RationalWiki:All things in moderation/Marcus Cicero

After extensive community consultation the following decisions were made: MarcusCicero would be banned from editing for one month. MarcusCicero would be stripped of sysop rights and these would not be reinstated without further moderation. Any sockpuppets of MarcusCicero are to be blocked and IPs he uses vandal binned. Please respect this decision made by the community as a whole, even if you personally disagree with it.

Marcus Cicero

Proposal: proposed that Marcus Cicreo be penalized with promotion to editor, a one month block plus immediate vandal binning of any subsequent post by an ip. If it isn't MC posting and is just an imitator then it'll be necessary collateral damage without long term implication. Also anyone seen feeding the troll should be told to leave it alone and the trolltop template be used.

Passed with 26 votes in favour to 2 against (see talk page for full results)

Discussion

Marcus Cicero. Abusive edit comments, provoking Psy to drop a huse block on him, just being Marcus. This always ends badly, and we should figure out a stand now. P-Foster_{Can't we talk about this, baby?} 13:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Fuck off Marcus? Ace^{of Spades} 14:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

What are we up to now his fourth, fifth chance? Marcus is boorish. Whilst Psy shouldn't have vandal binned him, his reaction was his usual abusive screeds he feels he is entitled to. - π 14:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Psy didn't help by over-reacting, but MC seems to be trying to provoke people for no good reason. While he is not entirely wrong in terms of some of his critiques of the wiki, he is, as Pi says, boorish about it, and can't seem to go for more than a couple of weeks without poking things with a stick. P-Foster_{Can't we talk about this, baby?} 14:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

This guy isn't really helping himself here. Does anyone feel like proposing a solution? P-Foster_{Can't we talk about this, baby?} 14:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I am tired of playing this game with MC. His pretentious ramblings about authoritarianism would indict that a disciplinary block is unlikely to have an effect on his behaviour. I think it is time we consider excluding him in some way, vandal break/lengthy block/permanent removal of rights. - π 14:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I concur. It has to be the result of a community consensus, with a vote -- like in the case of TK. Which means we need to propose something specific. Either a binning or a blocking would entail promotion (so he couldn't undo it). Even in 2 edits an hour, a dedicated troll can raise a lot of shit. Suggest a block measured in weeks to let him find something else to do, and then binning. P-Foster_{Can't we talk about this, baby?} 14:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I propose a solution that may very well be moot - block each person participating in disruptive behavior for a short time with the promise that if they continue it the blocks will be immediate and progressively longer. I believe that is the full extent of our authority. What this is is a good opportunity for the community to follow P-Foster's suggestion and handle this on its own by coming up with a policy and procedure for stripping user rights (we still don't have anything after the Human coop) and community bans (the loose consensus when this was done to TK years ago would be unacceptable today...). We don't even have a good policy for vandal binning people other than vandals (our guidance from this, this, and this mentions vandals only... perhaps the community should decide whether the bin can be permissibly used for trolls as well) - people just do and undo it on a completely ad hoc basis. Given the amount of controversy Marcus's disruptive behavior causese, I wish the community would use this is a chance to resolve the procedural and substantive issues once and for all. 15:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

We should establish a vote and let the community decide, because any solution will have to be long-term for everyone's sake. The vote can have three options: let him stay, keep him binned, or ban him permanently. This will be a permanently binding vote, and under the new rules the next time someone decides unilaterally to give him a reprieve we can authoritatively re-bin/block him (or unbin/unblock if the vote chose to let him stay). We will have to take care to make sure it doesn't turn into a circus, though: strict time limit on the vote and a careful eye on any discussion.--^talk 22:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I am of two minds on this (three if you count the fucking hellish hangover as a "mind". It certainly feels as if it has the power of thought). On one hand if you ignore him he ceases to bother. On the other, people don't ignore him. As a moderator my opinion would be to ignore and possibly block him for a month or so. As a person my opinion is that people shouldn't wear flares and that hippies should wear shoes. Ace^{of Spades} 23:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

After reviewing the "you're a south african hence you racist" jibe I am inclined to block rather than ignore. That shit isn't on. Ace^{of Spades} 23:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

