RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 8 December 2018. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>

, (new)(back)

All sysops

They keep taking my name in vain and are all a complete bunch of cunts to boot. I demand their immediate defenestration! --Helena Bonham Carter 19:54, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

Tell me about it. Bunch of pussies. --God 20:04, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

Personal Attack

Sysops DocSock and Kels have personally attacked me and someone vandalized my castle then an administrator modified the database with yet another wiki glitch so we can't find out who. I demand sanctions! --UL 20:14, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

I think we should give you sysopship so you can help us clean house! 24.141.169.255 20:25, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

Human abuses and intimidates users by changing their pages

Well, someone has to start this! Am I blocked yet? human^{be in} 23:57, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

Heart of Gold.

I have been blocked for one minute by Heart of gold for calling him a troll. This is abuse of his sysop powers because:

• He is a troll

• He has used his sysop powers in an attempt to personally protect himself in an edit battle in which he was personally involved Tower of Babel.

Consequently I request that he be stripped of these powers--Bob_M (talk) 13:58, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

I will add to the above his open admissions of bigotry and racism at Talk:Transsexual. Is this what we want representing RW as a Sysop? --Kels 14:01, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

HG subsequently lied about his block by claiming it was for POV pushing. He subsequently acknowledged this on my talk page and added it retrospectively. The "POV" was that the Tower of Babel was a myth. This man should not by a sysop.--Bob_M (talk) 14:31, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

HG has just moved an article to essay without consultation, and was blocked for 3 minutes in response. This is a clear abuse of powers, and as Bob said, he should not be a sysop. For that matter, I argued against his demotion in the first place, I am not a bit happy about being vindicated in that position. --Kels 14:35, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

I was also uneasy about his return to powers, but as I had had a few confrontations with him I did not feel that I could comment fairly. But this is different. Blocks like this may the norm in CP but we have a different concept. On occasions, I have myself felt that comments have been uncalled for but I have either ignored them or spoken to people privately. The use of sysop powers by sysops to punish people who (seem to) lack these powers is an abuse.--Bob_M (talk) 14:45, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

Being a relatively new 'editor' I do not expect my word to carry as much weight as those above. Since I have been here it has been noticeable that Heart of Gold has been the major confrontational voice. While there is nothing wrong with confrontation pe se, he has taken his attitude to the extreme. He was, rightly in my view, called a troll and immediately used his sysop powers to attack the perpetrator. Is it possible that he is attempting to disrupt RW by sowing dissension? Is it not 'innocent discourse? Is he a cp mole? It's a pity because he seems like a nice guy. Keep^{off the grass} 15:07, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding" - "My Racist Friend", They Might Be Giants --Kels 15:13, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

Get a rope. RubyWalleye 15:07, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

Why the alternate account, troll? --Kels 15:12, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

OK, let's settle this nicely, in a WP style way.

A dossier on HoG (oh noes, now we are like CP!)

The purpose of this is to settle this dispute without too much flaming - hopefully as little as possible. I (wikinterpreter) have intentionally stayed out of the various disputes. Note - this is only HoG's actions against others, and a fairly cursory selection at that, so feel free to add more. If he wants to file counter-abuse reports, he is more than welcome.

Who is being complained about

• User:HeartOfGold
• User:RubyWalleye - a confirmed sock

What did he do?

• Accusation that User:Kels was a) on drugs, and b) had some sort of mental condition. He did, however, apologise, so this is mitigated
• Accuses Trashbat and Kels of only wanting 'to bash Christianity.
• Accuses Mountain Tiger of being a drug seller.
• Accuses Bob M of trolling.
• Accuses Bob M of trolling (again).
• Blocked Bob M twice, for disagreeing.
• Accuses someone (although, to be honest he doesn't quite make it clear - whether it's homosexual people, or someone here) of having a 'medically psychological condition'.
• Page move vandalism to discredit points of an article, when its author specifically stated that it was a work in progress
• Openly admits to racism, but since it hasn't manifested itself here, there's nothing we can do against it, sad though it is
• Refusal to explain blocks

If you believe that something has been missed out, please above sign your name above, with the permalink.

Grounds for complaint Unfortunately, bar TK, HoG is the first user to be prosecuted in the Star Chamber reviewed on the Administrative abuse section. This means that we've got no policies on trolling/suchlike.

Still, there are some relevant passages here -

What is a Rationalwiki article?. See 'RationalWiki is not neutral point of view', Community Standards -

'This is a mobocracy. The only way to describe how things are done around here is with the tautology that things are done around here the way they are done around here. We are ultimately an expression of the active editors on this project. What is written about, how it is discussed, parsed and organized is a reflection of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies.'

'Personal "attacks", however justified, are strongly frowned upon.'

'Personal information about other users that is not volunteered by that user should not be posted on this site.' (this would include accusations such as the mental disorders and the drugs, I would argue)

Please feel free to add, debate, discuss, but please, no trolling/flaming, or I will cry. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

Based on the discussion on this page and linked from this page, from Talk:Transsexual and Talk:Tower of Babel, I have promoted HoG to normal user. As with all such unilateral actions, it can be overridden if the community consensus is that it should be, and a promotion for me may be appropriate as well. --jtl^talk 16:34, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

Weird, I totally missed his apology in the edit summary there, although it's a bit hollow given that he accused me of having a psychiatric disorder on his talk page earlier today. --Kels 16:36, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

I don't really have strong feelings regarding HG's sysop powers one way or another but strangely enough find it useful to have a detractor from the RW viewpoint about the place as it makes me think (insofar as I ever think when posting) about what I post when debating. If giving HG sysop status is a requisite to him staying around, then I'm broadly in favour of him having it as a means to an end. If he's happy to stay and provide a counterpoint without sysopness (unlike TK), then I see no reason to return them. Although as a member of the elite non-sysop class, I clearly recognise our superiority...XD _Hexspecimen^{It's an X} 16:40, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

Heart has strong views that can rankle and left to his own devices his articles and essays almost seem like they are designed to elicit response.

Like an itinerant street preacher bellowing "The Word of God" into passers-by face's, any retort is taken as "persecution" and he rebukes the evil he sees.

I do not, for one, have a problem with this.

It may be a little early to be circling the wagons, just yet. We knew his "style" when he got here. He's intelligent and able to defend his views with a lucidity that most so-called "trolls" fail to possess.

What concerns me more than his...rankling, though, is this...(oh, let's call it) desire to maintain "orthodoxy" or even mainstreamedness. RW welcomed all POV, so we said back in the Good ol' days, but we didn't mean that, did we? Otherwise we'd see Heart's diatribes and pontifications as just another whacky RWer with a POV to push.

"Oh let him stay as an editor with no power over other users, (it was a 'mistake' that he got that power in the first place)."

I do not agree. I have seen him come under attack, almost relentlessly, from many sides for articles and essays that, at best, were so fringe that someone without a bone to pick would have passed by without a second thought. As with the street preacher analogy above, he (very well could) feel that it is him (and his God) against the heathen and is willing to do whatever it takes to survive.

CЯacke® 18:52, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

If that preacher were to set up his stall outside your window and continue all day, every day, then I'm willing to bet that some reaction - not of the "come in and have a cup of tea" variety - would ensue. You'd probably call the cops. That's what happened here. Keep^{off the grass} 19:41, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

I don't believe your analogy holds. You have to: turn on your computer (wake up), fire up your browser (go out of the front door), click on RW (walk downtown), put your ears within shouting range (go to "his" corner), and listen to the rants (actually read the tripe). CЯacke® 19:49, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

This is a fascinating conversation...I like that we are actually discussing it. I respect the opinions of all of the folks who have commented so far. Rob is right, HoG is always intelligent, and usually very coherent. I also agree with the streetside preacher analogy. Tough one here. We did agree to allow all views. It really does fall on us to ignore people we feel are distracting us from real work. But we can't seem to resist, can we....hmmm..User:PalMD

A couple of brief points, Cracker (and I'm glad the chorus here is at least a bit out of tune). One is that HG went to articles that people were working on, altered or challenged them, and when discussion ensued, escalated it to edit wars and insults. IOW, he walked into their workshops, they didn't walk up to his soapbox. I also have to say that analysis or argument by analogy is dangerous, as analogies or metaphors only work to some limited point (look how badly Ashfly does with his vandals/furniture arguments). Two, HG was desysoped for one simple thing: blocking a user (twice?) in an edit war. If it was indeed twice, the second time was after I warned him that it wasn't very nice, and he replied "so block me". In other words, abusing the powerz cost him them. Other than that promotion to regular editor (our highest salaried position on RW), he has not been blocked or in any other way disenfranchised on RW. human^{be in} 20:05, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

I well agree he's acerbic...my main point was he's on the defensive all the time, sometimes "the best defense is a good offense" gets on mine own nerves too but to take away his admin rights because he "abused" them (two one minute blocks!! PFFT!) high skewl stuff.

