RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive23

Blue
Abusing moderator privileges by locking another mod's talk page at the mod-only level with zero discussion. P-Foster 17:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Unlock the page and restore the comments you deleted, Blue. This was never going to go well for you. 17:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Make me. 17:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Deletions aside, someone should unlock the talk page. -- Nx  / talk 17:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We'll just wait for someone who has good judgment and understands the rights and responsibilities of being a moderator. 17:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't believe in fairy tales. -- Nx  / talk 17:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I never thought I would see the day when the sentence :"We need somebody reasonable. go get Ace" would be something that I could type with a straight face. P-Foster 17:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Done (I think), the protection anyway; I'll let someone else handle any restoring of comments, which I haven't looked into. If Blue wants to explain the rationale for doing this I'm willing to listen. What's all this about anyway? DickTurpis (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Some revisions are hidden to moderator level. That's not going to fly. 17:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * To quote you, "I'll do it again." 18:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Blue's comment in doing so was "home addresses and telephone numbers, social security numbers, etc." Is this true? If so there's probably a good justification for hiding. DickTurpis (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not, but you're a mod, you can look at the deleted diffs. -- Nx  / talk 17:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Btw, where did you see that? I only see "Inappropriate personal information" in the log -- Nx  / talk 17:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Good question. Can't find it now, but it was definitely somewhere as I cut/pasted the quote. I may have been looking at the wrong thing, actually. I was blindly clicking around looking for information on what all this was about. I'll look some more. DickTurpis (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nevermind. My bad. In my rush I was looking at a different thing entirely. DickTurpis (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but these powers are new to me. Is there a way I can see it without making it visible to everyone? DickTurpis (talk) 17:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, read the message that appears when you try to view the diff, there's a link in there that says something like "you can still view this diff if you want to" -- Nx  / talk 17:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, so there's no personal info of that sort, but it is an email that was clearly stated to be private posted on a talk page. The name was redacted, but it remains pretty obvious who it's from. I'm not sure we have any real rules against this, other than the unwritten "don't be a dick". I'm going to let others weigh in before doing anything. This isn't a matter that needs to be resolved immediately. Nice to see this group of moderators getting off to such a fantastic start. DickTurpis (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Question: Why is there an assumption that an email is private. I've never seen that before.  Dick, if you wrote me and said "Oh, god, you need to stop doing X or I'm done with you", and i say "this was sent to me in private, and i don't appreciate that, isn't that commonly done?  I dislike when people do things in private that probably should be public; i dislike threats; i dislike behind the scenes game playing (not that I'm saying any of this did or did not go on here).  It is quite normal for us here and around the internet to say "this was sent to me, and it bugged me/bothered me/worried me/you all should see who this guy really is", etc.  Email is not private, if the receiver wants to make it public.  As long as no email addresses are displayed, i'm not sure it's our right as mods to say "you should not have the right to publish that".  [[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]Godot    Dear god, fucking grow up 18:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The content of the email specifically said it was private. Human publishing it here wasn't against any specific rules as far as I can tell (we have very few), but was a rather shitty thing to do. It basically serves nothing but to cause more disruptions on the wiki, which is what moderators are supposed to prevent. Sending the email in the first place was also kind of obnoxious, but isn't really a site issue. DickTurpis (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Because if you wanted to say something in public, you'd say it in public, and not send a private email. -- Nx  / talk 18:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The only rule we have is "don't be a dick," if I recall correctly. Human was clearly being a dick. What's the problem? 18:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Poor DickTurpis. Yeah, but we don't have a rule that explicitly states that you're not allowed to repost private emails so human's allowed to do that and besides you're an authoritarian fascist cunt who adds nothing of value and you're the second worst thing that has happened to this wiki. -- Nx  / talk 18:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That is exactly my point, Nx. the fact that someone says something in private is their problem, not necessarily mine, especially if what they say is telling about a public issue.  We have in the past, posted private email from CP people, we have posted private email from fundies, and I personally have posted private email from people here who are trolling me (i know others have as well).  When you write a letter, or an email, you do not have the right to assume it will not be published.  And I guess this is my problem.  Human (for reasons I actually understand) said "this was sent to me, to try to control how I was to moderate".  That's his right to do.  If you worry that what you write in private will be shared, then you best be careful of what you say or who you are writing to.  [[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]Godot    Dear god, fucking grow up 18:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)  (at blue, he wasn't 'being a dick', necessarily.  he was sharing his point of view about someone who wrote to him about a job he had not even started yet.)
 * He breached my trust by sharing an email in which I revealed some personal information, which, while nothing "serious," is just a dick thing to do. Again, what's the problem? 18:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * why did you mention personal details about yourself in an email about how Human should do his job? I thought, while I was reading it, that the personal stuff was a little off at a tangent from the rest of the message. Rennie McGreet (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Additional: if human had redacted the personal info, would you still have deleted the post? Rennie McGreet (talk) 18:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No. 18:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So your defence is that you wanted to hide the publication of private information which you had assumed you were telling someone in confidence? Rennie McGreet (talk) 18:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Essentially. 18:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually Godot, no, it's not just their problem. If someone posts private information on the wiki without the consent of the person involved, that's your problem as well, doubly so because you are a moderator. -- Nx  / talk 18:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Might I suggest that if people are going to bring these complaints to a public forum they so so with more information so that those reading - and who are presumably being asked to come up with considered responses - are able to understand the issue? On the other hand if only handful of people have a problem they might want to fix the whole thing over email between themselves.--BobSpring is sprung! 18:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Blue sent Human an email telling him that as a moderator he couldn't do whatever he wanted and bringing him up to speed on a few things, e.g. sysoprevoke, and telling him that she doesn't want to post it publicly to prevent drama. Human responded by telling her that he prefers to discuss such things in public and that he finds most of it to be bureaucratic nonsense. Blue sent another, more confrontational email with some personal information about her, after which Human posted it on his talk page without saying who the sender was. Blue then reverted it and suppressed it. -- Nx  / talk 18:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OK - but shouldn't a complaint here express .. well .. what the complainant is?--BobSpring is sprung! 18:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, well, we're more interested in the public lynching. -- Nx  / talk 18:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * -- 18:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In that case I have no more to add. Thank you for the clarification.--BobSpring is sprung! 19:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So who's more at fault? Osaka Sun (talk) 19:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Is that important and how would one assess it?--BobSpring is sprung! 19:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No one is more at fault. Human was a surprising level of asshole, which is not against the rules per se but unfortunate from someone who is supposed to prevent this very thing, and Blue overreacted in a very mild way.  Now we just know how to deal with Human: let him go back to being inactive again, because he really loves this drama shit.  And I'm sure Blue has realized that she was hasty in most people's eyes at this point, although considering the personal information I think it's probably justified.-- 20:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