So lets fucking do something then

I propose a one month block plus immediate vandal binning of any subsequent post by ip. If it isn't MC posting and is just an imitator then it'll be necessary collateral damage without long term implication. Also anyone seen feeding the troll should be told to leave it alone and the trolltop template be used. Fuck yeah, lets moderate. Ace^{of Spades} 01:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I reiterate: we should just be organizing a community vote. Let's make this the final decision for RW about what to do with concern trolls like MC. Either they vote to leave him alone, or we get a permanent decision on binning or banning him indefinitely.--^talk 02:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

While I like the idea of putting it to the community each time it has been put in practice it has ended in a shit slinging cluster fuck. We were elected as moderators to put things in action which is what I think we should be doing. We all know MC is deliberatly inciting and flaming so why go through the painful gibberish of getting everyone to make their opinion known when the solution is simple. This has been going for years now, time to fucking act already. Ace^{of Spades} 02:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Exhibit A. Time for action. Ace^{of Spades} 02:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Exhibit BExhibit C. Let's Roll. P-Foster_{Can't we talk about this, baby?} 02:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I will post a vote on the talk page for this page based on Ace's recommendation. P-Foster_{Can't we talk about this, baby?} 02:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

For the record I wouldn't disavow the opinions of the community for any new problems that may come up but this MC shit has dragged on for fucking ages and it has been put to the community several times over without result. We just need to fucking do it. Ace^{of Spades} 02:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Before this, everyone felt entitled to just unilaterally contradict the vote a month later, taking him out of the bin and giving him rights and so on. This will be different, because that will not be allowed. That will be our role: to enforce the decision. If someone, six months later, decides "it's been long enough," then we quietly overrule them and tell them that the vote was taken and that's the end of it.--^talk 07:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that this is now the essential difference. A community vote is taken and the results are binding, the mods stand together to ensure that whatever verdict is delivered is effected for as long as is decided and ensure that it is not arbitrarily rescinded. Because previous votes have been closed too quickly we should ensure that everyone has a reasonable chance to have their say so should be open for at least a full seven days. In addition I would like the vote to be conducted in a civil manner so that MC has an opportunity to state his case and that people's votes be confined to yea, nay or abstain rather then adding vitriolic diatribes. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 13:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, once an issue goes to the vote it should be conducted on a separate page which can be locked and archived once the vote is complete, with a permalink placed at the top of this page's chatter page for ease of reference. Otherwise the discussions get too convoluted. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 13:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Once the shenanigans are finished on the talkpages I'll give it its own archive. - π 13:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm really quite busy right now but do you think you could create a sub-page with the proposal, case and votes on the main page and all the bullshit & discussion on the talk because it's currently a mess. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 13:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Is this going anywhere anymore

Marcus clearly has no respect for the system we are attempting to establish and is not going to mount a defence. The votes are overwhelmingly one way, including 4 out of the 7 moderators. Is it time to stem the bleeding? - π 14:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree although mod votes carry no more weight than any other editor's. However, we should be careful to establish due process and not be seen as some authoritarian cabal. It is a pity that this particular case has come to the fore before we had established a format for how we deal with disruptive behaviour with regards duration of binning and blocking. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 15:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Seven days, as proposed, is a little much. We should use our common sense - as pi points out, the vote is clearly done. Does anyone object to carrying out the community's verdict now?--^talk 19:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

We are only issuing him a one month ban, although I assume the removal of sysop rights is permanent. - π 01:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

See the talk page -- another 24 (by now 20) hours has been proposed, nobody has objected. It is a drag to be making stuff up on the fly, but it's a good way to establish "jurisprudence." P-Foster_{Can't we talk about this, baby?} 01:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Been long enough I think

Unless anyone thinks we should extent the vote we should probably go ahead. The talk page is starting get a little non sensical now with secret emails and conspiracy's afoot. Ace^{of Spades} 20:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Here we go. P-Foster_{Can't we talk about this, baby?} 21:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe wait for another mod to jump in? Ace^{of Spades} 21:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

errrrrm.....too late? P-Foster_{Can't we talk about this, baby?} 21:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't think anyone would disagree. Ace^{of Spades} 21:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed.--^talk 22:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)