Then again he does seem to swagger around a bit with that chip on his shoulder, "I double-dog dares ya to disagree with me!", attitude gets old quickly. Maybe he's just here at the behest of TeeKay to keep the wandism down over to Hell House, I dunno. CЯacke® 23:09, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

I seem to recall a link to some guy's website about how he's studied "social software" and the way it's implemented and found that that EVERY "community" came to this juncture sooner or later...the "orthodoxy" thing.CЯacke®

Unfortunately I've put "Recentchanges" as my home page so (although he's making a liar of me now) I usually get him as soon as I log on. Trouble is: I think that if he wasn't so whacky I'd probably like him, but he seems to go all out to make enemies. I really do think that he might be a CP mole charged with sowing dissension (as witness above). Could carry on but I'm waffling - 2:10 am (yawn) Keep^{off the grass} 20:10, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

Honestly Cracker, I don't think it's so much a case of orthodoxy as community standards and civil discourse. Every community has to have some sort of boundaries of what it'll accept in terms of how people respect each other, and the examples above point to a rather blatant breaking of those rules. It's less about his ideas and more about his way of interacting, a good deal of which I believe to be deliberate. --Kels 20:18, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

In my humble opinion HG has become increasingly hostile and confrontational in the past fortnight, almost to the point of being overly so. Locke ^Random 20:32, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

HeartOfGold

So, this is my idea...take it or leave it. There seems to be mixed sentiment re our politics, mission, hypocracy, etc. HG, when not doing some BS-detecting, likes to incite with his odd brand of politics that was both too right and too left for CP. He likes writing essays...we won't run out of bytes. He does not share the ideas of this website, as much as he might think he does, however, everyone here controls their own fingers on their keyboards.

If the community dislikes HG's rants, and he avoids blatant insults, edit wars, etc, just ignore him. Engage him when you wish, ignore him if you feel he's a troll (I think he sometimes is). I think, given our diverse nature, we should all avoid bigotry, which would include saying you don't want your kids around Asians, TGs, fish, what-the-fuck-ever (pedophiles of course, we all agree are scum). I ask HG please try not to slide into what the rest of us consider bigotry.

Now, HG knows that this is not exactly a religious site. AKjeldsen is probably the most knowledgeable here about things Biblical, and I actually share many of his views (if I understand him properly...he no speakee the english gut). I think its Bob (sorry if I'm wrong) who represents the more atheistic end of things. Either way, there is plenty of room for articles about religion, and they should not degenerate into trash...which doesn't mean they can't be critical. It would be nice if the criticism were intelligent.

Given that religion will be criticized here (including my own), unless someone gets out of hand with "mine is better than yours and your going to hell", well, keep a thick skin. I'd recommend that HG keep his anti-anti-religion stuff to his essays and talk pages, and people can either feed the troll or save a goat. My considerably-more-than 2 cents.--PalMD^-Goatspeed! 21:18, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

I'd have to say that I do tend to agree that the don't-feed-the-(unnamed)-troll policy is the best… and I would also suggest tolerance, even verging on, perhaps, excess. My $0.001. --Linus^{(plot evil tech)} 21:25, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

There should be a link to essays about the subject in the see also section or perhaps a essay box kind of like {{Cp}} so the essay contibutors like HG can feel that there responses will be viewd. This might keep the amount of continual responses to responses to responses in an article down. - Icewedge 21:29, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

Hmmm...i wonder who has the skillz to do such a thing?--PalMD^-Goatspeed! 21:32, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

I think "See Also" works fine for that. And an essay writer would usually know an article exists to link from. And, in addition, we should respect the inclusionof such links, no matter what we think or feel about the essay(s) in question. human^{be in} 22:06, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

I don't know that I'd consider HG to be an abusive user per se, but he definitely suffers from a streak of conservative dogmatism that doesn't really fit in, here or in any peer-collaborative environment. I don't think there's anything we can or should do about it at this point, but I don't think contributing here is going to make him happy, as he's already got himself on auite a few people's bad sides. EVDebs 22:00, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

Maybe this is what dealing with Howard Rourke would be like? (Hint Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead.) CЯacke®

Naw, that's me ;) human^{be in} 22:09, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

Anyone know of any "Jesus wikis" he might like and that we could sugest too him? - Icewedge 22:03, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

I was under the understanding a while back that he was planning to found a wiki of some sort. Did anything ever come of that? --Kels 22:04, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

Last I heard he had dropped the idea. Hmmm, RationalLibertarianChristianWiki? human^{be in} 22:09, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

The name also irks: it sounds so self saisfied.

btw :there's no-one more atheist than me. (Richard Dawkins was just on BBC world sevice - he took a phone call from a guy in wisconsin. Try to catch it - it'll be repeated, everything is repeated on there.) Keep^{off the grass} 22:07, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

I talked to god about that, Susan, and she says I'm more atheist than thou! human^{be in} 22:10, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

Baal says I'm more atheist, but I still enjoy intelligent conversation about religion.--PalMD^-Goatspeed! 22:14, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

Highschool comment

What makes you think this is any different than high school? These are the exact same people as in highschool. They just use computers now, fancy words, a little bit more make up--ain't no different. Heart♥Gold^{Preach to somebody not in the choir} 23:48, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

Drove up a newcomer in a covered wagon: 'What kind of folks live around here?' 'Well, stranger, what kind of folks was there in the country you come from?' 'Well, they was mostly a lowdown, lying, thieving gossiping, backbiting kind lot of people.' 'Well, I guess, stranger, that's about the kind of folks you'll find around here.' And the dusty gray stranger had just about blended into the dusty gray cottonwoods in a clump on the horizon when another newcomer drove up: 'What kind of folks live around here?' 'Well, stranger, what kind of folks was there in the country you come from?' 'Well, they was mostly a decent, hardworking, lawabiding, friendly lot of people.' 'Well, I guess, stranger, that's about the kind of folks you'll find around here.'"

—Carl Sandburg, The People, Yes

Stolen via Dpbsmith's user page at CP.

Wherever you go, there you are. human^{be in} 23:51, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

Actually, I just stole this line from you-tube (Cube-girl). My highschool days were a blast. My junior high days, at Carl Sandburg Junior High, were not. Heart♥Gold^{Preach to somebody not in the choir} 23:55, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

I vaguely recall highschool: still, it was the best eight years of my life!CЯacke® 23:58, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, well, I think it is time for me to graduate. Have fun swarming. Heart♥Gold^{Preach to somebody not in the choir} 00:41, 1 August 2007 (CDT)

And perhaps one day, you'll look back in your yearbook and realize you weren't the geek harassed by the popular kids like you thought, but the bully who liked pushing people into lockers until they had to complain to the teachers. Good fortune. --Kels 07:10, 1 August 2007 (CDT)

Keep it up Kels - eventually someone will shed a tear for you. Here's your hit list of intolerance - TK, HeartofGold. Notice the trend?

I'm intolerant of confirmed assholes, trolls, bigots and jerks. Pretty proud of that, actually. --Kels 13:11, 1 August 2007 (CDT)

Kels does seems oblivious that edit histories reveal that it was kels who was stalking, feigning female emotions, and otherwise using manipulative arts, to get her way, as anybody who has taken the time to see can figuire out:[1], [2], [3], [4], This one is civil--not. Way to go Kels. If you find a glamour shots photograph, you might actually get away with flirting, too. RubyWalleye 12:14, 1 August 2007 (CDT)

I would like to say that this is a proxy of HoG, but since he/she has used a different IP each time, that's fairly unlikely. Whois gives me this -

'Bell Canada BELLNEXXIA-11 (NET-69-156-0-0-1)

                                 69.156.0.0 - 69.159.255.255

Sympatico HSE SYTG033004-CA (NET-69-158-104-0-1)

                                 69.158.104.0 - 69.158.107.255'

Does that mean anything to anyone?

