RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive100

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Ace McWicked[edit]

I propose demodding and sysoprevoking Ace because he's been nothing but trouble for the past six months. To quote @LeftyGreenMario


Tired Point it out Ace is a terrible mod Okay He's nothing but trouble ever since he took the position Provoking Oxyaena despite being told to stop. STILL PROVOKING HER

Always steps in the middle of decisions for the sake of following rules to the teeth and goads and goads about shit for fucking forever

He's block warred multiple times, goes against consensus, and I feel is not worth keeping around as a mod. See his latest fuckery on @LeftyGreenMario's and @BabyLuigiOnFire's talk pages. Oxyaena Harass 14:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore he belittles me constantly, including calling me a "hysterical dick" and consistently misgendering me. Oxyaena Harass 19:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, those "15 year old boy" & "he's a punk" comments are pretty transphobic. And this isn't the first time he's misgendering her... Gunther8787 (talk) 19:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
I think those were more of a reference to a hypothetical edgy teenager (the he being in reference to that teenager) rather than transphobia, that being said I am not aware of any other incidents where Ace misgenders Oxy, so this could be a pattern which I wouldn't be fully aware of. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 20:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Furthermore, it could just be he does not remember personal details about somebody who pesters him on a wiki that, as pretty much everybody who discusses his mod tenure has said by now, he barely spends any time on or seems to have much investment in. Maybe this whole "arch-enemy" dynamic they (oxy and ace) have going is asymmetrical in terms of emotional investment.-Flandres (talk) 20:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Ace deliberately seeks me out to piss me off. Oxyaena Harass 20:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
I think you should build up your case by providing a more extensive history of those transgressions. Get out diff links. It'll take a lot of time but it'll make for a more convincing case. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 20:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Here, here, here, [1], and take a look at the block log, LGM's talk page, and RightyBlueLuigi's page. Oxyaena Harass 20:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll provide a few for the talkpages then. Here's a now deleted convo from your (LeftyGreenMario) Talkpage. Here's his comment after the matter, which is still on the page at the time of writing. Here's the start of a conversation on BabyLuigi's talkpage that wound up leaking over into another one on the same page, that at the time of writing this comment has this as the most recent diff. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 20:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
This may reflect that I joined rw during a presidential election(which I see tends to bring out the worst in everybody here) but nothing you linked seems that out of the ordinary for rational wiki. The blocking thing could be a problem but Demoding does not appear to be warranted(Just vote against the guy next time or something), at any rate we should just change the community standards themselves to more clearly reflect that consensus on the issue of blocking has changed so this rules-lawyer act doesn't happen(for instance move what effects mandate Short-term or long term blocking).-Flandres (talk) 20:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Are we back to banning people for being annoying? And now Ace is the subject. lol"Shut up, Brx." 21:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
You know what else constitutes banning people for being "annoying"? Vandalism. Harassment. After all, vandalism is easily fixed with a click of the button. Why should we even ban vandals, can't we just undo their edits and ignore them? БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 21:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Examples of Ace antagonizing or belittling Oxy[edit]

Each incident alone might not be much, but I do believe that moderators shouldn't express such a consistent contempt and hostility for one particular user, especially if that user is active and productive. It makes them seem un-objective and it hampers their ability to manage conflicts involving said user. It hurts the mod's credibility. Just my take on the matter. Also, casting general pejoratives at large numbers of users at once isn't good behavior. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 20:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Two comments here. First per ace getting along with the other mods, this is not a policy conflict but an issue between you all that you have to work out. A mod can disagree with the consensus of all the other mods from time to time. I see no evidence of willful antagonism or contrarianism. You have to work it out amongst yourselves.
Second. Oxy and Ace have a serious personality conflict that they have to work out themselves. Oxy is equally getting up in ace's face as he tries to mod...with oxy crossing the tech/mod line frequently. Ace is being a raging asshole to oxy sometimes (get the fucking pronoun right Ace for fuck sakes already) and should try being less of an asshole. Ace's comment about Oxy being a cancer of the sight, I admit, was a bitch asshole move. In any case they ought to work this out and I don't see why this merits a coop case. ShabiDOO 21:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes to be fair Oxy also gave Ace a hard time though the constant heckling from him is not really endearing. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 21:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Does anyone else think it is ironic for a user with "Harass" in their user name to be so sensitive about being harassed? I think Ace has been rude to Oxyaena. Stop that shit Ace. You hear? I may not vote for you again if you keep it up. Ariel31459 (talk) 22:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I hate people who rules lawyer without any rational backing behind it[edit]

