Forum:Should RobS get his Sysopship back?

< Index | Site-related discussion

Given that the recent stream of insults being flung by Rob at Ace and vice versa are ostensibly about Rob's promotion by Ace, I propose that this page should be used to marshall the arguments in favour and opposed to it.

Space reserved for RobS to present his case

These accusations made by User:AceMcWicked are pure bullshit. Nowhere did I ever "threaten" anybody, and/or "cause trouble." All my actions were in complete accordance for users in dispute per wp:WP:DR.

The dispute never even proceeded to formal WP:Mediation, and a cordial understanding has been achieved between the disputing parties. AceMcWicked payed no attention to these facts whatsoever when he pursued a punitive and retaliatory action against me simply for following Wikipedia's proscribed dispute resolution procedures.

How are legitimate disputes on a wiki to be handled, if aggrieved parties feel intimated and subject to retribution simply for speaking up? nobs^{don't bother me} 01:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

For the record....

I don't think I ever stated you "threatened" anyone though if you can prove this with a diff-link I apologize but I am sure I didn't Sorry, I accused you of threatening behavior on your talkpage. Secondly, it wasn't even me that took your rights away. I only maintained the status quo after the fact. Aceⁱ⁹ 01:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

De-sysoping me after Goonie re-sysoped was punitive and retaliatory nobs^{don't bother me} 01:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC).

No, it wasn't. Aceⁱ⁹ 01:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Facts are, I was de-sysoped for suggesting some form of mediation between users in dispute. I was told here to take the dispute to Wikipedia. At Wikipedia, the disputing parties came to an understainding over pursuing the dispute any further in an open forum, my block was lifted and I was resysoped, That was a return to the status quo. nobs^{don't bother me} 01:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Ace's promotion merely reimposed the decision of the Mob that was unilaterally overturned by another Bureaucrat. Aceⁱ⁹ 01:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

So the Loya-Jirga abdicated its responsibility and mob rule was restored. At least we have an established a precedent now. nobs^{don't bother me} 01:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

No because nothing has been presented to the Loya Jirga so far. Something needs to be raised with them in order for it to act. Aceⁱ⁹ 01:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

You agreed to the process of presenting a "test case" in the Forum section. [1] Where is the record of that? You even had to ask if the Loya-Jirga had been retired because no one knew where it was to present a case to. [2] So your actions are indeed a ratification of the reinstitution of mob rule. nobs^{don't bother me} 02:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Your cites are irrelevant. Nothing has been put to the LJ. Aceⁱ⁹ 02:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

There was no damn Loya Jirga to present a case to. So your claims are complete bullshit. nobs^{don't bother me} 02:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

What exactly have I claimed Rob? Aceⁱ⁹ 02:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

That something needs to be raised with the Loya Jirga in order to get me blocked and/or de-sysopped--and you supported that position in the above diff. How have your actions not been punitive? Further, you displayed prejudice when User:Kels mischaracterized the dispute ("Standard Rob practice then") when in fact three disputing parties were in agreement to delete and redirect WP's Rationalwiki entry. nobs^{don't bother me} 02:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Point to where I stated the LJ had to be called in order to get me blocked and/or de-sysopped. Aceⁱ⁹ 02:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

You were not mischaracterized, Rob. You were characterized quite accurately, which is why you shouldn't be trusted with anything more complicated than a roll of toilet paper. --Kels (talk) 02:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Kels stated (with prejudice), "Rob threatening people and having a hard-on for keeping discussions off WP and getting the RW article over there deleted rather than kept or made a redirect" [3]

This is a complete falsehood. Three users in dispute all voted to REDIRECT the RW entry to CP; and later the disputing editors likewise have all kept discussions off WP. nobs^{don't bother me} 03:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Further more Rob, if your case is that the LJ should have been called before you were desysoped then your argument is with the person that originally desysoped you, not me. Aceⁱ⁹ 02:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) A site big wheel posts:

* I suggest we use RobS' insanity as a "test case", to experiment with process.

