RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive17

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

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <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)

Brxbrx again

Brxbrx has been consistently issuing abusive blocks and ignoring admonishments to get straight or get fucked since he was first approached about this behavior the day before Encyclopedia Dramatic shut down. I've written a long discussion going through Brxbrx's 3 month pattern of misconduct because a sysop who so flagrantly misuses his powers and then laughs when corrected has no business with them in the first place. I'm sick of his shit. Enough is enough. I propose that he be permanently stripped of his sysop bit and that the community man up and learn how to deal with red exclamation points on Recent Chances. They mean something. NB: I'm bringing this coop as a regular use and will disqualify myself if moderator intervention is required in this particular instance. 21:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

After reviewing the evidence presented I strongly agree with you Nutty that Brxbrx should be desysopped, from a time at least, as he seems unable to heed the rules. Ace^{of Spades} 22:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I had no idea it was this bad. Good documentation. I think we should call a vote.--^talk 22:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

He desyopped himself, which I view as an implied admission of guilt, so a vote on whether to strip his rights is moot. I don't want him sysopped again because he's been such a sneering defiant shit to people trying to correct him (another "lol" from him in response to this coop) and this has been going on long enough that I think we should vote on if and when he can be resysopped. Before someone slaps up a vote section we need to decide how many votes are required and how will they be counted, what counts as a quorum, how long does the vote stay open, etc.? 22:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

lol--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec) What AD said, except the voting thing, which is obviously a non-issue now. How about 2 months? --★uːʤɱ federalist 22:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

We still need a vote to keep him de-sysopped - otherwise when he gets his rights back tomorrow from someone, then there will be no cause to take them away. Two months is a good time, though. I suggest vote parameters as follows: simple majority of users, only users of at least a week's experience count (so no sudden socks), vote to run three days. "That Brxbrx shall not be demoted again for at least two months."

He seems like a decent guy, just more familiar with another community's way of doing things. Nothing personal, Brx! :)--^talk 23:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I had previously given him the benefit of the doubt however after Nuttys page of evidence I can only assume he is a troll. I mean, he has been told several times "That isn't how we do things" yet he doesn't cease. Ace^{of Spades} 00:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Nutty, my desysopping myself was not an admission of guilt but rather a "no contest" plea. Or nollo contendere or something like that. You're the lawyer and I don't really know Latin anyways. I've desysopped myself once before in order to avoid conflict, and that's what I did this time too. Whether or not this is a successful strategy is up for debate.--User:Brxbrx/sig 00:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Whoa, two months? One should suffice. Real first name and last initial^{Talk, talk, talk skim my contributions} 08:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

My defense

I blocked some trolls, and I blocked people who could unblock themselves. Yes, I unnecessarily blocked IP's. I admit that. For most of my time here, this was because I didn't really bother to think about those checkboxes were. Then afterwards I'd occasionally purposefully issue an IP block as part of a joke block to annoy whoever I was blocking. I guess the term "spite block" works better than joke block in such cases. That's probably not okay.

That first instance where P-Foster addressed my blocking habits I did respond to [1], but as I was still new I did so in ED fashion, on his talkpage, not mine.

On 5/5/11, I believe I was entirely justified in rebuking Nutty Roux. He claims he was only "defending himself," but this borderline narcissistic response is out of touch with reality. In fact, several users had left comments on Nutty Roux's user talk page decrying his senseless and unnecessary attack on Ty. Ty may not have cared, but we (those who complained to Nutty) did.

Finally, I'd like to address the truth that many of the "malicious block" accusations from Nutty are really poorly disguised bad faith attempts to troll me. Everybody on RW issues joke blocks. Sometimes the subjects of these blocks had to unblock themselves. Nutty is just trying to get to me. Of course, I'm the one laughing, since I got to him first.
This is certainly a poor defense, or rather, more of a "It's bad, but is it that bad?" I have already stripped myself of user rights and I only ask for the mob and moderators clemency. One of these days, I'm going to want to see some deleted content and I surely can't do that without my sysop rights, can I? Please consider my words, I would greatly appreciate it.--User:Brxbrx/sig 00:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable, and you're certainly being cool about it. You seem to recognize that you messed up a little bit early on, and maybe a little bit since - would you object to going without demotion for two months? It would save us a vote, and would also allow you to be demoted again without a fuss when the time came. How would that be to you?--^talk 00:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not object. Let it be known that Brxbrx may not be demoted until September 19, or whatever date is two months from now. Should I go by days in a month, by date, or by increments of four weeks? We need a new calendar.--User:Brxbrx/sig 00:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for being chillaxed about it. I know that in stuff like this, it's easy to feel persecuted or unjustly condemned. One of the problems with a community like RW, where we're normally pretty reasonable about bending the rules, is that any enforcement smacks of hypocrisy - and can taste particularly of vendetta. But since you're willing to sit back and muddle about with us for a while before another demotion, I think you've earned the benefit of the doubt when it comes to good intentions. I hope this meets with everyone else's approval?--^talk 00:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and September 19th sounds good.--^talk 00:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

