RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive3

Ace McWicked
He has [ blocked Brxbrx, a non-sysop, for three months, and a second time after Nutty unblocked Brxbrx]. I'm not bringing this to the coop, because the archives are full of his abuse, and yet the only thing that has happened so far is a few "please don't do it again"s, and a temporary promotion by a mod that was undone by a regular sysop. He has also done this to Maratrean before [], desysopping him in the process. -- Nx  / talk 07:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No one gives a fuck what you think Nx. So, you know, fuck off. Your RW's worst ever troll. Aceace 22:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Like I say on the mainpage here, I did this one a couple of times already. I'm going to let another mod do it this time.  Hopefully, that is.-- 22:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (EC) If he continues like this, even if he's reelected as a mod, he'll eventually see some backlash. Human is a perfect example of this; the differences are that Human actually made a ton of actual contributions to RW before he went, and had a consistent philosophy that caused a number of high-profile confrontations (RA, Pink, Nx, and me). Ace has Human's do-no-wrong clout, but lacks his substantive improvements and any pretense of taking RW seriously. And because his abuse is always written off as intoxicated or frivolous, and he usually perpetrates it on users who don't enjoy the level of popularity as, for instance, Pink did, that natural backlash might take a very long time. The other side of this coin might be a "silent majority" significant number of people who wouldn't mind some actual penalization for his frequent abuse, but haven't seen the need to voice their opinions as of yet because the Chicken Coop is a depressing pile of shit. Now, I'm not advocating some kind of campaign to galvanize people against Ace. I'm just trying to wrap my head around why people turn a blind eye to his violations of standards and abuse.
 * I'm also not taking a particular stance here. In general, I support the longstanding RW policy of allowing joke vandalism, joke blocks, joke promotions/demotions, and joke trolling. But Ace has probably crossed the line from good-faith joke to bad-faith abuse in all of those areas. 22:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * {ec}Sorry, AD, but with Blue gone, you're the only one that'll do it.-- 22:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Please can you all stop being so fucking tedious? Thanks. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Funny, I don't recall that being your attitude when you called for Human's blood back in May. You know, he had more justification for demoting me than Ace had with Maratrean. 22:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Silly Blue. It's only wrong if he doesn't like it.  That's the same attitude from all the troublemakers on this wiki.--  23:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Autre temps autres mœurs". The relentless attempts to eliminate humour from this site in recent times require a radical shift in response. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh - that means "Other days, other ways", Bricks. You'll learn that when you go to school, but I thought I'd give you a head start. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You do know I'm French, right? That I'm a native speaker?  I may have dropped out of high school in the States but I was born in Toulouse and was raised speaking French by my parents, and I spoke French to my family in France when I'd spend the summer there (every summer).  I read French classical literature (nothing particularly high brow- Tartarin de Tarascon and La guerre des boutons as examples), I watched French television shows, read French comic books, and listened to French music.  I'll admit my grammar and spelling leave something to desire, but I've recently found out how to enable the French language spellcheck for Yahoo! email: I can now send emails to my uncle without making him cringe.  So don't fucking go pedant to me when it comes to the language I was born with, mkay?--  23:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you meant "to be desired", not "to desire". –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (EC) Oh dear, this whole "relentless attempts to eliminate humour" spiel is starting to sound like evidence of a bit of a persecution complex. I dislike Maratrean as much as the next user, but abusing him hasn't been "funny." Ace's exact justification for promotion was "what needs to be done," it wasn't anything humorous at all. Like I said, I'm down with joke blocks and joke vandalism, I'm not arguing for their prohibition - but Ace has made it clear that he isn't trying to be funny, he is being completely serious. 23:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What fucking stupid shit is this? At least I am open with my behaviour, I don't deny nor regret a fucking thing. Then you have douche bags like Brx who have consistently and quietly broken all sorts of RW standards, as documented by Nutty, and no one does a fucking thing. Jesus man, the guy even tried to imitate Nutty as an IP and only got caught out because he used his home IP and had it blocked - meaning he had to sneak back in and get UHM to unblock him, hoping no one would notice. You think I am the problem. Please, you fucks are going after the wrong person. Aceace 23:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sneaky? How the hell do you know if that was sneaky? You didn't get his email. There was no part in in there "Hey, comrade could you unblock me? One of my attempts at being a smart ass backfired.". Brx was open about it, and he knew looking back it wasn't a good idea. -- 00:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Go look at my cooping for the "imitation" scandal (though you likely already know of the discussion, and are just dropping a deadweight turd of an argument to distract us). As for all the rest, may I remind you that I am no longer a sysop?  That my talk page is filled with complaints about my rights abuses?  Of course you know that too.  You were just trying to deflect.  Why don't you do the wiki a favor and desysop yourself, and swear off vandalism?  If I were you, I'd take things a step further and swear off trolling and flaming.  But then you wouldn't get to feel all cool as you make fun of other users...--  23:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I was just trying to deflect? Fucking idiot. When have I ever tried to deflect? How could I possibly deflect attention away from myself. Fuck you man, I am open and honest about my behaviour. So fuck you. You do the fucking wiki a favour and fuck off. Aceace 23:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Deflect away...-- 23:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