Here is what I propose. We use the forum for "cases". Each case becomes a new subforum. Whoever opens a case should 1. be directly affected by whatever they are complaining about and 2. use the "email this user" feature to inform each of The Seven of the new case 3. make sure they present their complaint clearly with good difflinks to evidences.

You guys want to give it a try? [redacted]...

The minimum requirement for any LJ member would be to pop in and say they're too busy and to carry on without them. [redacted]

Works for me... Acei9 23:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC) [4]

This is as far as any case against me got, and the rest was punitive action which was undone by the site owners and Goonie, and reinstated by you. nobs^{don't bother me} 02:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

See your talkpage Rob. Aceⁱ⁹ 02:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Point, set, match

• "That's fucking rich coming from a proven liar. Go back to jerking off over Kara's yellow dress, you lying swine. I'd walk all over you in a debate. Aceⁱ⁹ 01:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC) [5]
• I am not going to debate you anything further Rob. ... Acei9 02:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC) [6]

The vaunted RW Bureaucrat KO'd by a lowly CP sysop. nobs^{don't bother me} 03:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Watching Rob lie and distort history so recent it's a memory is so much fun! Pass the popcorn... ħuman 05:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Other comments

As I understand it, Ace's promotion merely reimposed the decision of the Mob that was unilaterally overturned by another Beaurocrat. There is, therefore, little merit in the vitriole being shown towards Ace as he was clearly doing his job to enforce this decision. --Damo^Hi 03:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

see here for the debate between between RobS and I. Personally I see no reason for Rob to have it back given yhis willingness to cause trouble when it suits him, his lies and the fact that not being a sysop in know way impinges his ability to edit on or participate in RW. Aceⁱ⁹ 03:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

There's a difference between having a forgiving attitude and having a remarkably short memory. A FEW WEEKS AGO RobS was trying to drag RW business over to WP and get members of our community banned at that website even though it has nothing to do with us. And now someone wants to give him the keys to this place? What the hell is wrong with us that we can't stand up to a troll and abully? P-Foster (talk) 03:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the difference is that there's no evidence Rob has ever abused his sysop powers - though if that's not the case, I'd love to hear the story. All things being well, I see no reason why he shouldn't have them back. We may disagree (with prejudice), but if he's a well behaved member of our sad little cabal, let him in, I say. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 03:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Has Rob ever used his sysop powers? Why should he (or we) care if he ever gets them back? I don't agree with legitimizing him in any way, same as TK, so my vote (should we have one) will be with leaving him as *gasp* a normal user. --Kels (talk) 04:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Trying to get Trent banned from WP =/= "a well behaved member," IMHO. P-Foster (talk) 03:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Meh, I don't care. Who re-sysopped him and what was the "reason"? ħuman 04:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Sysop him, desysop him, resysop him, whatever. It doesn't make a difference as to what happens on this website. What might, though, is if we would stop taking his bait every single frickin' time he dangles it. Burndall (talk) 04:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

But he's funny! ħuman 05:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't make a case for RobS being a sysop beyond "everyone else is one". On the other hand he has been an annoying shit in the recent past, although to his credit, he has toned that down. A very, very, very weak support for re-sysop. - π 05:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

If he is permabanned at CP for being a member of a vandal site, then he can have his sysopship back. -- Nx / talk 09:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

heh, what Nx said. Aceⁱ⁹ 09:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Hear hear. EddyP (talk) 09:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

What Nx said. CP have a lot of undercover/parodist sysops, it would be fair that we give Sysopship back to kNobs (and TK!!!) Alain (talk) 17:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

More Ace bullshit

Ace McWicked has repeatedly maintained the fiction on this page and elsewhere that his actions were merely "reinstating the decision of the mob," however Ace's own words condemn this paltry fig leaf for deceptive motivation and intent it really is. When Ace questioned Goonie about the return to the status quo, Ace posted:

• "I aint gonna undo it though - just wondering if it were necessary." Acei9 05:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC) [emphasis added] [7]

So, we see Ace clearly misled the community about his actions, and why he started this Forum discussion thread which, in my estimation, was for no other reason than heap more scorn and abuse upon an active user unjustly with no history of vandalism or misusing his sysop privileges. His actions indeed were petty, and motivated by selfish and vindictive purposes. nobs^{don't bother me} 20:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

As the guy who originally de-sysopped and later tried to re-sysop Rob Smith......