This is really fucking troubling
So we are back to this now? Blue, why didn't you just post to his talkpage? Why the email? What the fuck? What has it been three days and people are already jumping on their same fucking bandwagons? Nx being a dick as per usual, Blue seemingly baiting Human.... Jesus man, what the fuck is wrong with you people? This is a huge non-issue with people just playing their parts - becoming their own caricatures. Bunch of fucking pansies. AceModerator 20:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What did I do? -- Nx  / talk 20:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, seriously Ace, what did I do that you consider "being a dick as per usual"? -- Nx  / talk 20:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't play dumb Nx. From your comments on his userpage to your edit summary on RWW...you admitted yourself that Human's very presence turns you into a dick...and you call him sad? AceModerator 20:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I left two comments on his talk page, one was a sarcastic remark berating Human for posting a private email without the consent of the other party. In the other one I was defending human, because he did make his position clear before the elections. As for the RWW summary? Yeah, I can see how that makes me the biggest asshole in the world (that was sarcasm again) -- Nx  / talk 20:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Any kind of popcorn joke is really quite common if an HCM (or something like that) is ongoing. I used it too. -- 20:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Eh, she says in the email she didn't want to do it publicly (rake over old coals and all that). I don't know if she was right, but it's not a terrible idea.  Especially since Human immediately insisted on starting up a lot of drama by posting private correspondence.-- 20:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * [EC] Obnoxious behavior isn't just on one side here. But since it seems Human didn't break any rules, and the gist of the email has already been summarized above, I'm prepared to reinstate the hidden edit on his talk page (assuming it isn't done already). This I guess is a lesson that you shouldn't say anything to Human that you don't want repeated publicly. Hopefully we can let this matter die and move on without instigating HCM. DickTurpis (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This section is entitled Blue and I call bullshit on her actions which I think were obnoxious and far from innocent. You want to address Human then start a new section. AceModerator 20:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I think she overreacted, but only slightly. I think this whole furor is worse than what she did.  I am not interested in cooping Human, because being an asshole isn't against the rules exactly, but it certainly is relevant to the discussion.-- 20:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