- no idea what indentation this needs any more. Blue, the Maratrean thing is only part of it. We've had the De-CP campaign and the Kill Funspace campaign, and it seems every time anybody tries to inject any element of humour into any discussion they get cooped. Right now, it's difficult to see what RW is supposed to be about. For accurate science stuff I go to WP. For humour I go to CP. Where's the site that used to act as a bridge? People like you are killing it. That's what. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * But why must humor involve being assholes to each other, especially when it seems the only way to be funny for you is to make fun of users like Maratrean, who are unfailingly cordial in their interactions with the community, and entirely harmless both online and IRL? And please admit that the Funspace articles being excised are not fun for the space they take. That is why they are being deleted.--  23:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you mean "who is", not "who are", and "his" rather than "their", given Maratwat's stated gender. See? I'm being helpful. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * He was an example, "are" and "their" was to refer to others like him. And don't deflect.--  23:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm deflecting by trying to help you learn a self-confessed non-native language? Would I be deflecting if I were to suggest you fuck off and never edit this site again, you useless, time-wasting shit-stain on the underpant of life? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * How dare these stupid non-natives not learn our language until complete perfection and only then they may be allowed to edit our good English-speaking websites. They are annoing, aren't they? -- 00:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. Yes, that would definitely count as deflecting.  I would suggest that you instead address what I have to say.--  23:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and say something to which it's worth responding. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, this whole "relentless attempts to eliminate humour" spiel is starting to sound like evidence of a bit of a persecution complex... I submit that it is actually bullshit, as SuspectedReplicant has said that his actions against Maratrean are not attempts at humor, but trolling. 00:02, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The Brx stuff is a simple bit of tu quoque, and the humor thing is kind of offset by the tedious and obvious bullying. We don't want to lay down ridiculous iron laws against any specific thing here, but this stopped being fun in any way a long time ago for anyone but the bullies.-- 01:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Bullying IS an enormous amount of fun though. Didn't you guys learn anything from High School? When you are bullying other people it makes you feel less small. Tielec01 (talk) 02:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As someone who has done their fair share of bullying, I must say it does fill that hole inside where self-esteem and a sense of acceptance are supposed to go. Then again, beating my neighbors to a bloody pulp because I overheard them loudly arguing about sex AGAIN might feel pretty good, but I'm pretty sure that'd be wrong.  Right?--  02:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

So is somebody going to do something about this?-- 02:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No. Also it does fill that hole inside where self-esteem and a sense of acceptance are supposed to go. Dude, my sense of self-esteem needs no coddling. Aceace 02:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's what they always claim, yet they always strive to prove to themselves and others that they're the big boys...-- 02:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Who is "they"? Aceace 02:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Bullies. Duh.--  02:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And what is the relevance? Aceace 02:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't look like anything is going to be done about this. The other mods do not seem interested, and I can't force them to be.-- 04:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok. Can I desysop and ban everyone I don't like then? -- Nx  / talk 05:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Because it seems that a user coming to this page and specifically requesting intervention is not sufficient to get mods interested, I'd say that you probably could. At some point, we'll discover what it takes for the mods to utilize their vicious and over-active authority.  Maybe once SuspectedReplicant is actually holding Brx down and kicking sand into his face.-- 05:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you're suggesting there AD. Bricks might be a pointless little tit but I haven't had any interaction with him in months. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 09:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Right. But first I'll try contacting the three mods who have not responded here on their talk pages. -- Nx  / talk 07:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been following this bickering but haven't had the time to get involved with belaboured discussions. I think that certain editors are acting like complete dicks, persistent vandalism of other users' pages is harassment not fun and I would support some sort of sanction. However, I recognise that some mods may think differently. My own view is that promotion /demotion rights for sysops is the wrong way to go. I'd have no qualms with sysops being able to 'approve' new accounts but when they have the right to change the status of their peers then that is exactly the situation that has caused so much grief and HCM. In our early days we only had a few 'crats and it wasn't an issue but then cratship became like some reward for longevity and too many people had the right to promote/demote. I would have liked the power to be solely vested with mods and only effected with a simple majority of mod votes other than temporary changes for disruptive behaviour while a discussion is held. In this way removal of sysop rights becomes a collective moderator responsibility rather than one individual's whim. It shouldn't be too hard to have a fast track for new editors to be proposed for sysop and mods to give a yea/nay/wait. It is not right for any editor to try and drive off any other no matter how much we dislike their views. RW was set up to be inclusive rather than exclusive and that means putting up with bores and trolls no matter how irritating. There was a discussion in the SB recently about democracy and its shortcomings, and how it would be much better if all the idiots weren't somehow included. Well our mob polling system is rather like that. My aim would be for a representative democracy where we elect mods and then give them the powers to keep the peace as a group. If you don't like what they are doing then they can be voted out. Currently we have five elected mods, if three can agree on some sort of sanction then lets do it. 07:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've suggested a method to Trent which would allow mods to revoke sysop rights from a sysop by adding them into a new group. Then it wouldn't matter if the user was a sysop or not, since the other group would revoke those rights even if they were a sysop. The only problem is that the sysop who is put into this group would still be able to promote and demote sysops. -- Nx  / talk 08:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to jump the gun here and call giving sysops promotion/demotion rights a failure. Give it just to the mods, as it used to be just for bureaucrats, with the understanding they are to use it very liberally in "demotion" (as we call it), and should in general do so when