He's not that chillaxed, AD. He's trying to shift the focus from him to me, all while only halfassedly admitting wrongdoing. It's called deflection. "Poorly disguised bad faith attempts to troll me" - this isn't about my conduct, it's about yours, and I'll note that just like every single other vague statement you've made about me, this one is also devoid of any factual support. Stop shooting from the hip with bogus shit like this just for a moment and just come up with some facts to justify your claim that I'm "trolling" you in bad faith by taking you to task for abusing your block rights. Then we'll talk, likely about how badly you misuse the word "troll" considering your most frequent response to my criticism of behavior you admit is inappropriate is "lol." The 5/5/11 incident I'm talking about wasn't about you "rebuking" me for what you wrongly perceive to be some kind of savage attack. It was about you maliciously blocking me twice, which you don't even bother addressing. I hope it's obvious to people reading this that you're very transparently trying to shift the focus to me and away from your own bad behavior. I'm not "trying to get to you," but I'm glad you're laughing about all this even now because it just shows your own bad faith and that you don't deserve the minimal trust required to be a sysop here. 02:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Without any horse in this race, and being a mere casual contributor, to me it seems fine. Could we visit it again in mid/late August, to consider time off for good behavior? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not a mod (or ever will be), but I agree with Cogswell.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 01:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I mean, since he's basically submitting a guilty plea, I'd say one month demotion for leniency. Two seems excessive, especially when you consider that even Marcus, whose behavior is far worse, only got a month penalty. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 01:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The difference between Brxbrx and Marcus is that nobody's proposing community banning Brxbrx. We're considering whether he'll be resysopped after admitting to engaging in a pattern of inappropriate blocks. I object to any leniency simply because Brxbrx gives the appearance of cooperating (though he's attacked me in pretending to do so) because it fails to address the reason we're here. Evaluate the pattern of conduct, not his present response to it. Him desysopping himself "to avoid conflict" is clearly nothing more than playing possum because the behavior has continued as soon as his rights were returned. We're talking about something like 17 inappropriate blocks for which people attempted to correct him 9 times and for which he was cooped twice prior to now. The record reflects that he not only snottily rebuffed every attempt to correct him but brazenly continued the behavior. If the community wants to go easy on him by considering resysopping him in a month or two, it's got to be with the same kinds of conditions a parole or plea bargain carries: one single act of misconduct consistent with the prior patter and all bets are off - one malicious block, one IP block for more than a few minutes or an hour, one long block, and his rights are summarily removed with no question that they'll ever be returned. 02:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed: he just is being promoted, we're not talking about banning. It seems settled for now, his deflections or justifications aside. Hopefully in two months he'll see how sysops here work (i.e. with the lightest touch) and this will be water under the bridge.--^talk 05:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Two months sounds good.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 11:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

This guy has repeatedly demonstrated that he 1) is too stupid to be a sysop (seriously) and 2) doesn't care about our rules. We gave him more than a fair shake. Give him another try in a few months. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with OU - Brxbrx needs to learn that this isn't ED. Also the "lawls" attitude isn't really helping his cause. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 10:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Nutty Roux

Since NR conveniently ignored my "defense" and focused only on my accusation to him, I've decided to indulge him and make my case against him. Or something like that, the words aren't flowing very well, currently.

Exhibit A: Here you can clearly see Nutty's bad faith melodrama. I blocked him at RWW for five minutes, and he calls it abuse.

• (show/hide) 22:14, May 23, 2011 Nutty Roux (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked Nutty Roux (Talk | contribs) ‎ (Undo abuse)
• (show/hide) 22:10, May 23, 2011 Brxbrx (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Nutty Roux (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 minutes (account creation disabled, autoblock disabled) ‎ (obsessing over my virginity ) (unblock | change block)

(NR)Calling this coop "bad faith melodrama" by pointing to me undoing your inappropriate block on another website is about as stupid a defense as I've ever seen. The old legal adage goes: When the law is on your side, argue the law. When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When neither the facts nor the law are on your side, make an ad hominem attack.

Exhibit B: Here Nutty issues similar blocks. Are these not "abusive?"

• 07:52, 28 May 2011 Nutty Roux (Talk | contribs) blocked SuperJosh (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 3141 seconds (about 1 hour) (autoblock disabled) ‎ (God save the queen. She ain't no human bean. )

(NR)My buddy for years and obviously not a spite block - by definition not an abuse.

• 14:03, 27 April 2011 Nutty Roux (Talk | contribs) blocked SuperJosh (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 314 seconds (5 minutes) (autoblock disabled) ‎ (NOT PAYING ENOUGH ATTENTION TO ME)

(NR)My buddy for years and obviously not a spite block - by definition not an abuse. In this case I think I was actually making fun of your habit of persistently whoring around the wiki for attention, positive or negative.

• 21:27, 10 April 2011 Nutty Roux (Talk | contribs) blocked P-Foster (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 10 years (autoblock disabled) ‎ (He's not a sysop. We should sysop him. )

(NR)My buddy for years and obviously not a spite block - by definition not an abuse.

• (show/hide) 17:01, May 28, 2011 Nutty Roux (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Eira (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 month (autoblock disabled) ‎ (Get ready for the poopification. Coming to a wiki near you in June 2011.) (unblock | change block)

(NR)My buddy for years and obviously not a spite block - by definition not an abuse.

• 07:52, 18 March 2011 Nutty Roux (Talk | contribs) blocked Psygremlin (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of Next year (autoblock disabled) ‎ (Hey buddy)

(NR)My buddy for years and obviously not a spite block - by definition not an abuse.