How was any personal information revealed?
I have the entire text of Human's post in front of me, and I fail to see where any of it falls under the rubric of "personal information." There are no names/geographical locations/nothing that points to a specific person or place, just vague characterizations that I, a lifer in this community, could not trace to any particular person. If Blue had not have done his/her utmost to show how the Streisand Effect works, then Humans post might have either been the start of a productive discussion or easily dismissed as Human trolling his wiki. P-Foster 20:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought it was either Nx or RA. AceModerator 20:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought it was Pi. Heh. P-Foster 20:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I actually thought it was Blue before she had proven that the Streisand Effect works. Just to throw that one in. -- 20:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not too egregious, I agree. There are some personal details, but they're nonspecific enough that you have to guess who it is.-- 20:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Blue probably thought it would be easy to guess that the sender was her (she alluded to her decratting by Human which led to the May HCM), and the email contained bits of information she was not comfortable revealing publicly (why she told Human those things is a good question) -- Nx  / talk 20:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

So...
We forget this and move on? Fucker talk to me :D 20:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. AceModerator 20:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, good suggestion.-- 20:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes! Scream!! (talk) 20:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

RobSmith; Enough is Enough
Enough is Enough; I'm tired of the bullshit surrounding Rob and the completely disunified response people have involving him. We actually need to come up with something here, Because the General Jingoistic Trolling is annoying, Psy is threatening to start a new Round of HCM because of Him and negotiations have never even gotten off the starting line.

Wether we censure rob, set up a whole new system in RW for dealing with trolls/near trolls, or something else, we need to do SOMETHING, or atleast decide that the status Qou is ok; not have one camp sitting over there tightening the noose while the other keeps cutting the rope.

So please, take this serious, because if we can avoid having to bring it up again then that would be wonderful. Sorry if I did this wrong, It's 2 am and i've never actually started anything like this on a wiki--il&#39;Dictator Mikal (talk) 08:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Specifics brought involving rob include the Extreme Jingoism he seems to have acquired against the world and NZ in the time he's been gone;alongside derailing discussions, and the resulting editor reactions (mine included) against him or for him.
 * This is ridiculous. Rob was randomly insulted for no reason, and responded in kind. His attempts to defend himself were reverted, and he was repeatedly banned. He was also threatened with a promotion and ban such that he could no longer unblock himself. It seems like no-one cares though, because Rob says things we don't like. Because it's ok to ban people who say things we don't like isn't it? You might wonder what Rob is saying that deserves a ban? Death threats? Constant personal insults? No, he doesn't like New Zealand and he has made some factually incorrect statements about the country.
 * I say string him high. 08:46, 3 February 2012
 * I don't favour any sanctions against Rob, although I do reserve the right to call him a troll. He's a troll.  DamoHi 08:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Seemples, don't feed the troll. 09:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Like I said to AD...If a new user were to appear and begin slagging of Ireland non-stop and for no reason, injecting it into every conversation and targeting a specific user we'd pretty quickly get sick of it and the user would be sanctioned in some form. Because it's Rob on me it is taken differently but in my hypothetical situation above we know what the result would be, just sayin'.. Just sayin'....AceModerator 09:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, I have no problem with Rob insulting one country or the other. I have a problem with his denialism: he clings to his personal definition of the first/second/third world, while being corrected time and time again. That's a behavior often seen in debates performed by creationist etc., though they at least have the decency to wait for the next debate to come up with the same garbage again.