requested to by any sysop. That way basically everyone still gets to be a sysop, but removal of rights is not so easily undone. I agree with Genghis quite a bit on this one, and the mods working together as a group to handle such disputes is exactly how I would like to see resolutions handled. Extending their authority into a representative democracy would need wider support from the community, but their current vaguely phrased functions can give them some latitude in interpreting policy, which is already unclear in some respects. DickTurpis (talk) 13:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not as if mods aren't watching this page. I just don't see anything that it would be appropriate to moderate right now. What is Nx running around for? If I obsessively refreshed recent changes I might know I guess. But I don't. I would have to rely on spotting something on my own or having something actionable brought here. What situation is anyone presenting for which a mod could provide a remedy right now? Show me and if I agree I'll moderate the shit out of it. If you're wrong I'll start a sticky section on the other side of this page for all the little boys who cried wolf and tried to goad a mod into helping them further some other agenda than taking quick action to preserve order. I'll respond to AD's oblique reference to a conversation we had a few days ago in more detail later. Suffice it to say he's a fixer. I am not. I have no interest in indulging the pathology of people who come here to whine about stuff that is beyond the purview of mods and then complain about our inaction. We are not your leaders. We're not special consultants. I renew my invitation to anyone who disagrees with my take on our role to discuss it with me on sow other page. As I said, bring something actionable to this page or bring nothing. Long term stuff belongs elsewhere, as it's a matter for the community, not mods. 15:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Moderators have the authority to intervene in the short term to stop edit warring and disputes of this nature. Certainly at this point that ship has sailed, but when the issue was brought here it seems it was still an ongoing issue that could use moderator action. I'm concerned not with this particular case this time, but how things like this are handled in general. What happens a few hours from now when Ace starts up all over again, for example. The mods clearly have a role to play in these disputes, but little seems to happen. True, long term solutions are left to the community in the coop, but there's really no process for how things are handled there. With a few exceptions in which specific matters are brought to a vote, the whole place is a bitchfest that quickly loses focus. No one seems to want to actually work towards an actionable resolution there, and any disinterested parties are overwhelmed by the partisans. Likewise, any action to be taken beyond the short term fixes of the mods would require a vote, presumably, so we can be looking at a week and a half of debate and voting for potentially a 48 hour block. And that assumes any old sysop doesn't come along with an unblock and demotion half and hour later. We have a dearth of workable fixes here, and people seem to be exploiting that. DickTurpis (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * but how things like this are handled in general On a case by case basis as problems arise, consistent with the job description. If you're asking for long term fixes, take it up with the community. If you want mods to do something different than the job description says, take it up with Trent. He created our role by fiat and only he has the authority to modify it.
 * What happens a few hours from now when Ace starts up all over again, for example. Any sysop or mod can remove his rights for a few hours or a day and bring a coop if he or she wants anything more than that.
 * The mods clearly have a role to play in these disputes Yep. And you'll see mods intervene when (a) they catch a situation that requires it in progress and (b) think it makes more sense as a matter of prudence to intervene than not intervene.
 * but little seems to happen Apparently not to your satisfaction, but for this kind of statement to be anything more than general bitching you'll need to identify enough specific instances of moderators being aware of but not taking action to intervene in a situation that you believe required it to draw the broad conclusion you made. From having nearly the same discussion with you before, I'm pretty sure you don't understand the moderator's role as I do. Maybe I'm reading it through the eyes of a lawyer. I invite you or anyone else to discuss the job description with me on another page.
 * True, long term solutions are left to the community in the coop, but there's really no process for how things are handled there. That's got nothing to do with mods. I think both of us have been advocating better process for a number of things for months and months and months. I've given up. People seem more interested in drama and blood.
 * No one seems to want to actually work towards an actionable resolution there, and any disinterested parties are overwhelmed by the partisans. I don't understand this sentence. Perhaps an explanation and specific examples of what you're talking about would help. As a general proposition, it's not the moderators' concern that the community isn't doing it's job in coming up with real processes for dealing with these problems. As to "no one"? Bullshit. I'm interested in working toward "actionable resolution" where it's within my ambit and doing so makes sense. You've got to explain yourself here.
 * Likewise, any action to be taken beyond the short term fixes of the mods would require a vote, presumably, so we can be looking at a week and a half of debate and voting for potentially a 48 hour block. Yep. And that's not the moderators' problem either, to the extent it's even a problem. People more concerned with fairness than you may be would be thankful that we're not pulling the trigger and asking questions later. Due process is what process is due. It implies there's more to it than getting frustrated that the trial's going to take a week so you drag the defendant out back and string him up yourself. This community shamefully fucked up the "Trial of Human" and to date has done nothing to fix the problems there. They've thrown a few of them at the moderators' feet, like requiring us to set the lengths and terms of votes, but they've literally done nothing else. Mod's aren't the source of your complaint.
 * And that assumes any old sysop doesn't come along with an unblock and demotion half and hour later. That might require a moderator's intervention, but I already addressed that above and in the section below.
 * We have a dearth of workable fixes here, and people seem to be exploiting that. Who is and what would you propose a moderator do about it when, as I suspect you're talking about Ace, you all have been wasting precious time here, when there's no situation that requires moderator attention that I can see (even AD, who dearly loves his moderator badge and pretending moderators are your leaders, can't spot anything either, yet he's bitching about how unfair it is that he's the only one doing ... what? Throwing up his hands in exasperation at ... what?) page instead of opening a coop and putting it to the community?

16:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's unfair I'm the only one visibly paying attention to concerns brought here, is all. As I told you, I just want someone else to be willing to address issues brought here, even if that address is just telling someone that their problem isn't a mod issue.-- 21:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying these are all moderator issues, but they are issues nevertheless. I'm addressing them here because this is where the discussion happens to be. You say I'm not concerned about fairness, but is it fair that a couple editors can get away with harrassing another editor and wandalising his user and talk pages with impunity because no one can be bothered to do anything? Yeah, I suppose I'm guilty as well, but helping boot-strap certain policies or procedures that we struggle with is the mandate of the mods, and there are certainly numerous procedures we struggle with. It appears that the mods are saying issues like this are for the community to decide, but the community is looking for someone take point in setting up a resolution process. If it's to come down to a vote in the coop, deciding what should be voted on is speficially a moderator function. As for what happens when (hopefully "if", but I'm not going to be terribly optimistic) Ace does this again, you say any sysop has the authority to remove his rights, and yet any sysop has the authority to reverse that. So two opposite and contradictory actions are both the correct ones? How is that a solution? The only reason the recent demotion/promotion of Ace didn't create HCM is because Nx didn't press the issue, as he easily could have, and many others would have. Then it comes down to whoever digs their heels in the furthest, which is never a great way to settle disputes. Sure, the mods can get involved then, but how are they to decide who's in the right when both parties apparently were acting properly? So, yeah, a major problem is that the community is supposed to deal with a lot of this crap, which means going to the coop, and the coop, without any procedure, is basically just a bitchfest which solves nothing most of the time. We seem to be in agreement that we could use a better process for a number of things, but it's likely more than any one person can handle. The mods are part of the community, and, while it is not their job alone to take care of this, they do have a mandate to help with these procedures we struggle with, and should be at least as active as anyone else in trying to sort things out. DickTurpis (talk) 18:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Sysopship removed
I have removed Ace's sysopship after his latest 3 month block of Brxbrx. Before the inevitable accusations of server access abuse start coming in, I did this as a sysop, as sysops can desysop other sysops. -- Nx  / talk 07:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Naughty. Don't do it again. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 08:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Goddammit I knew it wouldn't take long for the new promotion/demotion rights to become an issue. Yeah, giving just about everyone the right to make someone a sysop was not a bad one, as we try to keep the "it's no big deal" theory going strong, which is good, but with the power to give comes the power to take away, and there's the rub. Do we have any policy for removal of rights by any old sysop? Because this seems an open invitation to HCM all over again. If a mod does it as part of moderation, it seems it shouldn't be subject to haphazard reversal, but how is this enforced, and when is it clear that it is being done as part of moderation? Anything Nx does as a lowly sysop can be undone by any other sysop, and that is no solution to anything. How are issues like this dealt with? DickTurpis (talk) 02:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * ISN'T THIS WHY WE HAVE MODERATORS????????? -- Nx  / talk 05:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 05:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. But are they the only ones allowed to remove rights? If so why does everyone else have that ability? And what's to prevent any old sysop from undoing such an action by a mod? And why is it the only ones who seem to have taken action in this case non-moderators? DickTurpis (talk) 13:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * No it is not. If Ace's rights are not already back I'm returning them. Nx is not the judge, jury, and executioner. Our guidelines explicitly state that longer term remedies like complete disbarment are up to the community, not any one mod or sysop. Go start a coop. That's your remedy. If Ace does whatever he did again undo it and remove his bit for an hour. But justifying an indefinite disbarment solely to prevent some feared future harm requires a greater burden than Nx even bothered to try to make. His exasperation is not enough. 15:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I restored them yesterday. This whole thing baffles me - is Nx claiming he's a moderator? He, as a sysop, removed Ace's rights. I, as a sysop, restored them. There doesn't seem to be a problem here. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no problem here in the sense that as much as Nx has the power to remove rights you have the power to restore them. While it is not a problem, it is far from a solution. I guess the question is does Nx, or any sysop, have the authority to remove the rights of another editor? They clearly have the ability to do so, but that's not exactly the same thing. I'm not sure if this was ever decided, but until it is we have an open invitation to HCM. DickTurpis (talk) 16:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure they have the authority. And it's part of their job to do that in good faith. If it turns into a wheel war, which it hasn't in a LONG time (so I don't know where your HCM reference is coming from), a mod should step in to quickly put an end to it. SR exercised his authority appropriately. Nx did too I guess, since I assume good faith and we don't know what his intentions were since SR undid it hours later. The best course would have been for him to document it more than "I have removed Ace's sysopship after his latest 3 month block of Brxbrx." So that's my only suggestion about how this could have gone down differently but I don't see it needing a mod if any sysop was authorized to and did stop the problem with a short removal of rights. 16:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ace is blocking someone who cannot unblock themselves for 3 months. Had this been done by Brxbrx, you'd be the first in line to desysop and permaban him. -- Nx  / talk 16:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You're dead wrong. Go look at the facts before you impugn my motives by invoking my friendship with Ace and my contempt for Brxbrx, which is due only to his months long vendetta and persistent practice of popping up to defame and troll me whenever he can. The record reflects I've never approached issues like this with anything but the utmost respect for fairness and propriety. (I'll leave out my concerns about whether it's even appropriate for me to take any action against Ace (or something like Brxbrx) precisely because it might be viewed by authoritarian douchenozzles like you to automatically be unfair.) I went to Brxbrx's talk page to address his inappropriate blocks several times over the course of months, as did something like 7 or 9 other people. It was only after he made 19 (I think?) inappropriate blocks did I spend an hour and a half writing a charging document to bring it to the coop. I didn't remove his sysop rights but I guess I was the first in line to desysop him to the extent I was the first among 8 or 10 people who asked him to stop fucking around to bring it to the coop. Let me ask you a very important question - you're sure complaining a lot about nearly every aspect of this situation on the ATIM moderator page, where there is literally nothing any moderator can do to help you get your concern addressed. If you actually care about this and aren't just venting your spleen, why haven't you brought this to the coop? 17:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, but suddenly we're getting another Nx diktat that there must be a new group to stop sysops undoing a removal performed by a moderator. This wasn't the case here and I don't see the need for it. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 16:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That was a suggestion. It's up to Trent to implement it. -- Nx  / talk 16:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Instead of taking it to the community, you take it straight to Trent. You're a petty little dictator. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 16:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No. Trent can take it to the community if he wants to. Actually, that's in the job description of the system administrator position I've been offered: any new extensions or significant software changes require approval by Trent. Not the community. He can ask the community if he wants to. That's none of my business. -- Nx  / talk 16:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, so I should have called you a petty little jobsworth. My apologies. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 16:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And since you didn't do either with your latest extension, why the fuck should we trust you anyway? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 16:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Which one? Abusefilter? That was installed a year ago, I think. Or maybe a year and a half ago. -- Nx  / talk 16:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh I see - you're going to hide behind the letter of the law and ignore the spirit. If you think that introducing a new protection regime without consulting anybody is fine, you're dead wrong. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 16:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What about the spirit of the community standards? -- Nx  / talk 19:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There's an ongoing discussion about whether or not those standards have been breached, but your actions are beyond doubt. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 20:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Point of order
I don't think I have continued to vandalise Maratreans page. At least, not for week anyway. I don't plan to either. Aceace 04:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And yet you've been unapologetic, and you have developed a history of vandalizing other user pages, mine and Nx's included.-- 04:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I ain't apologising for shit - you are just upset because I didn't give a reach around that time I fucked you with an emperor penguin. Aceace 04:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Brxbrx bald face concern trolling about someone else being unapologetic again? And about someone else "vandalizing" his userpage? Yawn. What a banal theme, little boy. 05:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "I don't want to be held accountable for my dickish behavior so therefore you are a concern troll"

- Nutty Roux Allow me to translate your double speak-- 05:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Like I've said before and you've tried to deflect and dissemble away: you are perhaps the least sincere editor we've got. 05:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, I'm so insincere what with my contributing to the wiki, adding new articles. Not like you, with your spartan mainspace edits.  You and Ed Poor are giants of genius generosity.--  07:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Uh, you're trolling again. The insincerity I was referring to stems from you being a dishonest person, and you've given another good example of it, not from the merit or lack of merit of your mainspace edits. If you're really going to make a crack like that you should actually investigate what you're talking about. Seriously. Go look at my writing and compare it to yours. Anyone else here can do the same and see that you're an insecure prick. 07:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Might I suggest that you two knock it off with the ad hominems? 20:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ace, nobody can vandalize it now that it is protected by the abuse filter. 04:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't know because I haven't tried. Aceace 04:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a fair point of order. I guess by "this stuff" I meant general misuse of powers, rather than that specific thing.  I'll add a note, though.  Thanks!-- 04:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

A new point of order. Ace has just vandalized my signature. It wasn't even clever. If he wanted to be clever, he'd have made the picture really big so that every talk page I ever posted on with this sig would be covered in butts. I demand a harder punishment for such unimaginative vandalism. Ace, you really should try ED. You'll learn a lot.-- 07:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Wandalism. Boring. Stop wasting everyone's time. steriletalk 02:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, so it's okay?-- 02:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's readily revertable, shit head troll, and would be ignored with much less drama in a slow revert. steriletalk 02:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's malicious, it's a pain in the ass, and it's against the rules. Now go skullfuck a kitten.  I'm sure a new one will come along, eventually.--  02:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Revertable by two clicks ≠ pain in the ass. steriletalk 03:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, just to be clear here, is anything that can easily be undone (ie just about anything on a wiki) not considered a big deal, and therefore inactionable? So vandals, spammers, racist commenters, etc. are no longer subject to anything other than reversal of their edits? Just want to know where we stand. DickTurpis (talk) 03:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with DickTurpis's point, but I also think Brxbrx is making a mountain out of a molehill. To further the analogy with vandalism, we do not generally block vandals unless they make more than one edit we need to revert. 03:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm tempted to think that everyone who has some hardline position on all this bullshit is just making everything worse. Maybe all the kids on both sides of the issue can fuck off for a bit and let the adults handle it? Or maybe I'm just drunk and annoyed at how all this shit has consumed the wiki recently. Is it too much to ask for people not to be dicks? DickTurpis (talk) 03:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, we are dealing here with a very long-running conflict among the more serious editors. One group thinks the Wiki should be more goofy and free-wheeling and is loath to ban the troublemakers; the other thinks the Wiki should be more serious, with rules, and the troublemakers ridden out on a rail. 03:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (Actually, even that is an oversimplification. There are more than two groups. steriletalk 03:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC))
 * Of course it is a simplification, but most of the disputes I have seen have been between the Chill-the-fuck-outers and the Radicals. To which other groups are you referring? 03:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * One could potentially imagine a large number of groups with different objectives and methodologies. Frankly I think you are creating a false dichotomy.--BobSpring is sprung! 13:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Please suppress this
http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=RationalWiki&diff=872851&oldid=837326&unhide=1 -- Nx  / talk 19:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. -  π    silverbrain.png 01:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for tech
I'm one of the few users who would edit .js and .css files that sysops aren't allowed to, like common, vector and some other users'. I believe these abilities would help me develop some things on my to do list as well. And with Nx gone, we need another tech besides Tmtoulouse.