• 06:44, 18 March 2011 Nutty Roux (Talk | contribs) blocked RobSmith (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years ago (autoblock disabled) ‎ (don't block his IP address)

(NR)I'm not sure if, despite the invalid expiry date, this had the intended effect of removing the IP block someone else had given Rob. Have a look at my blocking record and you'll see me being extremely sensitive to IP blocks, even specifically logging on to remove them when assholes like TK would email me complaining about them in the middle of the night.

• 05:30, 18 March 2011 Nutty Roux (Talk | contribs) blocked RobSmith (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 10 years ago (autoblock disabled) ‎ (In order to intimidate and harass)

(NR)Again, I think I was trying to remove an IP block. Don't know if it worked. Rob's been punted around nearly as much as TK, but not by me.

• 05:27, 18 March 2011 Nutty Roux (Talk | contribs) blocked Damo (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years ago (autoblock disabled) ‎ (I thought you would have noticed me editing right after a skimpier block. His was for 5 years *ago* which s no block at all, just an effective mind fuck. Pussy. )

(NR)The block message itself refers to the fact that, like you, Damo didn't spot the invalid expiry time. I thought I was pretty clever figuring out that adding "ago" to an impressively long block period made it invalid.

The above 4 block all have invalid expiry times, so they're effectively 0 second blocks. -- Nx / talk 07:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• 18:23, 10 March 2011 Nutty Roux (Talk | contribs) blocked Doggedpersistence (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 3 months (autoblock disabled) ‎ (IRISH)

(NR)You know, I thought about this one. This is the only block you've pointed to that I'm concerned about because I don't know DogP very well and therefore can't say that it would have been apparent to anyone who knows his ass from a hole in the ground that it was a joke block, though anyone looking at it in context would have seen it as part of a discussion about discrimination, hence the inflammatory block comment. Coop me for it.

Exhibit C: Here Nutty Roux blocks people unable to unblock themselves in a similar fashion that I've done in the past

• 21:16, 22 March 2011 Nutty Roux (Talk | contribs) blocked Supreme Goose (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 314 seconds (5 minutes) (account creation disabled) ‎ (Unfunny vandalism)

(NR)"Sysops should limit most blocks to an hour or two in case of vandalism." Note also that a 5 minute block is a less imposing remedy for vandalism than binning, which I try to do only if people have vandalized more than a few times and it looks like it won't be too imposing a tool to slow them down.

• 16:11, 19 May 2011 Nutty Roux (Talk | contribs) blocked Biggus Dickus (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 314 seconds (5 minutes) (account creation disabled) ‎ (Blanking page content: Try another sockpuppet)

(NR)"Sysops should limit most blocks to an hour or two in case of vandalism." Note also that a 5 minute block is a less imposing remedy for vandalism than binning. I blocked this user for 5 minutes for blanking one of your archive pages. You vandal binned him for the same thing (we were probably on the block/bin pages at the exact same time). I view binning as a substantially more imposing sanction because, for it to even have a purpose, it has to remain in place for at least an hour during which it's limited someone's ability to edit more than 5 minutes ever could.

• 20:38, 27 February 2011 Nutty Roux (Talk | contribs) blocked Kitties!!!! (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (autoblock disabled) ‎ (managed to confound the rename utility)

(NR)21:43, 27 February 2011 P-Foster (Talk | contribs | block) renamed User:The Stormfront poster "Per" should be ass-raped till has anus splits into seven pieces, have a spike driven through his eyes till fountains of blood are showring down, a needle till has heart till he dies, and endless millenia of ass-rape of his corpse to "Kitties!!!!" ‎ (4 edits. Reason: )

• 22:19, 10 March 2011 Nutty Roux (Talk | contribs) blocked 21st Century Adolf Hitler (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 3 months (account creation disabled) ‎ (Bronze age motherfucker)

(NR)It's the nowiki vandal, this time adding some good old-fashioned anti-semitism to the mix. I probably should have explained that in my block comment, but I thought the name alone explained enough. Our custom and practice has always given sysops the prerogative to block racist usernames like this. Even if this was an abuse, you're not going to get any sympathy from this community for pointing to even the most vindictive, hateful, and abusive blocks given to anti-semitic scumbags like this.

As you can see Nutty is either mentally impaired to not notice his hypocrisy or really has no qualms with my blocking habits, but with me personally. Let me be clear, though, that I am not leveling a complaint against him so much as I am delegitimatizing his complaint about me--User:Brxbrx/sig 05:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Please show me all the non-sysops, IP address blocked for little to no reason, the number of complaints and warnings against Nutty re his blocking habits and you might have a case. Ace^{of Spades} 07:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah... I've been trying to approach this with an open mind, but it sure seems like Nutty is the one on target here, Brx. Maybe just let this one go with it solved the way it is, and let the hurt feelings subside.--^talk 07:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Ed. note What I mean with the above is show me a pattern of Nutty's behaviour which he has continually been warned is not on. Ace^{of Spades} 07:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

That's my point. Nobody warned him against his behavior. Because it's not that bad.--User:Brxbrx/sig 12:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Brxbrx, you're delegitimizing nothing. This is about you, not me, and it's getting pathetic. You do understand that I could be the biggest liar and worst blocker on RW and that wouldn't change anything about your pattern of behavior? I anticipated that you'd deflect and equivocate by giving a well documented recitation of the facts. They speak for themselves so loudly that you've got nothing to say except attack the accuser. Stop digging.