Who are you, anonymous (yeah, I know you are legion, and you never forgive, et al.)?--מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

69.158.113.68 26/07/07 see [ http://www.rationalwiki.com/index.php?title=Oscar_Wilde&diff=prev&oldid=34010] any connection? Keep^{right on ...} 08:36, 1 August 2007 (CDT)

Same owner, it would seem. The fact that someone (I'm prepared to venture that it was the same person - do we have multiple people working for Bell Canada?) edited here before suggests that it's someone here. Bring on the Inquisition! -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

Interesting. It seems our Anonymous now-identified Coward up there is insinuating something, but being a coward can't just come out and say it. Come on, Coward! If you've got something to say, share it with the class! --Kels 12:56, 1 August 2007 (CDT)

Heart - I can say with 95% certainty (and that is all that science needs) it's you Helios just hit you with the checkuser, so it is - what do we have to do to stop this trolling and sniping? If I write some articles on Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Sikh, and Buddhist fundamentalism, will you either go away/leave our contributors alone? What do you want? Spell it out in a list, with bullet points please. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

Don't forget Norse, Roman, and Greek mythology, and Confucianism. We need a new category if it doesn't exist, for "myths". human^{be in} 15:59, 1 August 2007 (CDT)

Mythos, as well. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

PalMD

He has blocked TK thrice for no reason. TmtamesP 20:10, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Good for him. I can feel my headache lifting even as I type. human 20:54, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

I think he probably had a reason, it just may have not been expressed publicly.  Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 03:26, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

I was of the understanding from his block comment that it was trolling and wikilawyering. Although maybe not worded so clearly. I agree on those grounds. --Kels 06:47, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

User:85 25 151 22

Reverting edits on my user page against community standards. Viagra Ration 03:23, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm not an administrator. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^Chaos! 03:24, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

I am & I'm establishing a new community standard: Persons under the age of 8 years must have certified parental permission before editing on RationalWiki. That means that all your edits can be reverted.   ^Contribs_Talk 03:42, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

Proxima Centauri

• 18:08, 10/12: Rose Pedals created.
• 18:09, 10/12: Rose Pedals adds a joke to the Darwin article.
• 18:15, 10/12: Proxima Centauri reverts and blocks.
• 18:29, 10/12: Bob M moves Rose Pedals to vandal.
• 19:26, 10/12: The second Rose Pedals created, using an ASCII trick, adds weirdness to Bob M's talk page.
• 19:33, 10/12: Proxima Centauri reblocks for a year.

There have been other discussions, and Proxima Centauri has made various statements, such as this one, where she says that, in a nutshell, the year block was for creating the duplicate (and for turning up in a vandal attack). However, the duplicate was obviously created to evade an unfair block, and putting more thought into it there are further reasons why Rose Pedals was almost certainly not a sock of Fall down, as she continues claiming:

1. Fall down always signs his name as "Fall down", but Rose Pedals signed as "Rose Pedals".
2. If Fall down knew how to evade blocks with the aforementioned trick, why didn't he?
3. Fall down himself said that Rose Pedals wasn't his sock.

It's really too late now; an innocent user has already been chased off the site, but it's fun to consider: what would our response have been if this had happened at CP? Bastard educated Hoover!

I note that much of the evidence that "RP" was not a sock of "Fd" is based on "Fd"'s word. Given that "Fd" came here with the explicit intention of "messing with" us, and that he also encouraged others to join him in doing the same I'm not too sure that I'd take his word on this.

This doesn't prove anything of course, but it does rather suggest that such evidence might be tainted.

I notice in passing that both you and PC have been blocking each over this. Frankly, I think you both need to read the RationalWiki:Sysop guide. I thought that we also had some instruction against blocking people with whom are in personal dispute, but I can't find it at the moment.

I also propose that neither one of you be allowed to block the other without getting the agreement of another sysop.--Bob^{bing up} 04:12, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Is this fuss still ongoing? One point - Rose Pedals 2 was not using an ASCII trick - RP1 was the user name with an odd character in it. Another point - PC has been chastised and explained what happened. Last point = Hoover, why did you not timestamp your comment above? Since the last PC comment cited above was 12/13 and the last RP one 12/16, I can only wonder why this is still an issue? Apart from the "what if this happened on CP" question. Well, face it, PC is an anagram of CP. She means well, and thinks that with "right" on her side, defending her beloved beleaguered freethinking wikis is a battle to be fought at any cost. She's wrong on most counts, and as I recall I soundly scolded her for her mistake. However, it can be frustrating - and confusing - to be a lone "defender" during a bout of vandalism. Anyway, not sure I had a point to make, but are you two really blocking each other over this? Unblocking oneself to edit gets tiresome I know (I had to do it twice since the power came back on last week), but it's not really a big deal. Pleez to get bak to teh frendly blox! ħuman 04:32, 22 December 2008 (EST)

I can't seem to get the sig thing to work; it just ends up as a mess. <i>''<font color=007500 face="zapfino">Phantom Hoover</font>''</i> 07:36, 22 December 2008 (EST)

color= needs at least a #, and quotes would help. font color="#007500". And maybe using <, >, etc. instead of the codes might help. Not sure. So three tildes works but four breaks it? ħuman 17:34, 22 December 2008 (EST)

CUR

I'm not sure that this is the right forum for this--but edit-warring may be seen as an abuse of privileges, i suppose. Anyway, the following is copied from CUR's talk page. It's a discussion we've never had before, but looking at the recent changes over the past couple of weeks, maybe we should have it. TheoryOfPractice 20:58, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Established complaints against the Defendant

1. Edit warring to the following pages: Therian, Goat, and Otherkin.
2. Abuse of block privileges. [5][6][7]
3. Uploading of copyright violation images.
4. Excessive reactions to questions about beliefs.
5. Movement of user pages. [8]

I am assuming that I am correct on the above list. I ask the community to add, if needed, to this list. ĵ₳¥ášÇ♠ʘ is out of his mind

There was the user page moving thing from the other day too, not sure how you'd classify that. --Kels 21:22, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Edit warring on the goat page shows disrespect for our holy idol. Silver Sloth 21:27, 27 January 2009 (EST)

I was attempting to add goat to the goat article. I was trying to make it better. As for otherkin and therian, I explained that in great detail. As for abuse of block privileges, Human and others got off scot-free on those. Don't see why I should be punished for something everyone else does. As for the images, those are uploaded all the time- but the people who do that aren't banned. The fact is, after my bad start, anything I did that was bad was paid attention to. When I did good, it was ignored, or paid very little attention to. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^{Rusty-spotted catspeed!} 21:35, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Hey... I took a look at the history of your blocks, and there... isn't really much. An awful lot of them are very small, and the larger ones seem to be fun blocks. The only "questionable" blocks were... none of them. If you could cite a particular block that was obviously in bad faith, please do. ĵ₳¥ášÇ♠ʘ is out of his mind

Can we have difs and other links posted for these so non-involved parties can examine the evidence? I'm a bit concerned that some of this is people picking on someone for being kind of irritating, which is different then abuse of privileges. I know, for example, that at one point someone took offense at a 30 second block (which could easily be immediately undone by the blockee in any case) - the sort of thing that happens all the time, and is not considered an issue when done by others. DickTurpis 22:24, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Prosecuting Agency (Π)

As to whether it's exactly an abuse of Administrative privileges I cannot strictly say but I feel that RW is in danger of becoming a victim once again of it's own good nature. CUR, in his own way, is as disruptive as TK. His biggest 'crime' as such is edit warring but this is part of a much larger overall pattern of POV pushing when it's blatantly clear that his particular POV is by it's contentious nature trolling. On the one hand he says he doesn't want the word 'Therian' anywhere on RW except his user page, whilst, simultaneously pushing his 'Therian' nonsense all over the place. RW should have room for a wide range of POV's but, currently CUR is making sure the only one being discussed is his. Silver Sloth 21:19, 27 January 2009 (EST)

"I am on the verge of de-sysopping this editor. The reason is not, however, due to direct abuse of the mop and bucket (although he has abused them a couple of times), but so that he can be briefly blocked if (and probably when) he engages in further disruptive, disrespectful actions. His non-stop edit-warring over therian and inserting the same endless whining drivel into every discussion he can find makes me think he now fails the "mostly harmless" criteria we use when sysopping people.

The only reason this is not an actual announcement of me having just done this is to start a discussion and get input, especially from other apostrophecrats, rather than acting unilaterally. However, at this point, I will basically have to be convinced not to take this action, and convinced well.

One warning to editor ConservapediaUndergroundResistor: if you continue your past habit of making pointless, whiny arguments with any/everyone who comments in this section, I will desysop and block you, at least temporarily, so the discussion can proceed. This is not about the color of your spots, but the content of your character, at least in how you participate on this site. " ->copied from CUR talk page, originally penned by Human.

