User talk:Genghis Khant/Archive8

Don't debate in the vote
Didn't we agree that votes should be just a sig, and all discussion should be in a separate section? I honestly don't know which method is better, both have their advantages and disadvantages. But WfG posted her reasoning in her vote, not in the discussion section, so where am I supposed to respond? -- Nx  / talk 06:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You can make your own statement under your own vote or take it up on the editor's talk page but we don't want back and forth arguments in the middle of the voting process. Thanks for your understanding. 06:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

As was censored in the Saloon Bar
You may be a cunt, Genghis, but you aren't stupid. I have a righteous cause. This site is crumbling, AD is threatening long term editors, deleting comments on Trents page, two of the trustees are facing sanctions for having the tenacity to stand up to authoritarianism. Here is what has been censored on the saloon bar by some of the less artful trolls on this site. Think about it. I deserve fairness at least. That is the least of what I deserve. If you push reasonable grievances underground they're only going to become more radical. I have a reasonable grievance and I will not be censored. Please comment on this, or perhaps even email me. 86.47.75.147 (talk) 12:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The vote was 20-14. 20-17 if you include Goat. On wikipedia that would be dismissed out of hand as it does not imply a consensus. Compounded on top of this, the jury was already decided, having voted before the debate period, and I was not allowed to defend myself (The debate page was locked especially by Foster so I wasn't allowed to partake in my own defense. In short, a sham, especially so since I have been a member for 4 years. The vote was not legitimate and I demand a retrial, as any legal definition ever employed would indicate the 'trial' was a 'mistrial'. I'm going to push for this indefinately, you know as well as I do that I have no intention of going anywhere. Do the right thing, grant me a trial. If I should fail then I promise to fall on my own sword. 86.41.239.26 (talk) 12:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I offered you the chance to defend yourself and you declined, you have taken to abusing me despite voting against your permaban and now you expect me to stand up for you? Well the community decided what they wanted to do about you and I go along with it because I cannot contest every vote and you have not endeared yourself either to me or the rest of the site. In real life I might make an issue of fairness but your are an anonymous nobody and this is only a wiki. It's not worth my time worrying about you when I have more important things to concern myself with in the real world. You have only yourself to blame but I rather think that your are revelling in your 'martyrdom'. 12:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * MC, I think Gengis Khant has a point, if you are seeking supporters, beginning a plea for support with "you may be a cunt" may not be the best approach. And personally, I must say I have a strong distaste for that word, being used in a non-literal sense. I mean, it is a very wonderful organ, and if you dislike someone, why would you want to sully the good name of that organ by associating it with them? 12:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * How am I abusing you? You are English, no? I thought 'cunt' was a term of endearment. I certainly intended it to be so. 86.45.226.9 (talk) 12:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Even as a term of endearment, it is still not quite right. But if that is how you mean it... 12:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I thought me and Genghis had a rapport :( I like the banter of Londoners. My apologies if offence was taken. 86.45.226.9 (talk) 12:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, not being a Londoner, I would not understand. But, it seems you mean well, anyway, and that is what counts. 12:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not a Londoner either and regard the appellation as being particularly insulting. 12:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose personally, I am not really insulted by it. Indeed, while I think bandying the word around in a non-literal fashion can be rather misogynistic, so can claiming to be insulted by it — is it such a bad, dirty, unclean, shameful thing that it is insulting to be compared to it? On the contrary, I think it is quite a wonderful organ, so calling me that term is not insulting to me, although quite possibly insulting to it. 13:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I meant that being thought of as a Londoner was insulting. 13:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I completely understand why you'd be insulted by that. 13:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Question
Without reading the above section, shouldn't this be deleted by now? Or do other rules apply to a mod's talk page than to the talk page of a normal user? -- 13:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There was no decision made that any edits other than those which appear to be MC's could be reverted. Deleting the above section would also delete my edits, and I am not MC. 13:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I understood the reached decision, every edit by an IP that probably belongs to MC should be reverted - instead of reverting Khant answers. I don't support this anti-"troll sanctuary"-policy either, but if user pages are treated differently that bugs me. Or even simplier, you don't revert and people get pissed at you, Khant doesn't revert and all is fine? WTF? -- 13:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the inconsistencies could be a hopeful sign that the policy is failing and on the road to becoming a de facto nullity. 13:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Far too much HCM has been caused by people sticking their noses into things that don't directly concern them. Excessive obedience to rules rather than using a little common sense is not what moderation is about. I ask all editors to observe my request at the top of this page. 13:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I should note that I posted a very similar message at the top of my talk page, and yet AD refused to respect it. I wonder, will he show the same disrespect to you? Or do you get treated differently because you are a moderator? 13:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally I have no problem with reversion in public spaces but I do think that while user talk pages are community property the user is the caretaker. There is no requirement for people to supervise other people's talk pages (watch ListenerX now point me to some long forgotten discussion which proves otherwise). All this officiousness is too much like CP. As a moderator I don't want to be a petty 'jobsworth' blindly enforcing some bye-laws much better to adopt a more softly, softly approach. 14:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Haven't we had enough polls on this already? Do we have to bring this to the coop as well? If we allow MC to continue his trolling on user talk pages, what was the point of banning him? -- Nx  / talk 15:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)