I didn't ignore your "defense" because you've essentially admitted all wrongdoing and completely failed to justify any of the inappropriate blocks you're being cooped for. You can see my analysis of your defense, such as it is, in the section above, as well as my response to your prior attempts to deflect. I'm troubled by what I take to be your implication that your misconduct is "not that bad" in comparison to a truly weak case against me, as if (a) my conduct is at issue here (it's not), (b) "not that bad in comparison" is a defense (it's not), and (c) you've actually pointed to any misconduct on my part that warranted anyone addressing it (you haven't - I'm happy with my blocking record). In fact, "not that bad" has been your consistent response in 9 attempts by bureaucrats and others to address your inappropriate blocks. The fact that you keep saying it's "not that bad" indicates to me that you've got no respect for our rules and don't deserve to be a sysop. I object to you ever having sysop rights again. Further, your recalcitrance at every turn deserves a stronger remedy - I'll consider asking the community to block you for a while as well as removing your sysop rights.

But this "not that bad" nonsense is really a disingenuous and confused attempt at reframing. You've already admitted to misconduct that's a serious breach of RW policy (spite blocks and long IP blocks after 9 warnings and 2 prior coops are an outrage). Your first post in this section is an attempt to make me out to be a mentally impaired hypocrite for engaging in even more abusive blocks than you, yet you've fundamentally gotten it wrong (my response to the above list of my blocks is interspersed). When it's pointed out to you that you seem not to understand the block log you move the goalpost to say that your point was always that my behavior wasn't bad enough to warrant a warning, the implication being that yours wasn't either. Yet you're the one who's ben warned so very many times and cooped 3 times for a 3 month record of inappropriate blocks. At best you're employing a muddleheaded rhetorical strategy. At worst it's dishonest.

I suggest that Nutty be sent to bed without any dessert. P-Foster_{The Grateful Dead were neither grateful nor dead. Discuss.} 13:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Can I spank him first? Can I? Can I? Huh? Huh? And now? How about now? --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 13:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I've already admitted guilt. Or something along those lines. Second, what's the difference between a spite block and :a joke block? Neither have any serious consequences, both can be undone. So what's the big deal? I don't understand why my spite blocks are so different than your joke blocks.

Third, I was merely expressing that your cooping of me was motivated by reasons other than my breaking the rules, since you break them too.--User:Brxbrx/sig 14:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Deflect, deflect, duck, dodge. Repeat: this has nothing to do with me. Repeat: I don't violate our blocking rules. Repeat: you're still shockingly out of touch with our rules, and if you understand them but are deliberately being obtuse, you're being dishonest. Repeat: I cooped you because you abuse your sysop rights, not that my motivation matters if I've made a good record of your misconduct. You don't deserve to be a sysop here. Stop digging before people get start getting on board with blocking you too. 14:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

EC 1. If you can't tell the difference between "a joke" and "spite," that might be an issue you should take up with your therapist. 2. Nutty has made a case that his "breaking of the rules" doesn't match the same sort of pattern of basic disdain for the standards that you seem to have shown. I would advise Nutty to be a little more consistent in his blocking; but he won't "lol whatever" me when he reads that last bit. That's the difference in a nutshell. P-Foster_{The Grateful Dead were neither grateful nor dead. Discuss.} 14:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Sysop rights

I am concerned that in the discussion above Brxrbrx seems mostly concerned about seeing deleted content. Content should only be deleted for very good reasons (usually personal data) and if virtually every editor can read it why bother deleting it? Given that sysopships are passed around like a box of popcorn should this right be revoked? Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 03:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Transparency is one of the few things I care deeply about. I don't mind hiding certain vexatious (or dangerous) things from idle curious BoN passersby, more so if it is inappropriate personal info, but the more eyes there are to make sure things aren't being hidden for sketchy reasons, the better. If one of our esteemed sysops, heavens forfend, should exhibit a practice of frivolously outing items hidden for valid reasons, then into the coop and off with their head. Likewise if one of the carefully selected janitorial staff goes around hiding stuff for puerile or pusillanimous reasons, then they should stand in the pillory until they cheer up. Smite me if I'm wrong, but I like to think there isn't much use for the memory hole around here. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 03:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm mostly interested in seeing things trolls post that get deleted. It's idle curiosity. Also, another instance in which I was grateful to be able to see deleted content was that time somebody said something about Karajou's son being fat. I had no clue what was going on until I looked at what would otherwise have been unavailable to me.--User:Brxbrx/sig 04:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Moderators can suppress revisions in order to hide them from sysops in case it's inappropriate personal information or something harmful like that. Otherwise if it's just run-of-the-mill deletion, e.g. because an article doesn't fit the mission, there's no harm and it's actually a good thing that almost anyone can see it. -- Nx / talk 07:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

That's true... no real reason you need to see suppressed things, which are suppressed for a reason. They're never anything important, and almost never even titillating.--^talk 07:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

If he only wants sysop rights in order to satisfy some prurient interest in seeing what others have deleted rather than do anything productive with the tools, there's no reason to even consider restoring his sysop rights. 14:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps deleted content should only be visible to mods?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 14:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there not a checkbox to make that the case? P-Foster_{The Grateful Dead were neither grateful nor dead. Discuss.} 14:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