I understand that the tech usergroup is purely a nuts and bolts thing, not to be used like the moderator bit. I feel I have the experience to take it on, and to help users who need techie-related assistance. I'm not being power-hungry here - it's clear that the tech group is authorized at the moderators' discretion, and is only to be used in limited circumstances, never for community management. 02:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I apparently have the magic powers to do that. -  π    silverbrain.png 02:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Pi - I'm not promising to be proactive, as a matter of fact I think Nx ran into so much trouble because he was too proactive. 02:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That is true, you wouldn't want to actually do anything on this site. -  π    silverbrain.png 02:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm too deep in this shit, though. 02:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Can I be a ninja, pl0xx?-- 02:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, but given that you have been involved in disputes as of recent one naughty bot edit and you lose it, mkay? -  π    silverbrain.png 02:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * WooHoo! Thanks, dude.--  02:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

move
Please move this to "Moderate all the things". Occasionaluse (talk) 13:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Moderate....all the things? ‎Capital punishment doesn't undermine the moral or legal foundations of a society. ‎It is the moral and legal foundation of society. 03:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Um
Poor Dalek botted himself before the purge and appears to be stuck as a bot. Can someone help him out? Green dot.svg 01:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * ::( DALEKS ARE NOT BOTS. 01:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Done.-- 02:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Why'd you de-ninja him though? -- Nx  / talk 03:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems like an accident, I just gave it back to him. 03:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ya, accident. Sorry!-- 03:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Procedure for votes on voting standards
In order for the impending set of votes on voting standards to be as legitimate and binding as possible, the procedure should be signed off on by multiple mods and we should allow some time for community input (three days) ?

The plan that I propose is this: Eligible voters are users in the "eligible" usergroup, i.e. accounts that can vote for moderators and Board members; these criteria amount to 75 total edits and a registration date 3 months prior. The vote will last two weeks, and there will be a sitewide intercom throughout. An option must achieve an absolute majority to pass; any votes in which no option has achieved an absolute majority will go to a runoff between the top two vote-getting options, lasting one week. 19:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good except three days might be too short. Give it a week. -- Nx  / talk 19:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, one week is fine. 19:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Think this is an intercom-worthy issue? Or would that just annoy people? 23:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I sent out an intercom to General Site News. 03:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me.-- 03:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The proposed voting standards are not ready for a community vote. Doesn't "look good" to me. Let's talk.
 * I don't think Blue really means absolute majority. Absolute majority voting is for a legislative body that has a known and fixed membership. It's literally impossible under the circumstances. Who is the membership? All eligible voters? The result will necessarily be no winner since most eligible voters check RW either infrequently or never, requiring a runoff of ... which options? How to count the runoff? Absolute majority again? No. The first past the post? No. Simple majority/plurality voting is inappropriate for a vote of this significance.
 * If Blue means majority, that too may result in no winner in a 3+ choice vote.
 * If Blue means simple majority, I already commented.
 * I suggest:
 * 50 edits/2 months: Franchise choices are necessarily even more arbitrary than these others. I suggest 50 edits/2 months because I want to see the greatest number of people who may be potentially affected by this most basic policy change able to participate.
 * 7-14days: because this is importantish.
 * Instant runoff: guarantees a first round winner if one receives a majority and if none does, permits a legitimate vote without the need for a runoff. We're not voting for senators. I think I've explained elsewhere why I don't approve of unnecessary votes.
 * I also suggest that Trent be available to police sockpuppet voting, which I guess the consensus is should not be permitted.
 * Anyway, I've also got some brief input on the substance of the proposal. UHM's are largely incoherent, and I don't say that because he should be ignored and ridiculed except when he's funny on Talk WIGO CP, which is pretty often. Blue's are pretty good but suffer from some of the same problems I noted here. I assume I'm looking in the right place for what people will actually be voting on. If not, please correct me. If you have questions email me. 15:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * When I said "absolute majority" I apparently meant "majority," I apologize for my own confusion. In my plan, if no one option receives a majority of votes cast, the top two options go to a runoff.
 * I could live with 2 months/50 edits. I only suggested 3/75 because it's the easiest to look up if you don't use popups.
 * Keep in mind that we will have about six separate votes, each with more than two options; using IRV for all of them would be extremely difficult. Trent could write an extension, but I don't think we need to ask him to do that, not for this one instance.
 * You can find a draft of the votes here, at the bottom of the page. That would be where to comment on the "substance." 21:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * How do you suggest Trent police sockpuppet votes? Checkuser? It's not as simple as that. Tor, proxies, or just simply resetting your modem to get a new IP makes things a lot more complicated. Do we want to make specific rules on who he can checkuser and when, or should we leave it up to his discretion? -- Nx  / talk 20:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have many accounts, many IPs and free time. No voting procedure can contain me. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * IMO the franchise (at least for this vote) should be all sysops. This is to make it as open as possible to all but the newest users & known troublemakers.  If there are reasons why someone shouldn't be able to vote, then most likely they shouldn't be a sysop either.  If somebody wants to vote & isn't currently a sysop, they can ask to become one (if they meet the basic criteria).
 * Proposals should pass by majority (not absolute or simple). In the case of no majority, runoff voting should follow, but there should be some latitude for further discussion/proposals/compromises at this point.  (E.g. On the franchise issue, if roughly equals number of users vote for "100 edits and 3 months" and "50 edits and 2 months", it might be wise to offer a compromise such as 100 edits & 2 months, or break it down into separate votes on the edit count & registration date criteria).