It's pretty much an argument from authority fallacy. Not every rule is going to be written on the wiki (the community standards he linked to that he keeps clinging onto is woefully outdated to how blocking people is actually handled on the wiki these days and desperately needs updating to begin with). What my logic behind the ban of that user last night is that he clearly isn't there to help the wiki but to eject foul comments from bad faith if you read the contributions (he links to Conservapedia and is baiting athiests to respond inappropriately). That ban shouldn't even be controversial, and that user is free to rerig if he has a change of heart and actually does start contributing. Ace believes that you can just take laissez-faire problematic users and ignore them, but look at how many sites fail to deal with these sort insidious trolls who can bend community rules to run rampant and make the site a far more toxic place than it should be and continue trying to bait people to respond because they expect the community to self-police themselves rather than take any action to stop users who take advantage of lax moderation and infest the talk pages with their baggage. No one should be subject to this, especially not sysops, and it's far easier to ban obviously problematic users on sight than to let them manifest horribly and eventually get a coop raised about their malicious behavior anyway. I've dealt with people who think my dealing with TheDarkMaster and ElvisIsKing in the past is bad because it "broke the rules" but look at how much energy is expended to "properly" deal with them when their ban should be uncontroversial to anyone who has a lick of decency.

So my hot take on this? People who don't understand the reason rules are employed that shouldn't be taken literally, that don't have a proper rebuttal towards my decisions other than an argument from authority and harms the overall upkeep of the wiki because they think you can just "ignore" problematic users than being a moderator and moderating things don't have what it takes to be a mod. Paired on with his history (that I'm unfamiliar with) of provoking other users and his overall inactivity and yeah. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 21:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

So, I take it Ace provoked you too? Is that it?Ariel31459 (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it a provocation, he just did something I strongly disagree with and I don't think he backed up himself up that well. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 22:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:BabyLuigiOnFire#Community_Standards Gunther8787 (talk) 22:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Listen here[edit]

Firstly my inactivity has been due to extreme personal circumstances which I am definitely not going into. Secondly this started because a user who wasn't a vandal was vandal binned. So I unbinned them which lead Oxy to infinite ban said user for "Block Evasion" which was clearly not the case so I unblocked the user and asked Oxy for evidence that it was a block evasion - which of course wasn't forthcoming because there was no evidence. This is typical of how she approaches every block. I then reblocked the user for 3 days. Everything I did was completely inline with the community standards so it's not me that should be cooped but those breaching the community standards - Oxy and Luigi. Either the community standards matter or they don't. If you don't like them propose a change. But part of being a mod is, paraphrased from the mod page, Bootstrapping Policy which is exactly what I did. AceModerator 23:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