@Bob/P-Foster: there's already a mod level hide revision, which makes sense for some of the stuff I've removed defaming certain enemies of the site. Sysops should have a sysop level hide revision to get rid of stuff like racist nonsense and personal information because the expectation is that their job is to be the first line of defense against that kind of stuff. Otherwise there's one less reason for sysops to even exist on RW other than being a club. I don't think hide revisions should be removed. I do think merely wanting to see hidden revisions is not a good reason to be a sysop. @Nx: don't you think there's a difference between letting sysops view and undelete delete pages vs. view hidden revisions? I realize they treated similarly by MW to the extent they're on the same log, but I really do think they're fundamentally different beasts and the discussion here implies that's the consensus. 14:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how revisiondelete interacts with normal page deletion, but I think it might be possible to restrict revisiondelete to mods only and leave suppression out and simplify things. The original idea was that sysops would delete revisions that were inappropriate, and then a bureaucrat would check that and suppress if necessary. -- Nx / talk 18:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Nx, can you answer whether revision deletes can be set to mod level? Earlier I did one on P-Foster's talkpage as a test but I honestly can't tell. Thanks. 18:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure, the documentation is unclear. I'm not sure if it's possible to decouple the ability to view revisiondeleted revisions from the ability to view revisions of a deleted page. There is a separate right for revisiondelete, i.e. it's not the same as the ability to delete pages. I'll have to investigate further. -- Nx / talk 18:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I also like to wait around until Nx isn't looking and undelete stuff so I can read juicy details and add them to the dossiers I have on all you. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

For the record, as a sysop, I cannot see the revision delete you performed on P-Fosters page. Aboriginal Noise ^{What the ...} 19:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I could view the revision using my normal account but not with my sock account. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 11:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The revision was suppressed, so only mods (and techs) can see it. -- Nx / talk 11:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Transparency is about accountability so that if, for example, I have to have an intimate medical examination for immigration into Hungary then certain people may need to know the outcome of that, but they don't have the right to see what the doctor is seeing. So if a sysop deletes something for privacy reasons we don't want other two day old editors sysops pruriently prying into what was deleted. The site has elected moderators and their word should be good enough. If it takes a mod to deep hide (not oversight) something then there should be a way that mods are alerted if a sysop decides something should be nuked. We're not talking about trolling posts or off-mission articles we're talking about serious issues, so the sooner we can get some clarity about what the various forms of deletion do and who cane see them, then the better. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 11:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Do we have a mod noticeboard like WP:ANI? -- Nx / talk 11:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd trust the mods to delete things appropriately. Not least because I think they're sufficiently diverse that if one was to abuse hiding revisions they'd be called out on it by another mod :p. But how, exactly, could it be abused? Deleting criticism? Perhaps, but we know that something has been hidden (even though we can't see it) so people might get suspicious if things were being consistently burned in that sort of way. Take the analogy of injunctions (where you can't talk about something) and the "super" injunctions (where you're not even allowed to say that there is an injunction, yet alone talk about it). So long as we have the equivalent of the former and not the latter, which I assume is what full oversight is compared to revision delete, we'll be fine. ADK^{...I'll model your virus!} 11:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Btw, suppressions don't show up on recent changes (that's why I recommend mods first do a normal revdelete so that it shows up on recent changes, then suppress), however they are logged in the suppression log. By default only crats can see that log (IIRC), but I've set it so that anyone can view it. And of course you still get the crossed out line in the revision history, so it's not like oversight (or "super injunction"). -- Nx / talk 11:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, we really need to educate the mods in the use of these tools. If you look at the suppression log you'll see that I've been doing most of the suppressions and I'm not a mod. -- Nx / talk 11:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems the vast majority of deletions around here are not for personal/damaging info reasons but for being off-mission, wandalism, or even just the personal whim of a sysop. The former should be suppressed on a deeper level; I have no problem with them being only accessible to mods/techs/server guys. These should be a small minority of deletions, I'd think. If Brxbrx still wants access to the latter, I don't have a problem with that. As someone else said, it's good to have more eyes on these sorts of things to make such deletion powers aren't being abused. And if Brxbrx is simply curious about what the latest deletion for "moronic vandalism" or whatever was there's really nothing wrong with that. We give those rights to anyone for no reason at all, to deny them to him because it's the "wrong reason" doesn't seem to make much sense. I'm fine with stripping him of his rights for a while for his blockings (at least I won't object), but after time served I don't think he should be denied them again because his reasons for wanting them are silly when the rest of us, by and large, haven't given any better reasons. DickTurpis (talk) 12:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

This is very true, and I don't expect his motives for wanting to be a sysop to actually come into play in two months - even if they are strange.--^talk 12:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Would it in any way, shape or form be possible in future cases to only take those rights away the user has been abusing? I don't really see any reason why a user (no matter who it is) should loose his or her deletion right when only block rights are abused. It would make much more sense than taking all the sysop rights away because somebody doesn't look good enough. Also if we were to go through with this their would be about six sysops and one or two mods left on the site…

If I got the above correctly, we are saying that brx is not to be given sysop rights for two months, which means we are not allowing anybody to demote him for a certain time. There's nothing in there that says that in two months he will get back his rights or that we have to demote him again, if somebody does think that he should have back his rights in two months, that person will demote him. So it's still on brx if "we" trust him enough to give him his rights back, and if the blocking starts again we can promote him again and simultainiously coop him. Where is the problem in there? --★uːʤɱ kant 13:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I probably shouldn't open my mouth here because I don't know shit about tech stuff, but I'm going to anyway, knowing I might get a fair smackdown. I think we can only take away individual rights by creating new user groups that have only those rights we wish them to maintain. CP seems to do this, with their numerous groups which have different menus of powers. This works at CP, where Andy single-handedly makes all decisions and gives anyone only the rights he wants to. It wouldn't work so well here, where for every demotion we'd have to have some sort of rubric in place decided exactly who will get what powers when. The only thing I can think of is making special "punishment" or "parole" groups (bad names both) for instances such as this and some others where one right is being abused, promoting them down to a "sysop minus block" group, or whatever. These would only be used after a trip to the coop, and regular demotions would still be to regular sysop. This, however, is probably more trouble than it's worth, and simple removal of all rights would be more straightforward. We can generally justify removal of unabused rights as additional punishment for abusing other rights. DickTurpis (talk) 13:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