If this is a "prosecution," there is no plaintiff aside from "the state," i.e., RW.-Diadochus 21:24, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Please note what I bolded in the above. ħuman 21:40, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Defendant (Δ)

I have merely been trying to keep an article about a subject that science knows nothing about unbiased. Either, the title and tone of the article must be unbiased, as virtually nothing is known about the subject, and therefore, an opinion should not be formed, or both sides should be given an article of their own on which to argue their case. I am merely trying to keep RW a rational, scientific place. I am not attempting cut out snark. I am attemping to counteract what I see as obvious, undeguised bias on your part.

Promoting me will only show that you cannot deal with internal disagreements well. By the way, does a wikia actually cost anything? If it doesn't, I might just make a copy of RationalWiki, title it OpenButStillSnarkyWiki, and make it from an open point of view to scientific ideas, and be open and respectful to non-scientific ideas. Unless a non-scientific idea claimed to be scientific, it would be treated with respect.

Now, I understand why you want me gone. But I do not think it would accomplish anything. Unless you make RW invitation only, events like these are bound to happen. RationalWiki must be able to accept new ideas and new people if it is not going to collapse. That is a warning. We run the risk of becoming CP if we go on like this. Would you have RationalWiki become every restrictive, just because an editor does not agree on policies? By promoting me, you will be taking the first steps towards becoming like CP. I urge you to think carefully, non-emotionally, scientifically, and rationally about your decision. My fate, and that of RW, is in your hands. Goatspeed, and may the best user win.--"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^{Rusty-spotted catspeed!} 21:21, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Questions

1. Why did you engage in edit warring?
2. Could actions by you have prevented this from happening?
3. What would you do when presented with these situations in the future?

---

copied section

...What I am interested in discussing--and what this thread is about--is why you continue to poison this community with your selfish edit warring, your poking at known trolls, and your general inability to play by the very few rules we have. TheoryOfPractice 20:33, 27 January 2009 (EST)

ToP - CUR is a Troll who, in a few short days, has turned RW upside down so that all we do is discuss his agenda. He's causing nothing but trouble, doing nothing to further the RW mission and doesn't know how to play nice with others. Personally I feel he belongs in the Vandal Bin. Maybe, at one edit per hour, he'd limit himself to additions of value instead of bovine excrement. Silver Sloth 20:39, 27 January 2009 (EST)

I hate to say this, but I agree. I think the Therian article should be locked in a way to prevent CUR from editing it, which might make this all blow over. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 20:44, 27 January 2009 (EST)

SS--I agree, but am to close to the situation to act errrr, rationally. Besides, it would be an unprecedented move.. If Kels or Human or Pi or someone of that stature wants to go that route, so be it. If they don't, so be it. TheoryOfPractice 20:45, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Discussion

OK, I am not taking any sides, but regardless, as per above, "Please identify the abused privilege" that CUR has abused. ĵ₳¥ášÇ♠ʘ is out of his mind

(ec)I, too, wonder about the edit warring being an abuse of priveledges. I suppose if CUR weren't a sysop, we could protect the article at the sysop level. Here's a link to the article history in question. If there is a solution to be found that avoids "promotion", that would obviously be preferable. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 21:06, 27 January 2009 (EST)

As I said--I'm not sure this is the place. I count edit warring as an abuse of community standards--but we don't have a forum for that, do we? If CUR weren't a sysop, we wouldn't be putting up with ceaseless edit warring from him, I imagine. 21:08, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Okay I have no experience how we do this, but it seems to me that the П makes their case in the appropriate section and the Δ explains why they did it and someone needs to make a decision. - User $\pi$ 21:09, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Arcan--you could also mention the goat article from earlier on this evening, as well as stuff from weeks past re: otherkins and copyright violation images. TheoryOfPractice 21:10, 27 January 2009 (EST)

I don't believe CUR has abused any privileges. As mentioned above, edit warring is a community standards/common courtesy issue, and a whole different matter. I also don't believe he's deliberately trolling, except in that he's admitted to actively looking for arguments and poking people/trolls (i.e., Fall Down) in order to start one. But I don't think it's done maliciously, or in bad faith. That said, he can be very disruptive when bored, or when he's got his victim hat on, and can easily alienate people at times like those. I suspect vandal binning is going a bit far, but something really should be done to curb the behaviour to some degree. --Kels 21:21, 27 January 2009 (EST)

I am inclined to view things along the same path, a removal of sysop rights should only follow on abuse of the tools it provides.

Has he abused these tools, and has he done it more than once? If it was once, followed by a warning and no further problems than removal of sysopship doesn't seem like the appropriate action. tmtoulouse 21:28, 27 January 2009 (EST)

I agree with Kels. I don't think that much of what's happened is exactly abuse of sysop rights. I think CUR should take all this as a serious warning & try to be more self-aware & less disruptive, but I don't think it's time for harsh measures yet. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:29, 27 January 2009 (EST)

I think the only real "privilege" being abused here is that, if this were anyone but a sysop, they would be binned or blocked or the article would be protected against his warring. Since he is a sysop, none of those methods stop the constant warring, which is the only infraction I can speak to. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 21:30, 27 January 2009 (EST)

I agree with Arcan--if he wasn't a sysop, he would have been vandal-binned for the picture incident alone, never mind thr therian nonsense. It's not that he's abusing the tools of sysoppery, it's that his status prevents us from dealing with troll-like behaviour. TheoryOfPractice 21:33, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Okay this seems to be going well we just need some method of ruling on this. - User $\pi$ 21:35, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Arcan's point is mine exactly. Half hour blocks for edit-warring would have put an end to CUR's tendentiousness ages ago, but he can unblock himself so no one does it. Alternatively, briefly locking the article (and talk pages!) would also have ended it, but with his being a sysop, it wouldn't work. ħuman 21:37, 27 January 2009 (EST)

(unident)Not even CP ever locks talk pages. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^{Rusty-spotted catspeed!} 21:40, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Really? You ever try talking to Joaquin Martinez? Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:43, 27 January 2009 (EST)

This doesn't seem to be a very user-friendly page structure. Where do we respond to CUR's comments? Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:36, 27 January 2009 (EST)

new section below his comments? ħuman 21:37, 27 January 2009 (EST)

I think a level 4 heading below is in order. - User $\pi$ 21:38, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Note below that two sysop powers have been routinely abused by CUR: page moving and blocking. ħuman 21:42, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Less so than yourself. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^{Rusty-spotted catspeed!} 21:44, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Explain? And also explain why you think this is about me and not you? ħuman 21:47, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Rebuttal

"just because an editor does not agree on policies?." CUR, this has nothing to do with you agreeing or not on policy. Stop making this about you and your beliefs. It's about you and your behaviour. You don't seem to get that. You edit war, as well as a number of other charges listed above. These things are making this place less fun. TheoryOfPractice 21:41, 27 January 2009 (EST)

"This is not about the color of your spots, but the content of your character, at least in how you participate on this site." ħuman 21:45, 27 January 2009 (EST)

I disagree. This is about who I am. The content of my character is who I am. I am participating in this site, helping make it better. I have majorly screwed up, I admit that. But, TheoryOfPractice, Arcan, Publius, and the others knew what they were getting into. They, on purpose or not, baited me. You bait a cheetah (or anything else) and it will strike. I struck at the bait. I tried to free myself from the hook, but no one would let it go. I merely want to be in a place where I am appreciated for who I am. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^{Rusty-spotted catspeed!} 21:49, 27 January 2009 (EST)

"I merely want to be in a place where I am appreciated for who I am." - it's not working out well for you here. And you were not baited, and your responses have been way over the top. ħuman 21:51, 27 January 2009 (EST)

FWIW, I think articles should not be used for personal attacks on other users, so if any content was added to the therian piece which only serves to offend CUR, it should be taken out. But on the other hand content which serves the site missions shouldn't be censored because of one user's sensibilities. I guess some of the edits today might have been timed to irritate CUR, but none of the content looks out of place, so I think CUR overreacted. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:03, 27 January 2009 (EST)

(ec)For the record, I never baited you. I don't think I've even edited the articles you have a problem with, save to undo your edit warring. I originally thought there was an interesting, logical discussion to be had before you started playing the weirdly self-aggrandizing victim. I was going to completely ignore your tantrums until you started screwing with a perfectly reasonable article. This bizarre belief that we're somehow prodding you to be disruptive is completely ridiculous and, frankly, offensive. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 22:06, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Rebuttal of Rebuttal

I would like to call you to the stand. Do you swear by goat to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^{Rusty-spotted catspeed!} 21:42, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Do I get a lawyer? --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^{Rusty-spotted catspeed!} 21:45, 27 January 2009 (EST)

