stated that when he ran for mod. Since then, he has also engaged in Holocaust denial (User talk:RobSmith). Bongolian (talk) 18:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Announcement
The next person to attempt to start the coop vote before 20:08 UTC on the 28 of February will receive a trout-slap and a half-hour block. We stated this pretty clearly, guys. RoninMacbeth (talk) 06:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Stupidity
This whole thing is a charade. It is my impression that Bongolian has a vendetta against Nobs for some unfathomable reason, yes Nobs is an idiot, but he hasn't abused his sysop powers. He should not be desysopped, hell, he tends not to engage anyone who doesn't engage him, he's a dick yes, but he's not a troll, he doesn't show up on random people's talk pages and shit on their virtual doorstep unlike some users here. This whole thing is a farce, end of story. —  Palaeonictis  Fossil beds  04:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * What S/he said. Acei9 04:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I concur with ; I remember when, about a month ago, previously tried to use a mere personal attack as an excuse to strip nobs of his sysop rights. Maybe he is sick and tired of his shit-stirring on the Saloon Bar? For more info, please see the link to the archived case. -- Goatspeed.  05:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It is also my opinion that nobs hasn't done anything even vaguely worthy of sysoprevoke in either of the presented issues. 10:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Just bring the vote on so we can get this dealt with. The case presented against nobs is bullshit and his accusers are sanctimonious sour faced scolds.-- MtD Bogan   12:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Bongolian
Rather than sanction Rob, why don't we sanction Bongolian for starting this big HCM? Conspirate (talk) 13:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Lul. 14:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly. —  Palaeonictis  Fossil beds  14:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Aren’t Mods infallible? —RWRW (talk) 14:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * What's ironic is he is worried about Rob winning an election, Rob apparently would have won with two more supporters, this HCM could be brought up in an election, Bongolian could get anti-endorsements over it, and Rob could get sympathy votes over it. Conspirate (talk) 14:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Specific proposal: Demod Bongolian and elect one of the alternates. Conspirate (talk) 14:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Wel then we have the same question we just had with nobs: how did he abuse his mod powers? RoninMacbeth (talk) 14:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * no. no we dont. ignore then obvious trolling AMassiveGay (talk) 14:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Could you please clarify that? RoninMacbeth (talk) 14:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

This is all bullshit and im not sure you grasp the concept of irony AMassiveGay (talk) 14:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I was joking and thought it would be obvious. AMG got the joke I think. But I think he does need a serious trouting.Conspirate (talk) 15:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Well, carry on. RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Let’s just close this off now
Rob never abused his Sysop powers so he doesn’t get stripped of his rights. He’s guilty of being a dick but who cares. Case fucking closed. Let’s archive this. Acei9 19:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * As much as I dislike Rob I must concur with Ace, this situation is not worthy of Promotion. 20:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll begin the vote. RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Sysoprevoke Nobs

 * 1) As you might expect. Bongolian (talk) 00:00, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I hope you now understand what constitutes taking someones sysop rights. Acei9 00:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think Bongolian should focus on repealing SPOV in the Community Standards pages if he is to be entrusted with Mod powers. nobsI'm all yea'res 01:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Or it should be clear SPOVis is acceptable in mainspace, but not necessarily on discussion pages. nobsI'm all yea'res 01:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * 1) Fuck it. Yes. 07:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

No

 * 1) No Commie Lib (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) The offenses he is charged with and the evidence presented are not enough to warrant sysoprevoke. This was a mistake, on all of our parts. RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) No convincing rationale for the use of the largely defensive weapon of sysoprevoke has been presented insofar as Bongolian has not shown any evidence of nobs misusing sysop tools.  20:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) this shouldn’t even be a case of Sysoprevoke. Rob might be completely batshit crazy but he hasn’t really done anything wrong Acei9 21:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) Don't have much engagement but I feel no strong reason to demop him. Sysoprevoke won't solve his problems, as its purpose is to limit abuse of sysop tools. It won't stop Rob from posting bad comments because he doesn't use sysop tools to post such comments to begin with.  22:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 6) As mentioned above, I'm not convinced by the logic behind calling his statement "inciting violence." ℕoir LeSable (talk) 22:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 7) He isn't using Sysop tools to post the comments in question, ergo taking those tools away changes nothing. While I understand the frustration one can feel after reading one of Rob's posts, I cannot see how de-moping him and placing him in Sysoprevoke solves that problem. 23:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * What it does open is that we could ban him and actually have him wait out the ban, but I doubt that'll be effective in the long run. 01:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) No. —  Palaeonictis  Fossil beds  23:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) No. TheUmbilicalCordGuy (talk) 23:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) No. Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) An emphatic hell no!—Sophie (talk) 02:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) No. What is wrong with you people? - MtD Bogan   02:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 6) I have to reluctantly vote "no". I have an idea for making people who run for mod or board member promise that they agree to a long list of things that should guarantee they have RationalWiki's best interest's at heart to try to stop the likes of Rob from running in the first place. Spud (talk) 03:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That's bullshit Spud. Anyone can run for mod (I think there are some rules around number edits or something) and it should stay that way. Just because Rob is a CP user who stirs up trouble doesn't make him ineligible. Acei9 03:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * 1) Absolutely not. Public School Girl (talk) 04:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Goat

 * Man, I just wanted there to be a tacit censure of attacking someone's struggle with disabilities as a convenience in an argument. I don't want any specific punishment, just the ability of the community to agree "that's fucked up, nobs. Never do that again."  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I can agree with that. Now please stop attacking my untreated mental disabilities. nobsI'm all yea'res 20:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Can I add your admission to having treatable mental disabilities to your Conservapedia page? It might clear some shit up.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yah. Just call it "sin," and the only treatment I'm getting is from the Great Physician. nobsI'm all yea'res 22:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Ikranreed: how about temp blocks to annoy him? 22:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I've been unsuccessfully trying to incorporate a "sine qua non"/"sine QAnon" pun into my justification for the past 10 minutes. Bah. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 22:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Eh, haven't been following too closely, so I don't feel like I'm qualified to vote. Luckily at this point it's such a landslide that I don't need to vote either way... CoryUsar (talk) 00:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Can we archive this bullshit now?
Pretty overwhelming consensus. Acei9 03:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)