IIRC it's possible to create a group that removes certain rights, so e.g. bricks would be a sysop and a member of this other group which removes his right to block. Still quite complicated though. -- Nx / talk 17:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Terms and conditions

I object to Brxbrx being eligible for sysop rights after 2 months since he's done nothing but show contempt and disregard for every attempt to correct his misbehavior. This proceeding alone garnered some new "lols," him trying to deflect attention onto me, and additional denials. If the community wants to make Brxbrx eligible for rights again, it's only appropriate that it be with conditions. This is the third time Brxbrx has been cooped for identical misconduct in the last 3 months, during which he was admonished 9 times for 17 incidents of inappropriate blocking. This can't happen again. I propose that if Brxbrx receives sysop rights again and engages in a single additional clear violation of sysop policy (including inappropriate blocks and abusing his hide-revision privileges, as he's also done), his rights be summarily and permanently revoked and he be blocked for a short time, perhaps a week. We can't be sticking our asses on a revolving door for an abusive child like this to kick every time they come around. His shitty attitude has come through in this and every other attempt to correct his behavior. Why are we rewarding that? 18:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. How hard would it be to create a non-sysop group that doesn't leave red marks on Recent Changes? The kid edits a lot, and doesn't need to have every edit patrolled. P-Foster_{The French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.} 18:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec) So we are now implementing a "three strikes and you're out" rule here?

I don't think that anybodies pre-punishment attitude should be important to his post-punishment state of rights. Nutty, let's wait how it evolves and brx developes in his behaviour instead of jumping the shark and declaring somebody not worthy of what is normal to most other people based on three months what may end up to be years. Of course if you wish we could put it to a vote sometime over the next two months, but from reading and participating in this cooping that seems to be an utter waste of time and disk space. --★uːʤɱ secularist 18:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess i'm not party to all the drama, but I don't know what his "misbehavior" is. He seems to make edits, and talk on talk pages, and somehow annoy people. is that really worthy of promoting him?--En attendant Godot 18:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

He abused his blocking rights over months and months. --★uːʤɱ federalist 18:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

UHM, I don't understand your comments, to be honest. Of course someone's prepunishment attitude is relevant to his postpunishment state of rights. The guy's been a recalcitrant repeat offender. In any other context than a place where the mob is too lazy to do much of anything, he'd get the book thrown at him. If this was Wikipedia he'd never be considered for sysopship again. If this was criminal court he'd get the maximum sentence instead of whatever ad hoc decision the mob makes (we really need some basic rules on this kind of thing). Ok, so don't throw the book at him. Give him another chance, but in doing so recognize that this is the 3rd coop and the 2nd time he removed his own rights to play possum and pretend he was going to be conciliatory, when he went right back to abusing his rights. I'd prefer that it never happen again, but if you guys are going to give him another chance it ought to be with the caveat that there will be even more serious consequences if he screws up again or you open the door to this being an endless cycle and this kid continuing to sneer at us trying to correct his behavior with more "lols." What in the world are you talking about with this jumping the shark stuff. I also don't get your comment "declaring somebody not worthy of what is normal to most other people based on three months what may end up to be years." It's not normal for someone to make 17 inappropriate blocks, get reprimanded 9 times, and cooped 3 within 3 months. That's not normal at all. 19:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree that there's not the slightest chance of him changing his attitude. He's like Marcus - just seeing how far he can push it.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Normal as with rights, not normal as with behaviour. You say on WP, he would never be conseidered for sysopship again, well if I read the url correctly this is RatinalWiki, not Wikipedia. Who and who not to consider for sysopship ever again is a point of discussion. My point is: let's not rule it out forever. Let's give him his rights back if his attidute towards abuse changes, if not then not. If we give him his rights back because some of us think he's ready for it, and he abuses them again of course the punishment must be higher than before (and even the proposed one week block would be considerable imho). I simply think that we should not judge a user that might stick around for years on 3 months (I think this is the "small sample size" problem, although I really have no clue of statistics). Just sit back, drink tea and observe what is happening - and then judge again. --★uːʤɱ sinner 08:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite sure others understand my concern about not doing this all over again with a guy who's shown contempt for every effort to correct his behavior even if you do not. 14:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it is a known fact that Nutty has a strong dislike for Brxbrx, and the feeling is mutual. I suspect the main reason behind Nutty's objection to the agreed remedy is that dislike. So I would not put a lot of value on what Nutty has to say here. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 19:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Shifting the discussion to personalities is weak. My objection is for the reasons I stated. I suspect nobody really cares what you value. 21:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Before this gets further off track, let me re-ask the question I asked earlier: How hard would it be to create a non-sysop group that doesn't leave red marks on Recent Changes? The kid edits a lot, and doesn't need to have every edit patrolled Thanks. P-Foster_{The French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.} 21:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Not hard. And if we can stop with handing out sysopship like candy I'm all for it. -- Nx / talk 22:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Awesome. A name for the group? "Not harmful"? "Regular user"? Something? Are there any other sysop rights short of blocking it should have -- upload? P-Foster_{The French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.} 22:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