If you can find someone to defend you, of course. Is there anyone on RW you haven't managed to piss off? Also, there are many level-headed people on here who will or would defend you against this sanction on principle, even though you might get on their nerves, too. ħuman 21:49, 27 January 2009 (EST)

The court must appoint a lawyer. That's how justice works. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^{Rusty-spotted catspeed!} 21:50, 27 January 2009 (EST)

I'll defend you, CUR, but only informally and only while I have time :). I haven't got a lot right now. As it stands, I'll say this, at least: I would not desysop CUR. If he can be taught to avoid derailing RW's mission with regards to this one controversial article, he can be a productive editor, even if some of us aren't his biggest fans.-Diadochus 21:50, 27 January 2009 (EST)

I agree CUR shouldn't be desysoped. Some form of formal warning (if we have such a thing) might be appropriate instead. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:02, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Diadochus, as his solicitor, how do you suggest CUR might be "taught"? Weaseloid, people have been asking CUR nicely, then loudly, then very loudly, for days on end to stop edit-warring on his pet article (and before that, over other things). Any other wiki would have blocked him ages ago, all we are seeking is a way to slow him down when he goes on a rampage. ħuman 22:09, 27 January 2009 (EST)

I prefer to be addressed as "barrister" :). But I recommend at least a restriction from editing on aggravating topics, and perhaps a requirement that he prove himself to retain his sysop powerz. I'll admit that the "mostly harmless" presumption has been burst, but would argue that he can regain it by productive editing. I balk at assigning a writing plan (Hi Ed!), but it might work.-Diadochus 22:27, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Unless I'm gravely mistaken, aren't there other "furries" who're productive and valued editors here? Could we place CUR under their supervision?-Diadochus 22:40, 27 January 2009 (EST)

---

Possible Outcomes

Please comment on how you feel about each of the following outcomes, or add others that you would like to argue for.

CUR is promoted to editor

• He has lost his claim to being "mostly harmless", which is our criteria for demotion. He has abused, repeatedly and unrepentantly, the page move and blocking features of the mop and bucket. His style of "discussion" over edits is to edit war - and has been pretty much since he joined up. ħuman 22:15, 27 January 2009 (EST)
• "sysophood was given in error. Love² 22:47, 27 January 2009 (EST)" - see in probation section. ħuman 23:03, 27 January 2009 (EST)
• Anyone intending to pronounce on this subject should read the user's talk page archive. It is my opinion that the user is not mature enough to be given responsibility and that the sysophood was given in error. Love² 22:47, 27 January 2009 (EST) (sorry & note that it was given by RA who is therefore disqualified from any supervisory role)

I've tried to stay out of the great therian schism, but I've followed it with wry amusement. I would heartily back this option. I don't believe rationalwiki should go down the path of silly bureaucracy like probation and such like. Just promote the guy, and if he continues edit warring, vandal bin him. It works with all our other trolls, and that's all CUR is. --JeevesMkII 12:42, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Some sort of probation, the terms of which are to be determined and may include precluding his editing of certain articles

• Take pity on a poor parley-vouz (any Gilbert & Sullivan fans?). This proceeding is itself a shot across the bow. Confine him for editing the Therian article or starting debates on the subject, with the understanding that RW editors won't goad him into similar discussions. Then call it a day-Diadochus 22:07, 27 January 2009 (EST)
  • "with the understanding that RW editors won't goad him into similar discussions" - I am against any restriction on everyone else being part of a "probation" ^{— Unsigned, by: Human / talk / contribs}
    • Agree with Human on this one. Who's to say what counts as goading in his mind--and why give him an easy way out? TheoryOfPractice 22:21, 27 January 2009 (EST)
      • Still, it might do us good to all stay off the subject of therianthropy for a while. It's fairly peripheral in the grand scheme of things & been getting way too much attention at RW recently. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:26, 27 January 2009 (EST)
• Think the only fair thing to do is, say he can't edit therian, otherkin and other furrylike related articles and limit his editing to about 10-20 edits a day, for a month. If he violates his parole condition he should then be desysoped. - User $\pi$ 22:09, 27 January 2009 (EST)
• No editing of therian/otherkin articles or debates. No dealing with Fall Down on RW or RWW. No edit-warring at all. Terms of probation to be supervised by a disinterested 'crat, perhaps RA or Kels. TheoryOfPractice 22:09, 27 January 2009 (EST)
• I believe this to be the best possible option. I don't have a problem with CUR outside the edit war. As I said before, if there is some way to stop the therian issue without promotion, that is ideal, but it must be stopped somehow, as the whole thing has become tiresome and pointless. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 22:10, 27 January 2009 (EST)
• Probation = desysopping or even vandal binning, to be undone after some set period of good behavior. ħuman 22:13, 27 January 2009 (EST)
• I think the only limitation should be not editing the therian article. Commenting on the talk page is OK if there is something he strongly objects to. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:15, 27 January 2009 (EST)
• Seems most reasonable. Interminable arguing is an aggravating nuisance, but not an offense. Edit warring is the serious problem here. - Gentleman Publius (V)<,",>(V) 22:16, 27 January 2009 (EST)
• The only problem is mindless reversion and edit warring (to the point of reinserting spelling mistakes), so bar him from that, but not from editing the article. -- Nx ^talk 22:19, 27 January 2009 (EST)
• Anyone intending to pronounce on this subject should read the user's talk page archive. It is my opinion that the user is not mature enough to be given responsibility and that the sysophood was given in error. Love² 22:47, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Time to close?

If it isn't too bold, I am thinking that it is time for this to close. The community agreement, with the objection noted by Human, is that we place CUR on a probations, with the following terms:

1. Do not edit the controversial articles you have touched
2. Do not edit war, if you undo an edit, say why.
3. Failure to meet the above will result in promotion to Editor.

If you would be willing to, please answer the following questions for our consideration.

1. Why did you engage in edit warring?
2. Could actions by you have prevented this from happening?
3. What would you do when presented with these situations in the future?
4. What do you consider goading, and if you are willing to, would you provide some examples of what you precieved as goading.

ĵ₳¥ášÇ♠ʘ is out of his mind

I don't think we're near closure on this yet. And the terms outlined above are too vague. We at least need to name the articles. Also, the defendant has not answered the "questions" yet... ħuman 23:05, 27 January 2009 (EST)

You'll probably have to wait until tomorrow for that... -- Nx ^talk 23:07, 27 January 2009 (EST)

I would suggest CUR be given a personal parole officer (or parole board if we want to stretch it out), not to supervise every edit obviously, but simply to field any complaints that may come. Furthermore, I think the most logical action is that CUR is banned from editing the three articles named above (Therian, Goat, and Otherkin) and to refrain from all future edit warring (We should look to WP's 3RR in this case) and only using his Sysop abilities to block and vandal bin obvious vandals, and nobody else. Under NO circumstances should CUR move userpages or delete pages, if he has a page that needs deleted, he can take it to his parole officer (or board). Pending his meeting conditions of parole, I think the sysop rights should stay for now. Also, If nobody else is willing to take the parole job, I will volunteer, I have too much time on my hands anyway. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 11:25, 28 January 2009 (EST)

I think we are pretty much seeing consensus (if I were to switch my comment above there'd only be one "vote" left for promotion), and it seems to me ChuckB has reasonably accurately summarized the terms of the parole. ConservapediaUndergroundResistor has answered the questions asked of him, and seems to have taken steps to lower his "goad threshold". While three hours still remain for any further discussion, I personally will consider this case closed. ħuman 21:21, 28 January 2009 (EST)

#Why did you engage in edit warring? I engaged in edit warring for the exact same reasons that you did- my edits were reverted.

#Could actions by you have prevented this from happening? I think I am mostly at fault here, though I would like to say that calling beliefs 'a pile of bs' sure doesn't help.

#What would you do when presented with these situations in the future? I'm taking the therian and otherkin articles of my watchlist, and lying low. If it happens in the future, I'll probably go hide someplace, or find some kind of medical paper- I'm trying to convince a psycologist to do an investigation.

#What do you consider goading, and if you are willing to, would you provide some examples of what you precieved as goading. See above. That is goading in the same way that saying the same thing about Jewish beliefs is goading.

I would enjoy if the subject was dropped. I am actually quite liking parole- nothing really happened, the conflict was still resolved, no one is insulting me, and things are quiet. Let's try to keep it this way. I probably would have to refuse an offer of no parole. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^{Rusty-spotted catspeed!} 21:04, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Thanks for the answers, and for the wise steps you took (removal from watchlist) to lower your "goad threshold". I see you are also focusing your energies on other parts of the site - I'm glad you didn't leave. I hope one day we will all laugh about this episode - if we remember it all. ħuman 21:21, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Here is my suggestion for what it's worth.