One can't argue with someone who prefers his made-up statements over indisputable facts and uses words in a way only he can understand. So one shouldn't. And if he keeps up this trolling, he should be banned or binned. 09:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm with Ace. This behaviour wouldn't be tolerated by a bon or a new user - Heidelberg Kid, for example - but an out-and-out troll like Rob, who is antagonistic towards RW gets away with it. And calling Rob dumb is not a random insult.  PsyGremlin  10:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I would disagree with the assertion I responded in kind. Other editors have proposed editors speech be regulated, which would look something like this:
 * Sane user: "Rob's an idiot".
 * Rob: "Am not! Am not!" nobsModerated 12:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * From my understanding one of the people you say is wanting to Regulate speech is ACE. --il&#39;Dictator Mikal (talk) 13:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My problem with Rob is not that he's an idiot, it that he's an evil little turd who loves stirring up trouble. There is no way in which he has any thought to the well being of this wiki, on the contrary, I'm sure he derives immense satisfaction from the amount of time we waste over his trolling. I have certainly seen nothing from him that enhances the wiki in any way whatsoever.
 * With regards Ace, there is no doubt that Rob has targeted him and, while it's easy to stand on the sidelines and say "dont feed the troll" that's not so easy from Ace's perspective.
 * I'd vote for the vandal brake. Maybe if Rob could only edit at a limited rate he would value quality over quantity. Jack Hughes (talk) 13:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * -- PsyGremlin  13:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. We don't regulate speech of this nature. We don't ban users. We don't vandal bin non vandals. You can privately admonish anyone to do or not do anything you want. The coop is a farce because of spleen venting nonsense like this. Several of you are drama prone fascists. Etc. etc. Glad to help. Cuddles, 14:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with le roux. Isn't it enough of a punishment that you guys don't like him? Occasionaluse (talk) 14:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As someone who's had to deal with Rob's idiocy both here and on CP, I can tell you that his ability to derail conversations with stupid non sequiturs and idiotic questions is solely a result of our collective hatred of him and the desire to shoot him down, not anything special he's done. If he weren't notorious for his past activities, we would ignore him, or tell him to fuck off and then ignore him, but he's somewhat of a CP/RW celebrity for what that's worth, so we use him as verbal target practice. I'm as guilty as anyone, of course, but I think that if we revoke his blocking rights and put him on a 6 month trolling probation, he'll learn to contribute something substantive to conversations, or at least go back to trolling CP and making WIGO material for us to cluck over. RachelW (talk) 14:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * How about we don't revoke his blocking rights because he doesn't abuse them and we don't put him on "probation" because there is no such thing. 14:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Erm, if you don't like Robert, then don't interact with him. Why is this so difficult for people? Instead of writing on the wiki at the drop of a hat, work on an article, or take a break from wikiing. steriletalk 14:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We've been over this a thousand times. On RW, the "right to be ignored" doesn't exist. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (EC) Very well then, answer me this: How is what Rob is doing different from what Brxbrx, Maratrean or Heidelbergkid are doing, and yet you've all been keen as shit to leap all over them. Yet when it comes to Rob acting like a prize ass, it's suddenly "ooh! people have rights! we can't do that!". How about a little fucking consistency, people? -- PsyGremlin  14:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Psy. The cabal should be ordered to pay more attention to Rob. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Watch. I'm now going to ignore this thread. Won't bother me a bit. Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind. It's not about rights, it's about actions. This was fun. Bye. steriletalk 15:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * How about giving a little more care in making your comparison and call for consistency. People may or may not be keen as shit to jump all over those clowns but I'm not aware anyone's suggesting they should be banned or binned. The difference is why we're having this discussion. 15:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * banned, binned - I know them are fightin' words... I just hate this constant denial of reality and the redefining of well-known terms to score cheap points. 19:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

In summary: Rob's a dick. Yeah, we knew that already. His inability to string two cohesive sentences together is annoying as hell too. But that might be a genuine mental handicap of his for all we know. I don't know what anyone expects us to do about it, especially without links to specific actionable things he's done. Yeah, he insulted New Zealand. But he did it in such a moronic and inept way that all it did was make him look like more of an idiot than he already dead. Give the guy some credit: that's a high bar to clear. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 15:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