See Special:UserGroupRights -- Nx / talk 22:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Autoconnfirmed + "Have one's own edits automatically marked as patrolled," then? P-Foster_{The French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.} 22:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

what about Mark others' edits as patrolled ? -- Nx / talk 22:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Does he even ever do that? Sure, why not. P-Foster_{The French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.} 22:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to make a user group specific to one editor and one single incident. We should think this through carefully (but this isn't the place to do that). Actually sometimes I think RWW's much ridiculed approach to user rights is a pretty good idea. The only problem is that joke blocks are an essential part of the RW experience, and to take that away would be a major change. -- Nx / talk 07:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Marcus again

This discussion was moved to RationalWiki_talk:All_things_in_moderation#MarcusCicero (2). 05:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Temporarily locked the page

As only "established users" have a say in deciding these issues, let's keep the BoNs from trolling the page for a couple of hours, okay? P-Foster_{The Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire. Discuss.} 16:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

This locks out whichever BoN that MC is currently using, thus providing that he cannot defend himself. Shall we just break out in goosestep now, or should we wait until we're blocking people that you care about without allowing them to defend themselves. The idea of trials is to protect our moral authority, otherwise it's just vigilantism, and that's what's going on here. We're lynching someone just because he's being offensive... on the intarwebs no less. zOMG! It's clear that RW has stopped caring about "due process", but then, have we ever cared? --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 06:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

MC has had ample opportunity to defend himself, but has wasted it all on threats and insults.--User:Brxbrx/sig 06:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

When and where, you stupid fuck? ħuman 06:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, apparently below? You should still shut up. ħuman 06:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a good thing you're stepping in to stop irrational people getting all butthurt about things. Thank goodness you're on the case.--^talk 06:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

While I'd hate to have this page locked in case some other case comes up, we all need to face that MC's defense is that he has no defense. That being said, I still think the only good solution is, no matter how in-your-face his insults, for people to just ignore the bastard. Recklessly Noise Punk ^{What's this button do? Uh oh....} 06:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure you people are aware of this, but the lock expired three days ago. -- Nx / talk 07:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate RNS's concerns, it's good to see that some people have consideration for the process. However, when the initial block of MC was voted on I offered him space to make his defence but he refused to "legitimise the process", that is of course his decision but it does render the current discussion hypothetical. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 07:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm getting pretty sick of being accused of fascism.

We're not breaking into his house and silencing him. He can send emails, he can edit other pages from his IP, he can even edit this page (as Nx points out). I assure you, if he wanted to defend himself, he could and would.

You're right, Eira, this is a website. It's a community of people who edit towards a particular end, the refutation of crank science and fundamentalism. It is NOT the public goddamn square. It's not fascism to vote to ban a user who has been wildly disruptive, contributed a few edits of real material, has been continually abusive, and who has explicitly admitted his only intention is to cause trouble and troll.

It's not his "right" to try to fuck up RationalWiki, and when everyone has an open discussion about the benefits and problems with banning him - when he is given years in which to troll and still only gets a month block and just keeps trolling! - when our due process is being followed with a public discussion and free vote - it's not fascism to say, "Well, get the fuck out then."--^talk 07:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Completely agree. Not all censorship is bad. The problem lies in when and how to enforce this. Regardless, MC needs to go and it needs to be enforced. RatMaster ^háblame 17:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

"Not all censorship is bad." That pretty much sums up the whole anti-MC argument here. Silencing dissent is always bad. Personal threats, legal issues, sexually explicit content, racism, etc can be silenced because they are hurtful. But MC has not crossed that line. The plain and simple truth, as Eira and Human have stated in various ways, is that we're doing more harm to ourselves by banning him than we are by tolerating him.--Talpidae (talk) 20:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow, not really. It is completely legal for me to start my own American Nazi Party if I wanted to. It is illegal to advocate violence. Might want to check up on freedom of speech. The US Government "censors" violence and threats. Not a bad thing I would say. RatMaster ^háblame 11:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

"Silencing dissent is always bad."

"Personal threats, legal issues, sexually explicit content, racism, etc can be silenced because they are hurtful."--^talk 21:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

"Not all censorship is bad." and how decides which censorship is good, and which is wrong? My whole point is that abuse of speech is difficult if not impossible to distinguish from rightful use of speech. We should all be well aware of Poe's Law here, and yet we think that we are so intelligent that we can pierce Poe's veil and declare that MC serves no purpose here other than to troll. Yet, I regularly read him make comment about this community becoming more authoritarian (not fascist, authoritarian), and that it has picked up silencing and censoring critics rather than responding with an open forum. An example of this is calls for banning JimJast. He's said some moderately disgusting things, but not particularly all that offensive, and he posts his crank bullshit. We are at a crossroads, shall we ban critics and cranks and deny them a voice, or shall we show that critics and cranks are bat-shit crazy with their own words. The weight of Rationalism needs not our banning of critics to defend itself. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 01:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

JimJast is a good example. We all discussed it and decided that it would cross the line to ban him - there wasn't even really much impetus behind that suggestion originally, in fact. He appears to be a crank to some extent, and was accused of being a troll, but in short order it was established that wasn't sufficient to call him into question. That's why he's still editing and discussing his essay. He's a perfect example.