I think I am pretty unbiased on this issue. I am not part of RW, the outcome does not effect me, and I have not been personally offended by CUR.

Here is my sugestion:

• CUR is allowed to keep his rights
• CUR is on temporary probation with the following terms:
  • CUR is not allowed to edit the Therian or related articles.
  • CUR is not to block maliciously for any reason.
  • CUR is not to edit war
  • Violation of parole results in "promotion" (no vandal bin)
  • CUR is eligible to come off probation after one month (or other agreed upon term) of good behavior.
    • Once off probation CUR has full rights, and gets a clean slate. However if the issue arises again, he can be "promoted"
• Other editors are to treat CUR with respect.

--CPAdmin1 22:46, 27 January 2009 (EST)

If there are no objections, I would like to have this closed by 11:00 EST, about 13 minutes from now, with the terms that CPAdmin1 has proposed, the time of probation being 30 days, and the supervisor being RA, who agreed in a discussion with Human on his talk page. ĵ₳¥ášÇ♠ʘ is out of his mind

Seconded. TheoryOfPractice 22:52, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Two minutes left, speak now or forever hold your goat. ĵ₳¥ášÇ♠ʘ is out of his mind

Tim, well argued. I'd push to adopt his position, even though it's 2m late.-Diadochus 23:02, 27 January 2009 (EST)

You gotta give people a little more time. not alot of people are here. --CPAdmin1 23:03, 27 January 2009 (EST)

What CPAdmin said! Love² 23:04, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Tim, why weren't your reasonable suggestions adopted on Conservapedia? You should've been running that place. Are you a sysop here yet?-Diadochus 23:06, 27 January 2009 (EST)

I am not a sysop here, and do not intend to be. I am here on the condition that nobody makes my a sysop. --CPAdmin1 23:07, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Moar time, yes. How about midnight EST tomorrow? And what does "who agreed in a discussion with Human on his talk page" mean? PS, RA was the one who sysopped CUR, so I'm not sure he is "neutral", although I could see sticking him with the supervision job. ħuman 23:09, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Extension noted by Human to wait untill midnight EST tomorrow. To answer Human's question, here is the [diff in question]. ĵ₳¥ášÇ♠ʘ is out of his mind

1. It was PI and RA, not Human who made the agreement in question. 2. WHO sysopped CUR is irrelvant. Everybody gets sysopped, it's SOP. TheoryOfPractice 23:16, 27 January 2009 (EST)

I fully endorse CPAdmin1's proposal. Furthermore I offer to oversee the parole, should no other party be found. (Tim, as an aside: While I may disagree with CP, I fully respect both you and the work you were attempting to do before your departure. They need more editors like you. ) Pinto's5150 ^Talk 00:45, 28 January 2009 (EST)

I also endorse Tim's proposal. I think it's exceptionally clear and completely fair. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 01:03, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Define "respect". Love² 01:06, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Tim, can you rewrite your proposal so it is clear and (omg) concise? For instance, "or related articles" is vague. ħuman 01:09, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Coming a little bit late to this. What's the big deal about removing sysop privileges? We give them out like candy now and they don't make that much difference. Only block rights and lock rights. If CUR no longer had these would it prevent him being a productive editor if he wants to be one? If there is some doubt about some of his blocks, and the locking rights mean we can't protect an article against him, then it's not clear why he has them. To put it another way - why does CUR need to block and lock? Has he used these rights constructively in the past?--Bob^{bing up} 06:22, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Tim's suggestion seems to be pretty even-handed (as you would probably expect I guess). It's a little closer to being serious than RW normally manages - but the circumstances dictate the response. I've hardly been here 5 minutes so I'm not sure my opinion matters, but in general I think that this is probably the most tolerant forum I've found to this kind of thing, and if anything CUR is getting off quite lightly (in comparison), but in fact, the measures outlined above seem to be an actual constructive way of approaching the issue - particularly if CUR (who clearly has time to contribute) can learn to make useful, substantive edits that improve RW in general. It's something that I struggle with myself (usually restricting myself to tidying and general maintainence) but I'm starting to improve (hopefully) and think it can only be a good thing for CUR also. Worm ^{(t | c)} 06:54, 28 January 2009 (EST)

I like the Tim Plan^TM, and I think it should be enforced both ways- no poking by CUR, no poking at CUR. Corry^{Hey, who wants to take me to the hospital?} 08:25, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Problem is, define "poking at CUR". Is the Therian article poking at CUR? -- Nx ^talk 08:28, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Let's just all lay off anything to do with Therians, otherkin or the like for a while. I'm not neutral on this - I argued for the prosecution - but I'm more than prepared to accept the Tim Plan ceasefire with the hope of lasting peace. BTW, can I add my thanks to Tim for being the voice of reason once again. Silver Sloth 08:35, 28 January 2009 (EST)

As a contributor very much against CUR's behavior, I think Tim's plan will work, but we do need to define "Respect" a litttle better, as has been noted. The only concern I would have is were does it end; does "respect" become SOP? Do we all have to lay off each other? That's kinda how the site works, if CUR or anyone else can't take it, that's too bad, but will the site have to change to accept people's delicate sensibilities? I hope not. Z3ro^talk 10:49, 28 January 2009 (EST)

If anyone thinks that CUR deserves any special respect, beyond that given to any other editor, then they're wrong. If he can't stand the heat he should fuck off out of the kitchen. As for the "therian" thing: delete the article; end of problem!  ^(Toast) _{and marmalade} 10:54, 28 January 2009 (EST)

I agree with Toast as far as the respect issue. We're not here to walk on eggshells around each other and there is nothing wrong with principled disagreement. About a year ago we had a guy on here trying to push the "Islam is a Moon God religion" angle and rather than edit war about it, I tried to include some of his criticisms in the articles for what they are worth while pointing out that no serious theologian or historian believes that argument. Therianthropy seems at first glace to be patent nonsense, but that doesn't mean that those that believe in it don't do so sincerely. But there is a difference between saying "your beliefs are ridiculous" and "many people believe your beliefs are ridiculous" and if we want to maintain any semblance of rationality then we need to incline towards presenting accurate reporting, not opinion pieces. Edit warring is a basic failure at wiki-ettiquette and not becoming of a sysop. He has been asked, and now he has been warned. If it continues beyond this point then his rights should be revoked. Stile4aly 11:01, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Deleting the article should not be an option--therianism, like crystals, esp and YEC is unscientific bs and as such falls cleasrly within our mandate as something to be debunked, challenged and ridiculed. It's why we're here. If we get rid of it because one memberof the community doesn't like it, what's to stop CPAdmin1 or PJR from throwing a similar hissy hit about YEC, or Conservative/Newton to do something similar re: atheism? The article must stay, snark and all....TheoryOfPractice 11:04, 28 January 2009 (EST)

I agree with ToP on that. We don't delete or rewrite articles because they challenge one user's beliefs. However, we should probably try to leave the therian article alone fo a while. It says as much as needs to be said about what is, after all, quite an obscure movement. Closing the therian debates might also be a good move: as long as they drag on, they're just going to cause more tension. Do we have a template that says something like "this is an old debate: please do not add to it"? Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 11:13, 28 January 2009 (EST)

(ec)I didn't mean delete the article because it's caused dissension; rather because it's not even a pseudo science or indeed anything - it's Fun at most - not worthy of attention.  ^(Toast) _{and marmalade} 11:29, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Obviously the people involved in it take it seriously & come up with various attempts at scientific or paranormal explanations. Therefore it is on-mission to have an article about. We just don't need to give it any more attention than we already have. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 11:43, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Can I point out that sysops can be vandal binned; bureaucrats can put them in the "vandal" group. Stupid wisest Hoover! 11:56, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Can they un-vandal themselves? I think that's the issue. Z3ro^talk 11:57, 28 January 2009 (EST)

I don't think so. Stupid wisest Hoover! 12:00, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Maybe. Further data is needed. Stupid wisest Hoover! 12:03, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Okay, I told myself I would stay out of this... but (there it is), if it turns out sysops can be put in the vandal bin, couldn't this whole thing be circumvented by placing CUR in there? I mean, if he un-vandals himself then he's abused his powers and could be promoted... right? That's all from me, I'm running away from this conversation now. Well, before I do, let me just say that I don't agree with "Other editors are to treat CUR with respect", makes it sound like we're all on probation, and respect shouldn't be mandated when you can earn it easily enough around here if you just behave yourself somewhat. -Redback^{on the toilet seat} 20:52, 28 January 2009 (EST)