A slight contradiction
"We don't regulate speech of this nature." What about MC? What's different between calling Psy a racist Cunt and Ace a Third-World sheepfucker?P-Foster  Talk " Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing. " 15:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Marcus was banned for persistent trolling, not for the content of his Wiki-speech. Rob has not quite reached the extreme level where sanctions are necessary. 15:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What's that phrase about bolting horses and shutting stable doors, again? Scarlet A.pngnarchist  15:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The difference is that the cabal was consistently unable to ignore Marcus. Time will tell if they are consistently unable to ignore Rob. If so, Rob must be banned because the onus is on him to not annoy anyone, not on the cabal to ignore him. Welcome to RationalWiki. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Psy. Rob is trolling Ace, it's a personal vendetta. Intelligent discussion and disagreement on topics is fine, even encouraged, but this is not intelligent discussion by any means. It's also ok not to like someone, but this was unwarranted and offensive, when Rob said: "You're a racist scum" http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RobSmith&diff=prev&oldid=958818 where has Ace ever been racist? This is not true. (It goes without saying he is in no way "scum") If you have a valid point to make on a topic, make it, but don't just spit out random insults because you are in a foul mood. Rob sure is full of anger and throws the F-bomb around a lot, for someone who comes from CP, the "family friendly and christian values" wiki. Time for this nonsense to stop. Refugee talk page 16:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not around so much any more so I'm not up to speed on this - but shouldn't the complaint have four or five illustrative diff links in order to back up point? We need specific examples of wrongdoing - otherwise it just looks like ganging up on someone who is disliked. I'm not saying that such examples don't exist - I'm just saying they should be part of the complaint.--BobSpring is sprung! 18:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with Bob 100%. If we're serious about admonishing or restricting users for what they do rather than who they are, then we need cited examples not just vague summaries.  Something about the need for difflinks should be added to the guidelines at the top of this page.  Furthermore, I don't see that we can punish somebody for the fact that other people have a completely disunified response to them.  Why wouldn't they?  We can't expect every member of the community to respond to somebody in the same way.  19:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So if I'm ardent in my belief/opinion that Psy is racist scum, or that NZ is truly a joke of a country, I need citations? Or else I get banned for expressing my unsourced opinions? Occasionaluse (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Fuck diffs. Unless you people want to go down the road you did with MC, this whole discussion is improvident and potentially explosive nonsense. I'd like to pretend the MC incident didn't happen since it was totally unprecedented and handled so poorly. But yeah. We don't regulate speech of this nature unless you want to carry on with banning people you don't like. Thanks for helping me out with the caveat. 20:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Some men just want to watch the world burn. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Shut your pie hole, Cicero. P-Foster Talk " Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing. " 20:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * With the exception of Weaseloid's post I'm not entirely sure if all the comments following my post supported my contention or not. So I'll repeat it. If a generalized complaint is made then shouldn't we ask that such a complainant should be accompanied by evidence which supports that complaint? I'm speaking in general now and not necessarily about this complaint in particular.--BobSpring is sprung! 20:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Geez I haven't been able to review all postings here yet, but it appears the main charge ("scum)" is a response I gave on my own talk page after a troll started a thread. Secondly, Ace escalated what he miscolors as something about New Zealand to User:AD's talk page, with the main charge being what if a hypothetical user were to register an account and violate a yet unwritten rule which somehow I'm guilty of as the basis for this cause of action nin the Chicken Coop. And all discussion about NZ, globalism, international trade, US defense costs vs US healthcare spending, Rugby, and Superbowl have been most rational and informative to all involved, with the possible exception of Psy, Ace and handfull of others (diffs available on request). I move the policy discussion be opened on the Community Standards page about a users right to respond when he is impugned by name. nobsModerated 21:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And with everybody, Rob means himself. -- 22:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh boo fucking hoo, concern troll. All the stuff about NZ and how much the USA is so much better in every way is just you being a jingoistic twat for who cares what reason. Don't try to pretend that you're not using "third-world" as a pejorative to boost your own ego/annoy people. (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝɯɯɐHʍoƆ 21:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

" And all discussion about NZ, globalism, international trade, US defense costs vs US healthcare spending, Rugby, and Superbowl have been most rational and informative to all involved..." No Rob. They've been hilarious. At your expense. You're an idiot, and no conversation with you is "informative" about anything except the depths of your stupidity. Now fuck off, troll. P-Foster Talk " Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing. " 21:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Diffs or it didn't happen, fascist. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

You people are kidding, right?
First of all, do you people really take Rob only the slightest bit seriously? Because if you do, what the fuck is wrong with you? Have you read anything he wrote? The dude's insane! If you don't, why be offended by anything he says? Is anybody seriously going to think Ace is a racist because a guy that argues that everybody that links the term third world to poor coloured people based on the assumption that the third world is every country that was neutral during the cold war (or something like that, Rob changed his opinion too fast to follow)? Fuck, no! So why do you give a fuck. Argue with him and see the lulz and facepalms roll in as Rob pops up in Recent Changes.