You've been inactive for months, to some degree since before you were elected. If "personal circumstances" were such a problem to you, you could have just not run.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 23:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately the circumstances I find/found myself in do not conform to the Mod election schedule. AceModerator 23:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Then you should resign then. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 23:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Listen - when I am lying in a CT scanner writhing in agony my mind isn't going "Hey, I should check out RW". AceModerator 23:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Furthermore, I shouldn't be cooped for banning a clear troll. That's absolutely ridiculous. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 23:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Community standards my man. AceModerator 23:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Can you stop relying on that and actually address my gripes about your actions? БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 23:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Which are what? AceModerator 23:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
I've conveniently detailed it above on why I exercised my judgement on the overall upkeep of the wiki despite being so-called "against community standards" which are woefully outdated despite that the user is clearly not there for "constructive discourse" even as outlined in the community standards as the section does not address trolls who are not good faith editors when I could argue that they're vandals as well (they don't necessarily need to muck up only mainspace to be considered vandals, trolls are pretty much on the same vein and have the same intentions as vandals). Stop being obtuse. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 23:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
THe proper course of action is a short ban as they aren't a vandal and haven't done anything to deserve an infinite block. And that's that. You vandal binned a non-vandal then Oxy lied about it being a block evasion - so yeah that deserves a cooping. AceModerator 23:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Please explain to me why we ban vandals. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 23:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Shit Ace. Are you on the mend now?Ariel31459 (talk) 23:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

No, I am fucked. AceModerator 23:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Seconded. Writing in pain is horrid. ShabiDOO 23:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
I mean, infinite blocks for vandals is a touch excessive. And from what I gather that seems to have been Ken from CP. Yes, that Ken from CP. So... Um, I'm not sure anything more than a brief stint in the vandal bin is warranted, if that. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Well they weren't a vandal so Oxy infinite blocked as "ban evasion" which was total bullshit. So why am I here instead of Oxy or anyone else that hands out bans, manny infinite, for Ban Evasion? To me that is an abuse of block rights. AceModerator 01:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
You're alone in that sentiment. Oxyaena Harass 15:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Recommend prompt closure of this mess[edit]

This coop is a joke. So Ace is abrasive, so what? So he's been MIA for personal reasons, so what? The whole Oxy versus Ace dispute was hashed out here before, and all than came of it was a huge Meh. I don't think Ace is purposely abusing Oxy or any other member of this wiki. It appears to me that Ace is acting in what he feels is in the best interest of RationalWiki and in his role as a moderator. The particulars of this incident involving the troll GiuocoPiano and Ace's reaction to some emotional and unwarrented kickbans don't rise to the level of a coop. This coop has degraded into personal attacks on Ace based on a nebulous statement that "he's been nothing but trouble for the past six months." I recommend prompt closure of this mess. Cosmikdebris (talk) 03:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I just don't get it that people can flagrantly issue bullshit blocks but I am the one being hauled over to the coop. Oxy has a huge history of blocking for incorrect reasons for long lengths of time. She blocked Giuoco for an infinite length citing block evasion when it was clearly no such case. That is abuse of the block tool and should be up for sysoprevoke if it turns out to be an ongoing problem (it is). But no, the fucking moderator doing the job of a fucking moderator inline with all moderator and community standards is here in the coop. Mind-fucking-boggling. AceModerator 03:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes to close this out.Ariel31459 (talk) 04:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Making a strong coop case requires citations, and explanations of the citations where necessary — we're not here to re-research RW's talk pages for what you already know about. Duce has given some citations, Oxy has not. This isn't Duce's coop, so Oxy has yet to make a strong case in my view. Lack of civility is not currently a reason for punishment, but harassment could be if a strong case could be made for it. Bongolian (talk) 05:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Not to mention most of the examples Duce put up have already been litigated months ago. There's a very clear path to this - I revert invalid/incorrect/bullshit blocks, Oxy goes fucking spare and coops me. When in actual fact it's Oxy's blocks that should be the problem here - not me. AceModerator 05:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
What you think to be "invalid blocks" other people think to be perfectly valid. You're not a god, piss off. Oxyaena Harass 15:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Is there a double jeopardy clause in coop cases? nobsFree Roger Stone! 05:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Can't they just... stay out of each other's way? Not comment on each other's posts, and if one takes exception to the other's mod/tech actions they can ask a third party to intervene?-"Shut up, Brx." 05:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
It should be noted that it was Oxy that jumped in rather than me jumping in on Oxy. I reverted a vandalbinning of the (possibly) Ken account - Oxy had nothing to do with it until she came along and changed it to infinite block for Ban evasion which is horseshit. So it wasn't my doing - she got herself involved. AceModerator 05:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
¯\_(ツ)_/¯-"Shut up, Brx." 06:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
There is no double jeopardy clause per se, however there is a history of people jumping the gun and starting lame-ass coop cases, then having it backfire on themselves. Coop cases are tiring and most people don't want to relitigate the same shit over and over. If you're going to make a case: make sure it's a strong case, gather all your evidence, give all the evidentiary links in a logical or chronological order, and reference the alleged relevant RW policy violation(s). Doing that will save everyone time and reduce the likelihood that people will be biased against you for wasting their time. Bongolian (talk) 06:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