 * Obvious sock votes get discounted. Beyond that, no policing necessary.  Sock voting is always going to be possible but I don't believe it happens substantially at RW.  21:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If I'm not mistaken, we should be discussing the proposal here. -- Nx  / talk 21:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This section is for discussion of the procedure for the votes. The forum is for the substance of the actual votes. 21:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with 2 and 100 or 2 and 75 or whatever's relatively close. You all get my point about making the vote more than less open. Sysops only is a bit of a stretch because there are going to be people who have lurked forever and only briefly edited but who may wish to vote. Etc. There were a few newer editors last time that I don't think are sysops who I'd like to see able to vote if they'd like. Blue, Majority with a runoff is essentially the same as IRV. I'm up to my ears in telephone calls with bigger dicks than me and drafting something that's due tomorrow so I'm not thinking all that critically so help me out - why would IRV be more trouble than a separate runoff, which as a practical matter is likely going to be necessary? It's not STV. Just eliminate the option with the least number of votes and re-tally. Votes would be in the form of # 1, 3, 2 ~ . Why is that not so easy? 21:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. For some reason I couldn't see how users could record their votes if we used IRV, but that makes a lot of sense. It would take longer to count but we would easily recoup the time in time saved by avoiding a separate runoff. 22:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Re: policing sockpuppets. I can match the server logs for my site to people doing things like filling out webforms or downloading resources. I would assume it's as trivially easy to match the timestamp of an edit to the server log entry to find an IP and then cross reference. Is it not that easy? I see several editors having fun using 4+ sockpuppets fairly regularly. If I see them voting I'd like to be able to ask someone to look into it. There's no point in investigating a Tor not or proxy unless you see someone using the same in rapid succession with their regular account. 22:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not even necessary. The wiki records IPs in the recent changes table, which goes back 90 days I think and a couple thousand edits. That's not the problem. If someone actually wanted to abuse sockpuppets to vote, they'd probably use Tor and proxies. -- Nx  / talk 22:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

New proposal
After a couple days of discussion, I have a slightly different plan to propose, one that hopefully allays most of the concerns expressed above. 06:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The franchise will be 3 months/75 edits (the same as RWF Board of Trustees and moderator elections)
 * The votes will last 14 days
 * Each vote with more than two options will use Instant Runoff Voting
 * In the case of ballot exhaustion or an exact tie, that vote will go to a 7-day runoff between the top two options
 * A sitewide intercom will be put up throughout the voting period(s)
 * 14 days is very long, can momentum for a vote be kept going that long? -  π    silverbrain.png 04:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, like the current talk page vote (also 14 days), we should try to maximize the amount of people that have a chance to vote. 04:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * With the intercom, we don't need momentum, I think. It's probably actually a good thing... I think that the talk page vote is a good example of the best sort of vote, with active discussion and fair representation, but also with sufficient length that we can be as fair as possible.  Plus, paradoxically, if the momentum fades, it helps lower the profile of such things somewhat even as more people get to vote - which is all to the good.-- 05:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The vote options seem complicated but fair. Sounds good to me.-- 05:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, how are we going to record the votes? Will everyone post their list of options in order of preference? That will become a mess very quickly. Or am I missing something? -- Nx  / talk 05:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I assume she has some sort of way in mind to run this. All the fancy styles of IRV and whatnot are just confusing to me, so I did the simpler way (run-off between top two), but I'm also notoriously dumb at this sort of thing.-- 05:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be like this:
 * [Statement]
 * [Option A]
 * [Option B]
 * [Option C]
 * B, C, A signature timestamp
 * A, B signature timestamp
 * It's complicated but fair. 06:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So everyone would make a list of their preferences, in order of that preference?-- 06:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. It's a wiki approximation of a preferential voting ballot. 06:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Nutty and Nx are better at this sort of assessment than I - I'll be interested to hear their views.-- 09:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am? Anyway, that sounds good, as long as people actually understand how they're supposed to vote. -- Nx  / talk 16:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Instant run-off or transferable voting is fine for things like electing moderators, but I don't think it's very well suited for choosing different policies. When two or more options have almost equal votes, one is calculated to have a narrow overall majority, without further action. Isn't that kind of close call (like the MC-banning vote) that started this controversy? If multiple options are getting similar numbers of votes, I think it's better to revisit the options & look for compromises than just to keep working the figures till there's a winner. 18:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Preferential voting gives us a legitimate way of determining a majority without needing a separate runoff. I don't think we need to have a whole other vote to decide whether the franchise will be 75 or 100 edits; the options tend to be similar enough. That, and I don't think it's realistic to set a two-thirds majority threshold or anything higher than 50%. 18:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Skimming through this now, I can't tell if this is our standard voting practice (sigs under preferred choice) or more along the lines of our mod elections (secret ballot). I prefer the former, for what it's worth. DickTurpis (talk) 00:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with it with the clarification that if one option receives a majority it wins; if none, then drop the option that's least favored and re-tally. Tweaking margins is fine too, but this is getting way too meta and, were it not for what I viewed as sort of weird flaws in Blue's original proposal, I probably wouldn't have commented. My only aim in suggesting IRV was to avoid yet another vote. Weaseloid really hit the nail on the head in describing the outcome of the MC kangaroo court but I don't agree with his concern when it comes to merely deciding a workable procedure for voting on voting. Dick, I'm with you and I don't think anyone else envisions things being done any differently. Doing so would require Trent to write an extension. And he doesn't want to. 01:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * @Dick - It would be an entirely public ballot, not a secret ballot. That said, it's a public IRV ballot, so it wouldn't be a signature directly underneath one's preferred choice.
 * @Nutty - Yes, all of that is true, though I believe a 50% margin is good enough. 02:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I would furthermore request that as part of the official results we see a rundown on how they were determined, much like we saw with the first (but not second) moderator elections. IRV confuses some people, and even those of us who understand it aren't necessarily inclined to go through the somewhat complicated process of translating hundreds of numbers into discernible results. This should be part of all IRV elections, really (and probably would have quickly settled the minor controversy over the last vote). DickTurpis (talk) 04:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Good idea. 04:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Speak now
Or hold your peace when the vote begins. Here's an official draft of the procedure; it incorporates Nutty Roux's suggestion for instant-runoff voting and concern about the term "absolute majority," Weaseloid's suggestion that options be reevaluated before a runoff, and DickTurpis' concern about secret versus public ballots. If anyone has concerns that this procedure will result in an illegitimate outcome, please say.