Second, if we are going to plea for consistency about blocking so called trolls, how about consistency on rights abusal. Just a few days ago Nutty had to tell those that kept blocking Rob to knock it off. Nobody gave a fuck about that, but when a fucktard calls somebody a racist you all get your panties in a bunch.

Third and final: Get a grip of what a troll is! A troll is all over the internets defined as somebody solely joining a site or discussion only to cause trouble — do any of you actually think that Rob has an idea how to do that? Yet, that he even could pull that off? Same goes for brxbrx, guy's an idiot sometimes but if one steers trouble only by posting something no matter what the content is, that is a bigger problem in the community than that guy. Maratrean, while clearly having the ulterior motive of spamming his shit all over the place, only caused troubled when people where trying to tell him how to think - which is a genocide to all irony meters on Earth in which even the plans fo irony meters go up in flames considering what kind of website we on. HeidelbergKid? The dude stopped spamming an is still around posting stuff. Even worse the guy said he's sorry! So he's OCD and not really well endowed with social skills, oh FFS that doesn't make somebody a troll. Trolls are people like MC, TK and Talsley — troll doesn't mean "that user I don't like". -- 22:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There is an inherent contradiction between thinking someone is a troll, and getting upset with that person. If you are so convinced Rob is a troll, why get upset about what he is saying? To paraphrase our favourite CP parodist "Because trolls". Tielec01 (talk) 02:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think the behaviour of Brxbrx, Maratrean or HBK needs to be discussed while there are no charges brought against them. Let's stay on topic.  10:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Talk about missing the point… -- 11:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with UHM (I think). Rob's non-sequitur annoy the hell out of me because they break my brain when I read them (reading a thread is like driving down a road in 5th gear, then rob's post appears and it's like jamming the car into reverse) and I have literally facepalmed at some of the things he's said, but I also get annoyed at how many people reply to him. Rob says something stupid and people immediately dogpile on him, which he responds to with more points that have nothing to do with anything, and people dogpile on that and so on. It's really not that hard to just not respond to him, and stop the cycle right at the start. It's not like anyone active here doesn't know the deal, we don't need a "you're wrong and here's why" reply to everything he says. X Stickman (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

What has this cooping accomplished?

 * Referring to New Zealaneders as sheep fuckers is still an acceptable and common rhetorical device in Rationalwiki.
 * Pointing out the obvious -- that if ever a nation needed an aircraft carrier to defend it strategic interests, it would be New Zealand; however, because of limited demographics and economic resources, New Zealand is unlikely ever to afford an aircraft carrier and thus dependent upon the United States and/or some other hegemon to defend her vital links to the rest of the planet that afford it's current level of living standards and allow Ace McWicked to purchase a computer manufactured outside New Zealand to communicate with the rest of the planet with technology developed in the United States. Both the internet, and New Zealand's strategic vital interests, have been paid for by American defense spending at the cost of sacrificing government healthcare spending. But to discuss these facts is trolling in Rationalwiki.
 * Psy and Ace are vindictive little putzes who are not beyond using slander when they get beat in a debate on the merits. nobsModerated 14:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Rob, you are one of the last people who should go around accusing others of slander. 14:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * To be slanderous, you have to do it to a real living person. It s virtually impossible to slander, in the legal sense, an anonymous internet user name. I do edit under my real life identity. If I ever slandered any real life person anywhere, let them sue me; I stand by anything I've ever said about a real life person, and stand ready to present my case if a civil action were ever filed. nobsModerated 15:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Jesus christ nobody's going to sue you and your stilted bluster is pathetic. Get over yourself. But yes, the coop was pointless. 15:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Obama is very much alive but as Rob Smith is just a (metaphorical) mouse turd at the back of the cupboard when it comes to right-wing nuttery I doubt that he could be arsed to even acknowledge his existence, let alone pursue a court case for slander. 15:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * [EC] I too don't really see this going anywhere. Yeah, Rob does cause some trouble, but we can deal with it at these levels. Mostly he just says something unbelievably stupid and gets piled on for it. Little harm there. The worst specific thing anyone's been able to point out that he's done so far is call Ace a racist. That's not really cool, but, fuck it, I've called Rob a racist too (he's even indirectly and unintentionally admitted racism is OK). If someone wants to put a case forward against Rob, fine. Whatever. But do it right. Show exactly what he's done with specific links and explain exactly how he's violated any standards and let the mob evaluate it on its merits. But enough of this generic "this guy's a dick" accusations. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 15:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * But.....he's a dick. Seriously. P-Foster Talk " Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing. " 15:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (EC) Ace uses Third World in a pejorative sense, evidently he feels superior to Third Worlders. By contrast, I've remonstrated him for his denigration of less fortunate people in developing countries of races different from his own. When it was cited to me the NZ is listed as First World, I admitted my error and moved on. And if Obama wants to sue, bring it on.   nobsModerated 15:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * First and foremost, I generally agree with Rob on his three points. I think it's shocking how Rob continues to be victimized even though this coop was brought against his aggressors. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