A few suggestions[edit]

While we haven't quite entered yet the phase where we can vote, it does increasingly become clear that a few things are going to have to change. Specifically:

  1. Our blocking policy/community standards need an updating. Ever since a certain member in last november got himself our first rangeblock (temporary, and was voted on), the amount of trolls infesting certain pages or drive-by vandals that show up every few weeks to piss over their least favorite pages has gone up. In response, the general stance with sysops and mods in general who have been active has been to take a lower tolerance policy on this stuff. Yeah, you can ban the drive-by troll for a week or so, but they show up next week after it's expired. That's why there's an increased move to infinite blocks. Our blocking guidelines as they are do not actually say a lot about this, suggesting that blocks for repeated offenders can be increased for up to three months, but over the past few weeks I've seen trolls who just waited out their block periods or just created alts to get around them. At that point, it's clear that the user has no intention of engaging respectfully or engaging productively. Whilst I'm of the opinion that we shouldn't become an echo chamber (disagreements with anyone should be able to be voiced), these kinds of vandals only add a pointless burden that can at least be relaxed by permanently blocking them. The vandal bin is more of a measure against editors who only stop by once, since it impededs their attempts at vandalism enough.
  2. An interaction ban between Oxy and Ace. As it says. Neither seems to have the ability to respectfully engage with the other. There's been a mod noticeboard about Oxy from Ace in the past where he made some weak accusation of her using CheckUser (which we don't even have installed), and now we have this string of abrasive dickishness about Ace from Oxy that just suggests these two aren't going to get along.
  3. A central-ish, public way for moderators to comment on actions taken by other moderators. Right now if a moderator takes issues with the moderative actions of another moderator, their remedial is to go to the mod's talkpage, to the talkpage of a page that involved the actions, mod noticeboard or to take them to the coop. The result is that conflict between mods don't get talked over and escalate to the point where a Coop like this becomes necessary (hell, look at the most recent coop, also from Oxy, where she took Scream to the coop over similarly escalating behavior). One good way would be a dedicated section on the mod noticeboard for this, but a separate page might also be useful, with the idea that while any user may comment, only a mod can start a new subject in that page/section.

Those are at least, from my perspective the things that would have to change, and assuming this coop doesn't just get removed before the 48 hours pass, I feel that the upper things all should be voted on and decided for. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 08:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