I did so because he had ceased trolling RationalWiki with Wikipedia crap, as was my original reason for de-sysopping him in the first place. However, after Ace went to my talkpage and made his case as to why he over-ruled my decision, I agreed that leaving him as just an editor was a good idea. Ace's original reasoning for overturning my initial decision being that, even though Rob hasn't broken the Wiki, he has proven that he is not "mostly harmless" through his and TK's trolling of the Wiki here and by wreaking havoc on RationalWikians at Wikipedia. After this case was made, I concurred and am now opposed to re-sysopping Rob Smith. It's no big deal if he remains with regular edit rights (not like his editing is restricted), but he has done things here and elsewhere that are, in my opinion, conduct unbecoming a sysop. Punky ^{Your mental puke relief} 05:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. He's too erratic. I've no strong objection to him being demoted, but I can't think of any good reason to do it. As Al Murray would say, bloody time waster. ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 05:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I just don't see the point when it has no effect on his editing plus, just like TK, he is getting all aggresive about not being a sysop. Aceⁱ⁹ 05:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

That's all fair enough I suppose. But re. his alleged WP shenanigans, I thought we made a point of not penalizing someone for activities off-wiki? DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 05:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thats fair enough but he himself dragged RW business off wiki. Aceⁱ⁹ 05:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Not trying to be all Justice Scalia of the Supreme Court on this, but has anyone got any WP diffs on this? DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 05:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh god a month of them. Look at the archives of their talk:CP page. This wasn't "off wiki" activities, it was specifically aimed at us. ħuman 05:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

So then, the question - why would we sysop someone who specifically harrased RW members? He failed and now its "Oh well, I failed so lets be friends again!". Follow my thinking? Aceⁱ⁹ 05:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

DP, I think the bulk of his fun is over at the talk page for the CP article at Wikipedia. ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 05:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Good Christ, I'm such a non-WP person. What's BLP? OR? RS? Jesus that was all so arcane it was like spending ten minutes with a neurosurgeon on poppers. I think all of this is all above my usual (low) level of interest in these administrative affairs. And since I am very happy to have once been a CP vandal, and consider it one of my proudest though most puerile achievements, the entire complex debate over there re. vandal sites and attributions and Lipson and LA Times etc all seems like a storm in the very tiny teacup we all acknowledge CP to be, I will bow out of this debate. "Let him eat cake!", I say, while hurling cake at him. And eggs. Sorry to stick my nose in business I shouldn't be involved in. I will now return to providing you all with more pictures of potholes and snark. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 05:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Lets reserve judgment until we hear what Rob has to say

The main reason I set up the forum was to give Rob an opportunity to present his case for resysoping without all the hysteria and namecalling that we saw earlier today. To that end I wonder if we should refrain from making any comments, particularly ones against Rob until we hear his point of view. There may very well be a compelling case not to restore the privilege but lets at least wait and see. --Damo^Hi 08:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably something about Stalin and how Obama eating lunch means he's at fault for [insert bad thing here], if experience is anything to go by. --Kels (talk) 15:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

What Ace Reckons....