If sheepfucker is an acceptable rhetorical device for New Zealanders...
Then I'm a beaver licker. Osaka Sun (talk) 16:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, can we just remove RobSmith's Sysop Rights?
Because I guess I have to:

Yes

 * Fucker talk to me :D 04:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

No

 * 1) Has He abused them or in any way actually made himself undeserving of what they are for? No. Has he been a massive cock? Yes. Theres more a case against people having rights because they keep removing his then there is for removing his. --il&#39;Dictator Mikal (talk) 04:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Please observe the guideline of bringing specific charges against the accused on this page. We won't have a lynch mob. 04:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL! 04:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not claiming my hands are clean, buddy. 05:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't that 30% of what RationalWiki is about? Fucker talk to me :D 04:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * According to the block log, Rob has literally done nothing with his rights but unblock himself, except for giving one three-second block six months ago. 04:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * But why should trolls have sysop rights in the first place? That's like giving AK-47s to convicted serial killers, and then saying that they haven't used them to kill anybody yet.


 * Like my use of an analogy there? Fucker talk to me :D 04:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The sane reason most of us have rights? IT isnt exactly normal for a wiki to give out rights like candy--il&#39;Dictator Mikal (talk) 04:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (EC) If we block him for trolling, it is necessary to remove his rights to stop him from unblocking himself. Other than that, the only reason we would remove his rights is if he had abused them for trolling purposes, as MarcusCicero did several times with his blocking sprees. 04:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (EC) But I thought I was a specul snowflake...


 * Anyways, I'm already over it, so whatev. I don't about this stupid poll or this stupid site anymore! Fucker talk to me :D 04:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is what you get when you put a few scores of ornery rationalists together in close quarters. 04:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you forgot to put rationalists in scare-quotes. Fucker talk to me :D 04:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This wiki is rational? --il&#39;Dictator Mikal (talk) 04:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. We rationalists do not, on average, take kindly to people disagreeing with us (whether or not the disagreeing people are wrong). That is especially pronounced here because the Cabal were people booted off Conservapedia for attempting to change disagreeable material. 04:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (EC) This wiki is filled with a bunch of idiots, stupid articles, and trolls. Most people are all three. Fidgeter talk to me :D 04:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * People are RationalWiki articles? 04:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I was speaking hypothetically, obviously. God. Flitzer talk to me :D 04:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Why stay if that's how you feel? 04:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I was playing Devil's Advocate. Fidgeter talk to me :D 04:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * we didnt need one?--il&#39;Dictator Mikal (talk) 04:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the fights here on the Wiki are generally a positive influence on its rationality, for the same reason that the best-referenced Wikipedia articles are the ones on controversial topics. 04:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It does have the negative effect in that only the best fighters or best at getting lots of allies manage to survive meaningfully. Although that can be a pro as well--il&#39;Dictator Mikal (talk) 04:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * We rationalists do not, on average, take kindly to people disagreeing with us 
 * Is such an emotional response rational? nobsModerated 13:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Irony. How on Earth does that work NOB rain S? 13:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

And stop being troll feeders. steriletalk 16:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

How long will this trolling persist?
The consensus yesterday was there is no basis for a cause of action at the Coop, yet the initiating party(s) continue trolling. nobsModerated 18:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)