That all sounds great to me. Spud (talk)
Me too. They are all ways to actually move forward.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 12:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
What about having a Recall petition for an elected Mod? Say gather a petition with something like 75% of the number of voters in the last election, begin it with a "Whereas Moderator X has abused their powers by...." and have people sign on. Set something like a 14 day expiration date. The Petition could be either a final judgement in itself or merely to set up a special recall election, etc. It should probably be limited, in that you have to wait 6 months to try again if it fails, or something like that.
This would spare all the drama of a coop and restore the integrity of elections and the coop process. nobsFree Roger Stone! 08:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Bugger off with your feeble attempts at trying to subvert RW, Nobs. Bongolian (talk) 14:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
There's one danger to this proposal: it turns Mods into a privileged position immune from Coop cases from ordinarily editors and plebs. nobsFree Roger Stone! 18:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Go stir your shitpot on CP. Bongolian (talk) 19:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
An interesting suggestion, although I think the "75% of voters in last election" would not be an appropriate approach in and of itself. If we're to implement a no confidence system, it should take into account the mobocracy entirely. If say, 20 people vote in the election, quick math would say that if you can get any 15 users to agree with you (not super difficult), you can effectively remove any mod just because you don't like them. It definitely shouldn't be binding, it should just be used as a preliminary for an actual vote, in which people can vote in favor/against of it (and the vote should definitely be supermajority rather than regular majority if it goes through), if we're to formalize the process. The removal would just mean picking the next reserve moderator on the list (given how we elect two reserves).
As for limitations, I would say that one user can only make one no-confidence petition per elective cycle (so once each year), regardless on whether it goes through or not. That said, in this specific situation, I'm not fully sure if Ace should be removed outright, given how the majority of issues people have with Ace seem to more have to do with poor communication rather than outright issues with how Ace behaves as a moderator, so if we were to vote on that specifically, I'd probably vote neutral and in favor of improving the ability for mods to communicate about each other's actions and interaction banning him and Oxy from each other. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 10:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
As a moderator, I don't actually have any long-term issues with my current fellow moderators as far as their actions taken as moderators. We don't need yet another forum for inter-communication. The Sysops who voted Ace in as moderator knew that he was running on a campaign of reform of blocking behavior, and that was not what this coop case was about. Bongolian (talk) 14:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
This incident was prompted after Ace opted to go to LGMs talkpage in order to go and do a slapfight with her over blocking a troll and being passive agressive about it, and rules lawyering over the blocking policy. The previous incident with CheckUser can be found here and looking at it, the issue with permanently blocking obvious trolls was raised back there as well. The issue still remains that, at least the last few times I've seen drama pop up between moderators, the approach is to either take it directly to their talkpage (where other mods aren't likely to find it or comment on it) or coop the person (which is undesired since it's such a huge thing). It doesn't need to be a new page, it could just be a dedicated section on the noticeboard. I don't think Ace should be removed over this either, but the entire shit that is just "let Oxy and Ace talk it out privately" has been tried before and it didn't go anywhere and now we're essentially here again, except this time the issue is prompted by Ace rules lawyering against a permablock that is not out of line with our effective blocking policy, but is out of line with our current written one. It means that our policy needs to update, that there needs to be a way to raise these conflicts between mods (the original incident was between Ace and LGM, I guess it just pissed off Oxy enough) without going through the entire chicken coop over it and there probably should be some sort of way to prevent Oxy and Ace from getting into slapfights again over this kinda stuff. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 15:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
The system as is, a Mod can get elected with 30 votes, but a group of 6 or 8 or a dozen can depose him/her/it in a coop coup nobody is paying attention to. nobsFree Roger Stone! 18:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Nobs, are you feeling ok? You just made 2 very rational statements. And both of them aren't about how Hillary is a dirty shill. Gunther8787 (talk) 19:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

There is a real problem with people litigating their disagreements in this format, when it seems, there is general dislike of having to perform a sort of jury duty among some of the sysops. I keep seeing the same complaints. I don't mind showing up here and, in light of the facts declaring "there seems to be insufficient reason for my attention here." But others are bothered by it. To them I suggest putting limits on the ability of individuals to bring complaints to the Coop. No one should be allowed to bring dozens of cases to this forum only to have them all dismissed as non-actionable. How about a limit of three cases dismissed without finding per year for any user, after which no more cases would be allowed by that user for that year. I don't propose to punish offenders, rather to discourage them from wasting our collective attention.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Alternatively, the initial litigant lays out a case with diffs, and then an immediate vote to proceed or dismiss the case with a certain number necessary to proceed. nobsFree Roger Stone! 18:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