Considering I am, originally, at the heart of starting this thread I'll make a comment. Firstly, not being a sysop does not stop Rob from being a part of this community nor expressing any opinion here. He conflates me with TK for my action (whatever it was - I am not sure) but we know that is bullshit because Rob has not been stopped from partaking in RW in the slightest. Secondly, the fact that he is geting all up in arms and agressive over the fact he doesnt have a sysopship raises some red flags as TK acted in the exact same fashion which brings me to RobS behaviour with TK on WP. He went out of his way to bring RW/CP issues, in concert with TK, onto WP. Yes we do not consider past behaviour on other sites here (Which is why he can edit here in the first place) but he brought RW/CP issues to an offsite forum. Also, he tried his best to get RW members in hot water somewhere else but failed. So now it's "Oh well, I failed so lets just go back to normal". What if he didn't? Would we still be accepting of Rob here if he had, with TK, succeeded? He still did it and obviously doesn't give a fuck for anyone here. So he doesnt deserve to be a sysop here, nor does it matter that he is not. Aceⁱ⁹ 10:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I am going to answer point by point to all the above bullshit as time allows, w/diffs. Most importantly, Ace cannot fathom that RobSmith & TK are two different individuals, and the fact that Ace draws on the mobs hatred of TK to impugn RobSmith is something the Rationalkwiki community should consider before handing out any more bureaucratorships to such an unqualified and prejudiced user. nobs^{don't bother me} 04:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I concur 100%. Just because 'everyone else is' doesn't automatically mean he should be a sysop. It makes fuck-all difference to his ability to troll/edit here, but may just remind him that we do not consider him "mostly harmless". DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 14:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Rob is literally an ideological enemy of the site who lately has not only not shied away from joining the likes of TK in publicly smearing RW as a "vandal site" and all of the nonsense that went with that, but has gone out of his way to engage in what I view as a highly personal campaign of smearing a few old RW editors in order to advance his agenda at WP. And then he brought the inane discussion here, of all places. When asked to stop he really didn't. While we might not consider people's conduct elsewhere when it comes to deciding whether they can edit her, there is no such rule relating to sysopship. Given Rob's public statements about RW and RW editors and his alignment with people who have openly threatened both certain editors and the continued existence of the site, I would not support him being sysoped anytime soon. Nutty Roux (talk) 14:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Every single criticism of Mr Smith seems to be justified. Unfortunately if we look at our rulz here and here I can't see the justification for his promotion while sticking to those rules. I think we had a similar sort of debate about TK and perhaps Markus. The solution is to put something in the rulz which explicitly covers such extreme cases. It's all well and good having liberal statements about how we deal with these things, but if we then ignore them when things get difficult we need to re-visit the statements.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 15:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

"Any user who is not a vandal or troll..." Well, that was easy. --Kels (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I thought of that too. But is he really a troll? If so, as you say, it's easy. But that doesn't seem to be the main accusation.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Harassment seems to be the main problem and that may or may not be trolling. We may need to clarify things a bit, since it seems odd that we block for vandalism, but not for harassment. At least that's if we go strictly by how those guidelines are written. Realistically though who on earth could have predicted this? Perhaps we should keep it reasonably general - adding harassment to the list, and keeping the existing set-up in which promotions require some kind of consent (before or after the event). --ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 17:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You're seriously asking if RobS is really a troll? Is that what you're running with? --Kels (talk) 18:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

To be honest I hardly ever read anything he writes so I don't know. But the debate above is all about WP, CP, RW and their interactions. But if he's a troll then we should make that case and vandal bin him.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

RobS was blocked over his attacking of RW editors - specifically as RW editors - on Wikipedia. At that time he was desysopped. Goonie just recently resysopped him with little or no discussion. Ace reverted the situation to where it was before. Am I correct? Now for an interesting point. While our criteria for sysoprics are very easy to meet, I think it can be argued that no crat is required to sysop any given editor. As low as the bar is, no editor, likewise, can demand to be a sysop. Especially one who engaged in virtually open warfare against RW and some of its editors in the public square. ħuman 01:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Rob should not get his sysop rights back. Especially since he's crossed a few lines in his recent trolling that I, at least, am not willing to accept. He can be entertaining, but he'll always be a troll and hostile to the editors of this site. --Kels (talk) 02:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea on whats happening most of the time . That said , do his actions on another wiki merit action against him here ? The bar for sysop here doesnt seem very high , but if RobS is not "mostly harmless" then no sysopship seems to make him easier to handle. What must stop is all this tempest in a teapot stuff unless its particularly entertaining of course. I find it hard to tell when you lot are serious or just playing around . Hamster (talk) 03:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

victim of commie frameup

He harassed and threatened editors here, and he tried to bring WP stuff here, because his behavior would've earned him a block at WP (he was blocked in 2006 for similar behavior). -- Nx / talk 03:55, 3 June 2010 (UTCtgretity