It's over. And treating people with respect is something I think we all should do. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^{Rusty-spotted catspeed!} 20:54, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Yeah, the time on the post before mine was 12:03, and the time here when I posted was 12:54, didn't occur to me that the times on this page and local time don't line up... my bad (it lines up on some pages but not others, how confusing). I don't want to reawaken this page if it's been dead for a while... run away! -Redback^{on the toilet seat} 21:11, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Closure

From what I can see, this issue has been resolved, roughly along the lines of what Tim suggested. Although there are a few hours left in time window we allowed ourselves, I don't see much in the way of new comments today, except for ConservapediaUndergroundResistor answering the questions and explaining how he is making his parole/probation work for himself. Would someone archive this session of the Star Chamber once midnight EST has passed? ħuman 21:26, 28 January 2009 (EST)

One question--should CUR violate the terms, we need a procedure to deal with it--rat him out to RA? Automatically promote and Bin him? TheoryOfPractice 21:35, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Just slap him if he gets silly. (don't think he will, for a while though)  ^(Toast) _{and marmalade} 21:37, 28 January 2009 (EST)

I think Toast is right about him mending his ways; I also think that if he does slip, a reminder ought to be enough. If it isn't, just don't act unilaterally - get a non-involved (relatively) sysop to chime in. RA would be a fine choice, of course, as their paths don't seem to cross much, and he's usually around. At worst, promote and block or bin as needed. I doubt there will be any need, though - he likes it here too much. ħuman 21:50, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Well, then, as the person who started all of this, I want to thank the community at large for dealing with this in a mature and respectful way. I want this place to be fun for everyone involved--including CUR. TheoryOfPractice 21:59, 28 January 2009 (EST)

We look like we are done and CUR is self paroling. Unless there are further objections I will archive this. - User $\pi$ 22:04, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Right, can we get back to Business As Normal then?  ^(Toast) _{and marmalade} 22:11, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Human

I realize I might be accused of "drama queening" by literally bringing charges against myself, but since I am being accused of abusing administrative privileges, I think it only fair to bring the issues to the light of day - hey, I might be guilty, and maybe I need to be censured - or I might not. Let the process proceed. ħuman 00:43, 13 February 2009 (EST)

The charges

Copied from "Speak unto the Almighty Glowing Cracker":

By the way, Human: for someone who opposes the implementation of enforced rules, you seem all to willing to make up your own rules and brutally force them on other people. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 00:19, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Why do you persist in this meaningless pissing contest? To what rules, which I "brutally enforce", do you refer? ħuman 01:09, 12 February 2009 (EST)

I refer to your forced sysopping of Cayce Pollard. Wherein, you made up your own rule (that non-vandal users must be sysopped, even if they don't want it), and brutally forced it upon another person (Cayce Pollard, who explicitly stated they didn't want to be a sysop), who then left the site because of you. It was clear to me that you really didn't give a shit about their feelings. Adding insult to injury, you, bizarrely, blamed the problem on Cayce, diagnosing her with "issues". (Human—closet authoritarian and psychologist to boot!) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:36, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Wow, dig back as far as you can? And call names, blame me for someone leaving... Whooee. Please forgive me, but go fuck yourself, "Almighty Glowing Cracker". ħuman 02:36, 12 February 2009 (EST)

(1) RationalWiki is almost twenty months old. Three-and-a-half months ago is not that far back. (Nor is it as far back as I can go.) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:25, 12 February 2009 (EST)

(2) As for "calling you names", I think that your actions on Cayce do qualify as "authoritarian"—how else would you describe it? You had power (the power to demote/promote other people) and you used it to enforce your own arbitrary rule to the detriment of another person. Concerning my sarcastically calling you a "psychologist", remember that you did ascribe emotional problems to Cayce that I doubt even an actual psychologist would have trouble diagnosing, what with only 4 sentence-long posts and a template to go off of. Yet you presumed to know her well enough to say that the reason she left was because of "issues".

Rereading that post again, I am struck that at the end you idly speculate that "Maybe they just got bored of us anyway?". So, after callously disregarding Cayce's feelings and thoughtlessly forcing your arbitrary rule upon them, you had the nerve to say what amounts to "maybe they would've left anyway". How much shit were you willing to make up to justify your actions? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:25, 12 February 2009 (EST)

(3) I also find it bemusing that you use the word "blame", as if I was wrongly accusing you of something. Unfortunately, as is clear to anyone who reads the talk page, Cayce left as a direct result of your actions. In other words, it's your fault. Suck it up and quit pretending otherwise. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:25, 12 February 2009 (EST)

(4) Is that all you can think to say—"Go fuck yourself"? What I described was a gross injustice (by wiki standards), yet you don't even try to defend your actions. You can't even own up and apologize for it. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:25, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Does any of this matter right now? Cayce Pollard isn't a good example of anything: it was SusanG, who obviously had a few issues with site authority at the time, having already "left" shortly before. I don't think a genuine new user would have reacted the same way she did. But the whole thing should be ancient history by now, to everybody involved. We now have a clause in the Community Standards that users can ask not to be sysoped, so the situation shouldn't come up again. What good is stirring up the past? Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 10:13, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Cayce Pollard was SusanG? That... certainly does explain a lot. (*sheepishly* I really need to work on my ability to "read" people...) However, my argument still stands: Human was an incredible ass about the whole thing.

Regarding the use of "stirring up the past"... there isn't one. But I am very, very bitter, and no amount of advice to "get over it" is going to remedy that. I have witnessed what to me are many injustices (the Cayce Pollard incident is but one) and I refuse to let them go—injustice should not fade with time, especially when those who participated in it are still here, and have not changed all that much. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 22:14, 12 February 2009 (EST)

My original point (which I unfortunately drowned in bitterness) was that Human often utilizes his own interpretation of the rules (as so many of us do—the sometimes vague nature of the community standards almost guarantees that everyone have their own interpretation), but then assumes his personal interpretation is a site-wide standard. This was the thrust of my post that touched this discussion off: that Human considers the idea of rules to be a big joke (judging from his not-so-subtle sarcastic comments), yet he has no problem criticizing other people for not following his interpretation of them. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 22:14, 12 February 2009 (EST)

To address Human's original criticism—that it was unwise of me to sysop CUR, because he was not "mostly harmless"—: This is your own interpretation—that CUR being a pest disqualifies him as "mostly harmless". Yet my interpretation of "mostly harmless" is strictly technical: will a potential sysop vaporize half the site, or block a bunch of non-vandal non-sysops? (Blocking sysops is, at worst, an annoyance. And as I recall, he stopped blocking them when he was asked to stop.) Thus, I concluded CUR to be no more harmful as a sysop than he is as a non-sysop, and accordingly demoted him. I continue to hold that there was nothing wrong with doing so. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 22:14, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Eh. Guys? Do you think you could cease pissing your own little catfight all over the wiki? A) RA - no-one cares; B) Human - no one cares; C) you're both bored because of the boycott. Yet another reason to cancel the boycott. D) RA - I thought the idea was that you were going to do your homework and stay off the internet, in an attempt to avoid having your internet machine access cut off by your parents? It might be wise to avoid petty little squabbles like this in that interest; E) No-one cares; F) At the very least, duke it out, but please don't use the Intercom to draw bored boycotting users into it. DogP 23:57, 12 February 2009 (EST)

A) Sure. B) Sure, except that I am being slandered - in my opinion. C) The boycott has nothing to do with this. D) No comment, I suspect that is old news and RA is doing fine in school again. E) I have been accused of admin abuse. I care about that - if the accusation is false or ambiguous, I'd like to see it laid to rest. If is has a basis - don't you think I'd like to know, and for the good of the community, we figure out how to reprimand me? F) Is not a solution. If you don't want to help here, that's fine, but don't tell us what - not to use the intercom? Wow. ħuman 00:49, 13 February 2009 (EST)

Cayce Pollard was a fake name? Well, that's an incredible fake name. Fletch himself could take a page out of that book! John Cocktoston Corry^{Hey, who wants to take me to the hospital?} 00:05, 13 February 2009 (EST)

I am a little confused as to why this is being brought up now so long after the event. I have to log off very shortly so cannot see the response to this but dont you think its a little old now? I know RA and Human have had there differences in the past but this is past. Why is this being brought up now RA? Why not at the time? Just seems weird. Ace McWicked^Revolt 01:19, 13 February 2009 (EST)

The defense

I will wait until the charges have been solidified to reply. If anyone wants to add a "questions" section, I will respond as they occur. ħuman 00:44, 13 February 2009 (EST)

I apologize, but that may take a day or two. It's taking me quite some time to track down the relevant diff links. Additionally, because you only have my word for it that Pink left because of you, I asked her for permission to use screenshots of the relevant emails discussing her self-enforced exile. It may be a several hours before I hear back from her.