First, I'm tired, I didn't get involved because I was literally tired and grouchy. Second we have to implement rules that discourages rules lawyering, probably add some sort of sysop discretion. Third we have a higher tolerance for long term bans these days regarding trolls. Short term, long term, doesn't matter in the end for trolls. Some do wait it out only to continue being terrible, and then another ban. Indef ban, they rereg. So the rules reflect that. Vandal bin is similar, but also discretion is advised and know that it's a bit of a mix of indef ban and short term: edit rate is restricted indefinitely but users can still decide to keep trolling or to contest what happened, as is indef ban and keeping talk page opened. That's how I saw it, and if the rules doesn't reflect that AND allow for rules lawyering, then those aspects of the rules should be changed. Before I set proposals in motion, I need to get some consensus. Disagree? Let me know. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 19:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Community standards change[edit]

Moved to here.

Shall we close this case[edit]

Let the users work their conflicts out themselves? ShabiDOO 12:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I suppose so. Spud (talk) 12:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
I would prefer to close the case with at least a vote on my suggestions (once the 48 hours limit has passed). This is the second time this has happened, and I would prefer to avoid setting ourselves up for a third round of this, since it's likely to happen again if we don't take action on it. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 14:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
No, there are serious issues we need worked out here. Oxyaena Harass 16:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes. Close.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
We should close this forthwith.-Flandres (talk) 16:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, close it. Bongolian (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
I just want rules to be changed so discussion regarding a troll... A troll!!! Doesn't get drawn out like this. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 18:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Can we have a separate discussion and vote for that so that all the other issues from this coop doesn't get drawn into it? Bongolian (talk) 19:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


is a rules-lawyering fuck, notice how the guidelines say that "they are not law," and the wikipedia rule "ignore all rules." Blocking policy has evolved since the time the community standards were first written, and Ace himself said serial harassers shouldn't be permabanned even after it was pointed out how I was getting serial harassed. Oxyaena Harass 15:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

If you want to propose a revision of blocking policy that makes all this unnecessary, please do so. This has been proposed in a previous section by TC. Address your grievance with a moderator who is willing to take up your concerns, if you can find one. I would put it this way, if you can't find a moderator who is willing to champion your position, then it is unlikely that you would win out with this convention.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
The community standards are irrelevant and obsolete, I've had multiple people agree with my blocking policy. Mods aren't supposed to be conflictive shits, they're supposed to mediate disputes. Ace has done nothing of the sort. Oxyaena Harass 16:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
So, you claim the standards don't matter? That should be voted on, no?Ariel31459 (talk) 16:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Oxy, this section really doesn't help your case. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 16:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Out come the insults. This is tired shit. You are both adults who are capable of working this shit out. One of you could go to the other users talk page and in a non-insulting non-aggressive manner make the first overture or compromise and find a solution. This coop-case is ridiculous. ShabiDOO 16:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
The problem is, we've tried the "let them work it out" approach, and it's landed us back here in the coop like, twice maybe? Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 16:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
The community standards were created by the group who were then the majority on the wiki. It was a really long drawn-out process with multiple rounds of voting and care was taken to ensure that everyone who had an opportunity to vote actually voted. That said, they were never meant to be set in stone and, if an almost entirely different community now wishes to change them, then they should go through the same process. But someone simply complaining that the rules are out of date (or not to their liking) fixes nothing.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Hot take: if Ace is also instigating Oxyaena to respond and vice versa, if they can't work it out, Ace shouldn't be moderator. Edit: No vote on this though. I'll wait for election. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 19:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

changing community policies[edit]

If you're going to debate and vote for new policies, hold it in a forum or here and make a site announcement for it or at the very least advise users not active in this discussion. I frequently miss coop stuff, notably because many cases are nonsense and I know several other users who avoid this forum entirely. ShabiDOO 20:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

"I know several other users who avoid this forum entirely."
They're lucky they have that choice. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 20:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)