This is horsecrap and a baseless effort to smear my integrity. I was indeed the victim of a communist frameup at Wikipedia coupled with gross abuses of process and conflicts of interest. An editor I was in Mediation with circumvented the Mediation process at Wikien-1 to solicit another user to nominate a Category for Deletion - a subject under Mediation. [8] The Mediating party received support for this underhanded and backdoor effort to circumvent WP:Dispute Resolution policy from the wp::Arbcom Chairman. [9] Both editors were admitted members of the notorious cp:Communist front organization, the National Lawyers Guild. [10] When the issue was Arbitated, the Arbcom Chairman & the complaining party admitted to a relationship [11] dating back to the time Michelle Obama's bridesmaid, cp:Bernardine Dohrn, was NLG Student Coordinator and on the run from the FBI for various terrorist activities. And facts are, for all their conspiratorial efforts, the Category they tried to delete still remains in WP, 5 years after these disgusting and subversive machinations to censor and oppress the cause of freedom, democracy, free speech, and human rights. nobs^{don't bother me} 00:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

That's hilarious, although I think you overdid it slightly with the last sentence. -- Nx / talk 01:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, hurrah for a sublime effort, Rob, whatever it meant. I love how you were able to work Michelle's bridesmaid into the fabric. It made it seem so much more real. ħuman 01:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

How can you smear something that doesn't exist? --Kels (talk) 01:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hamster, So true. WP has dispute resolution procedures in place. RW attempted to do the same. I was de-sysoped here for proposing WP:DR among several users. Ace McWickwed, a RW Bureaucrat and LJ member (RW's version of Arbcom) agreed Tthe LJ should be the vehicle for handling RW disputes, then deferred to the "decision of the Mob" to de-sysop me. The LJ was instituted as a reform measure to end rule by the mob. Ace McWicked stands by a the rule of the mob now and re-instituted punitive action after the site owners rescinded their decision. such is the state of RW. nobs^{don't bother me} 03:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

As I recall, LJ is for occasionally overriding the mob when actually necessary. I don't think anyone is suggesting giving you sysopship (not that it matters even slightly), no less the LJ or "site owners", but Ace has already suggested you take it up with them anyway. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 04:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

"I was de-sysoped here for proposing WP:DR among several users" FALSE

"The LJ was instituted as a reform measure to end rule by the mob." FALSE the mob still rules, the LJ is for emergencies

"Ace McWicked ... re-instituted punitive action after the site owners rescinded their decision." FALSE. Trent unblocked you, but did not give you your sysopship back. Also appeal to authority won't get you anywhere, Trent is an editor here just like everyone else. -- Nx / talk 04:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

trying to confuse a poor Hamster definately means no sysop for you. Hamster (talk) 04:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Stop this harassment, please

He doesn't want his sysopship back, he's just trolling. -- Nx / talk 19:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Nx: . Šţěŗĭļė carriage 03:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, got carried away. I agree and apologise for clogging the shit out of RC. Aceⁱ⁹ 03:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I said it over on his page, there's no real complaint or issue here, just trolling. I'm on board with sending him to Coventry. --Kels (talk) 03:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggesting pagemove

to: "Forum:Should RobS get his sanity back?" ħuman 01:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hell no (I mean his sanity, not the page move), he's too much fun without it. -- Nx / talk 01:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't that imply he had some to start with? Šţěŗĭļė carriage 20:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)