 * Accounts which are eligible to vote must have
 * at least 75 total edits, and
 * a registration date at least three months prior to the conclusion of these votes
 * All votes will last fourteen (14) days
 * An intercom to the group sitewide-urgent will stay up for the duration of the votes
 * Votes with more than two options will use instant-runoff voting (also known as preferential voting, ranked-choice voting and the alternative vote)
 * In this system, if, after all the first choices of all ballots are counted, no one option has achieved a majority, the option with the fewest votes is eliminated and a new round of counting takes place. Each ballot with a first choice for the eliminated option is then counted as a vote for its next-highest-ranked option. This process continues until the winning option receives a majority of the vote against the remaining options.
 * If, after all ballots are exhausted, no option has achieved a majority, the two options with the most first-choice votes will go to a seven-day runoff with the same eligibility and intercom requirements. At that time, the options may be reevaluated, and one or both may be replaced with a compromise option which is felt may receive a greater number of votes.
 * Options are presented in a numbered list. When voting, rank your choices from most preferred to least preferred and add your ballot like this:
 * 2, 1, 3, 4 Blue (talk) 03:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You are not required to include all the available options in your ranked-choice ballot.
 * At the conclusion of the votes, the round-by-round calculations will be posted alongside the official results.
 * In votes with only two options, the option with more votes passes. For these votes, signing under your preferred option constitutes a vote for that option.

There she is. 03:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not use to the second round of IRV still being majority but this will save us the trouble and what I view as a subtle disenfranchisement of conducting another vote. I don't really care. Whatever's practical. 14 days actually does seem a little long but if everyone's cool I can't complain - it makes the vote more rather than less accessible and we're not in any hurry. 04:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Maratrean
He's gone completely overboard this time with his trolling - accusing RW of being pro-suicide (and insinuating that we encourage others to take their own lives), using MC's tactic of "why isn't Rationalwiki rational". His behaviour has been tolerated for are too long on this wiki and it's about time the mods actually did something. -- PsyGremlin  11:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe he's just frustrated that people are ridiculing his not at all unreasonable suggestion to make telling people to kill themselves against the rules-- 11:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And just where - outside of that little fuckhead's mind - did somebody actually say that. Or are you just standing up for a fellow troll? -- PsyGremlin  12:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you even bother to read the RW:CS talk page? 12:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Say what, exactly? I don't understand what you're asking.  People (you included) have definitely mocked his proposal--  12:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That is really disingenuous of you. You know very well what has been happening.  But I can deliver: --  14:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, this one:-- 14:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

This is being discussed at the Coop (probably the better place for it). Should this be closed so as to keep everything in one place? DickTurpis (talk) 15:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Psygremlin
Out of process demotion, repeated deletion of my essays. Maybe mods should do something about that? 11:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And blocking me for 3 months, justified with the absolutely laughable claim that I am a sock of MC? And reverting a good faith edit to his talk page? 12:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * MAra, nobody gives a fucking damn.--Mikalosa (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Rights
Since there was no vote because Nx knew he'd lose the vote anyway and there was some half-baked reasoning and flippant remarks from myself regarding losing my rights for a month or so about a month ago I think it's about time I got them back. Aceace 20:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. B♭maj7 (talk) "And when they ask me who is the president of Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan I’m going to say, you know, I don’t know. Do you know?" 20:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Only mods can. Aceace 20:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Fuck the mods. Your "sysop" box is already checked, fwiw. B♭maj7 (talk) "And when they ask me who is the president of Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan I’m going to say, you know, I don’t know. Do you know?" 20:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am in the sysop revoke group so only mods can do so. Aceace 20:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Fuck the mods. Fuck 'em in the ass. B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 20:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll fuck you in the ass. BTW, jazz is not America's greatest art from. Jazz is fucking rubbish. Aceace 20:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Jazz is not fucking rubbish. only someone who has been Fucked in the ass would think so, which by logic suggests you are a mod.  Oh, it's all so confusing. [[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]Godot   The Peyote God awaits 21:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, jazz is fucking rubbish. It's only acceptable when integrated into other musical genres. 21:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I will remove Ace from the sysoprevoke group. 20:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Cheers. Aceace 20:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm curious where the discussion was that led to that bit being added. I remember it. I just can't remember where it was. BTW, I was talking to someone who only rarely checks in - her observation was that all this shit is going on but nobody knows where to find it, me included. I've sometimes resorted to going through my own contributions to find something. I'd like to add a link to the community box on the side that goes to a page link to what official nonsense is happening where. What do people think? 21:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I still don't have my rights back. Aceace 21:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Nutty, it seems to me that the only way to ever know what's going on "backstage" is to either stumble upon it, be devoted to reading the gossip, or seeing teh 1000 per second posts that flash when it's a hot topic. None of which seems a really good way for a "mob" or mod to run. [[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]Godot   The Peyote God awaits 21:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I tried something like that out here. It can be difficult to keep up to date. 21:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * (EC) Fixed. Judging from the log, Whatever it was went down on Sept. 20th. Tytalk 21:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Sysoprevoke" seems to have been a development agreed between Nx & TMT (here) and activated without anyone else being informed. It would be nice if in future the community could be notified, or better yet consulted, about such things.  22:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I thought you all knew about this. steriletalk 23:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Basically a whole lot of shit was done and I didn't protest.... Aceace 23:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Fuck the mods. B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 23:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Democracy on this site is whatever Nx and Trent agree it to be. Votes don't matter.  23:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * SuspectedReplicant, welcome back.-- 23:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Fuck the mods. 01:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)