In the meantime, I'll be taking a break from normal editing to focus on building my case. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:18, 13 February 2009 (EST)

Oh, dear God. If this is serious someone needs to get over himself. Sterile^{walkie-talkie} 14:54, 13 February 2009 (EST)
In more "legalese" a fashion: There isn't enough evidence here to support a pattern of administrative abuse, as this is a rather isolated incident. Sterile^{walkie-talkie} 09:15, 14 February 2009 (EST)

Suggested resolutions and discussion

Dismiss under RW:Statute of Limitation. Генгис^{Gum disease} 02:08, 13 February 2009 (EST)

Dismiss under: RW:Get a fuckin' life and stop your ongoing dick contest. TheoryOfPractice 12:51, 13 February 2009 (EST)

Dismiss: Reasons why

1. Took place 3.5 months ago, and should have been bought up then if it was really an issue
2. Petty dispute between two users
3. Not going to happen again owing to changes in site policy

I view this "Administrative Abuse" as just a spat fight between two users who just want to watch the other get ridiculed. It is for that reason that I agree with dismissing it, completly, and belive that the best course of action would be for Human and RA just apologise, and move on. ĵ₳¥ášÇ♠ʘ thinking of what to say next

Dismiss under RW: No-one cares. It's really petty chaps, life's too short for two intelligent adults to behave like this and we still love you anyway, etc. Now, how can you both direct your energies to ensuring Andy doesn't get certified by the State of NJ? DogP 13:24, 13 February 2009 (EST)

Dismiss. Honestly, who cares? Maybe I'm wrong or different, but I've never taken this place terribly seriously. You can't. As soon as you do you start down the slippery slope of CP. Keeping tabs on CP for its lunacy might be a bit serious, but that's about it. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Save me Jebus!} 13:28, 13 February 2009 (EST)

I agree with Edgerunners comment above. As I understand it, RW is not wikipedia and is certainly not CP. I was under the impression that here was a place of loose morals and easy going fun. I have mentioned this before RA - to you directly via electronic mail - but I feel RW should be a place to avoid the pressure of real life, to rid oneself of the serious. My opinion of course. Ace McWicked^Revolt 16:19, 13 February 2009 (EST)

Human agrees not to demote people to sysop who request not be, then the matter is dismissed. DickTurpis 14:53, 13 February 2009 (EST)

Actually I think that Human does sometimes act without looking for consensus - but he's not the only one. It is my impression that RA and others are not above dong this as well. As to the case in point, well it was several months ago. It's a tad late to fight over it now. I also seem to recall that RA has previously been invited to provide a comprehensive set of diffs to demonstrate his charges against Human but that none were forthcoming. Still, he says he can make a case - if so, might I suggest that he limit himself to the year 2009?--Bob^{bing up} 16:00, 13 February 2009 (EST)

I'll be taking a break from normal editing to focus on building my case. Dude, come on. This is ridiculous, get over yourself. "Building your case"? This aint L.A. Law man. Ace McWicked^Revolt 16:02, 13 February 2009 (EST)

I suggest that we simply leave this dorky issue alone. --"CUR^talk 16:12, 13 February 2009 (EST)

Is there anyone aside from Human and RA who actually wants to go through this? If not, I am willing to close this. ĵ₳¥ášÇ♠ʘ thinking of what to say next

I dont even think Human cares. It's RA's issue. Ace McWicked^Revolt 16:39, 13 February 2009 (EST)

I think it was mainly RA complaining about Human thinking I am not mostly harmless. Though I am disappointed that yesterday, Human still thought I was dangerous. --"CUR^talk 16:42, 13 February 2009 (EST)

I hate to say it (though love to say it) but CUR, I think you were merely a vague after thought in this issue. Not very much to do with you at all really. Ace McWicked^Revolt 16:45, 13 February 2009 (EST)

It strikes me that Cayce Pollard probably would have left one way or another and to say that human sysopping her is the cause isn't exactly fair. I vote we dismiss this and that we agree not to sysop users without their consent. Stile4aly 16:55, 13 February 2009 (EST)

And that is something we did agree on, the community standards have a clause against sysopping someone who does not want it. ĵ₳¥ášÇ♠ʘ thinking of what to say next

Please keep in mind, folks, that RA really does have other parts to this complaint, it's not just about the Cayce Pollard issue. If nothing else, I think having him bring them all to the foreground at once will help he & I sort this out, if it ends up not requiring mob intervention/mediation. We'll see. ħuman 17:11, 13 February 2009 (EST)

I shall wait until RA has presented his case and Human his defence before passing comment. Stupid wisest Hoover! 09:12, 14 February 2009 (EST) I haven't followed this case in detail as I'm far less active here than I was. In general terms I would like to say:-

• Administrators are human beings and are sometimes under pressure from vandals. Human errors should be rare but are unavoidable.
• Systematic sysop abuse should not happen if it is happening. Proxima Centauri 09:27, 14 February 2009 (EST)

As neither of these cases involved vandals, and dealt with abuse of bureaucrat powers, your point is moot. Stupid wisest Hoover! 09:27, 14 February 2009 (EST)

Now this is beginning to annoy me. I have almost never sweared here. I do not want to. I probably will if this turns into another Great Pissing Contest. --"CUR^talk 10:18, 14 February 2009 (EST)

What's beginning to annoy you? Stupid wisest Hoover! 10:29, 14 February 2009 (EST)

Dismiss under writ of McWicked: "Dude, come on. This is ridiculous, get over yourself. "Building your case"? This aint L.A. Law man." Whole thing is just an excuse for you two to have a cat fight. Not doing anyone any good. --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 12:17, 14 February 2009 (EST)

Though, I will say, because I'm fond of you both, and hate to see all this fussin' an feudin', I'd be willing to provide pistols for dawn dueling. But srsly, you guys are both cool, and it's sad there's no way to resolve this without bloodying each other's noses. --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 14:39, 14 February 2009 (EST)

Create a cage match space and let 'em duke it out. Sterile^{walkie-talkie} 17:18, 14 February 2009 (EST)

I say we end this with a Madlibs match between the two of them.

On an ironically more serious note, I think both of you need to stop taking our standards too seriously and be more spontaneous; when there's an issue, let the mob know and it'll decide. NightFlare 18:39, 14 February 2009 (EST)

You're right, Nightlflare. This sad little war behind the bike sheds is a perfect example of why the whole 'community standards' debate was a joke - who wants community standards and regulations when this 'filing of issues in triplicate' attitude is the end result? The ludicrous attempts to bureaucratize this place are absurd - we're not the G7, ferchrisakes. Get over yerselves. DogP 21:01, 14 February 2009 (EST)

The only reason I started this was that a major contributor accused me of administrative abuse (and abuse in general?). If it were TK, I would just "consider the source" and ignore it. But it's not TK, it's a well-respected editor. If he's correct, we need a solution. If he's not, I need a place I can link to that absolves me. Anything in between, again, the clear discussion of the issues will serve as a resource. ħuman 23:01, 14 February 2009 (EST)

I say it should be settled with a duel at dawn. Stupid wisest Hoover! 11:35, 17 February 2009 (EST)

While that, and other forms of combat like cage-fighting and kung-fu, are the best solutions, they're not very practical for dueling across the network of tubes. I suggest instead the entire dispute be settled once and for all by both of these idiots playing three rounds of Dolphin Olympics, at a pre-determined time. Both contestants would have to play, live, and report their scores. We could watch with bated breath. Scores for each round would have to be provided via screen captures. Best of three wins. DogP 13:39, 17 February 2009 (EST)

My idea was to remove the powers of both, then make them both 'crats at a predetermined time and declare the first to promote and block the other would win. Hang on - why not DO 2? Stupid wisest Hoover! 15:01, 17 February 2009 (EST)

Request for dismissal

Since no further charges (as were promised) have been proffered, and all who didn't care screamed for dismissal due to statutes of limitations (ie, old news, superseded by new guidelines), and the prosecution's attempts at gaining evidence were ignored or even rebuffed, I move that the charges be dropped and that henceforth, the bringer of these charges not accuse the defendant of such crimes again, since they have failed to prosecute a reasonable case. I further move that we archive this garbage. ħuman 06:12, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Yes, let's please archive it before it starts up again. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 06:17, 23 February 2009 (EST)

agree. Time expired._and marmite 06:21, 23 February 2009 (EST)