I know that some people have suggested that MC has made some valid criticisms. But he wasn't and isn't being blocked over those. To me, those criticisms looked like a paper-thin facade to cover his concern trolling. But he was free to provide evidence and argument - and in fact he could do so now if he chose - to demonstrate that he wasn't just trolling. That's kind of hard to demonstrate, though, once he has explicitly and several times said, "I'm just here to troll."--^talk 01:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

"But MC has not crossed that line." He has. Using brutally misogynistic and racist discourse -- telling Psy that he rapes black women because he is a white Seffrican was the last and final straw for me. P-Foster_{The Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire. Discuss.} 20:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I demand a difflink on that one. I know he called PG a racist cunt, which was only half right (note I never asked for PG to be blocked for making libelous statements about me...), but the wording you are quoting is unfamiliar to me and not included in the "complaint". ħuman 06:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm assuming PFoster means this one: [2] -- Nx / talk 07:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, that's probably one of the most offensive things he's posted. Way out of bounds.--^talk 08:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. This is something that should be censored. It's common sense and I disagree that we need to always "need to remember Poe's Law." No, we need to remember common sense and rationality. AD sums it up nicely. RatMaster ^háblame 01:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Stupidity Incarnate

1) Eira has touched upon some rare, hidden genius. Her analysis is sound as it is inspiring. Those who disparage it do so with only the most staggering kind of wanton stupidity.

2) MCs 'vile misogynistic and racist' attacks, which Foster so hysterically calls them, are neither serious nor intended to be so. The fact that Foster takes them at face value and reads them as intentional, when they are meant to be a broadside volley, a mere rhetorical device, would indicate that Foster is incapable of either thinking in proportion or would appear to have no sense of humour whatsoever.

3) The likes of Gremlin have ruined this site (What with the constant drama whoring, the inability to ignore what they dislike), but truly I blame Foster. He has appointed himself as some kind of gatekeeper of morality, constantly stepping beyond his brief. He seems determined to 'lead' rather than moderate. He is behaving more like a Prime Minister than a local constable. Gremlin is his goon, wantonly provoking an attack from Cicero, (Who is the local troll, for better or worse, and if you provoke one you should expect to be bitten. This all stems from Gremlin vandal binning Cicero because he created a long winded debate title which AD had agreed to partake in. But of course there is no point trying to point this out because this site is so beyond the point where its willing to look at these things empirically) and Foster willingly comes out with his crocodile tears when the Gremlin provokes the attack from the Cicero. Its a farce at best and a disgrace at worst.

4) This entire process is stupidity incarnate. Cicero will not leave. He can not leave. He revels in martyrdom and you have made him one. The only way to defeat him is to ignore him. If you feed him scraps of meat he will bite for them. He has disappeared for months at a time because he grew bored. I marvel at how easily he finds it to provoke all of you into yet another HCM. You are the authors of your own destruction. This page alone will keep him sustained for months. Nothing but madness and damn folly. 93.174.93.145 (talk) 23:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

You got me there. I mean, rape is funny, right? And apartheid was funny too, you gotta admit it. So jokes about rape during apartheid have got to be really, really funny. Yup. P-Foster_{The Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire. Discuss.} 01:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Link please? ħuman 06:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, here's a good example of the poor oppressed MC defending himself. I guess a point-by-point refutation is in order later.--^talk 01:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Damn, you complain about me calling you a fascist, and that's all you've got? Mockery? Where's your point-by-point? Where is it? You got nothing. You fucks are wrecking this site with your lameass authoritarianism (check the mission lately?). ħuman 06:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry I wasn't prompt enough for you, Human. I realize that those four hours could not have been better spent than in answering your hysterical concerns, but I was too busy checking out sizes of jackboots.

1. While I don't appreciate her choice of rhetoric, Eira certainly has valid concerns. That is why I tried to answer each of them. I do not think there is any danger that this will be the start of some purge. MC, a self-avowed longtime troll, was given a short block. During that block, he opted to continue his behavior of personal abuse and vulgar spam in the Saloon Bar.

We don't have to permit all kinds of behavior. We do not and will not permit child pornography or personal information or threats of violence. We do permit criticism, dissent, and complaint. MC isn't being blocked for the latter - if indeed he has provided any - he is being blocked for what he calls deliberately "provoking HCM." He is here to cause problems and disrupt, and we're no more required to permit him to do so than a shop-owner is required to permit a vandal into their store. MC's been smashing up our shelves.

2. It is possible that MC's incredible level of offensiveness was not seriously meant. But when I look at it I have a hard time seeing that. And there comes a point that a person's failure to communicate is their own responsibility. We don't question too hard whether or not someone posting a physical threat to someone else is being serious - if it's hard to tell, then it's gone. That's because if someone can't communicate that they're joking, it's their problem.

3. I would like to take a moment to appreciate an accusation of drama whoring from MC.

Beyond that, there's not much here but personal accusations. I don't see Foster stepping much beyond his bounds and I don't see much of a problem with authoritarianism here. That's a personal judgment from one of the "authorities," of course - but we're having an open discussion and fair vote, and he gets to have his say and Human gets to shriek.

4. Well, this point consists of MC vowing never to stop or leave, and that he is "provok[ing] all of you into another HCM." These are not points in his favor, but rather further evidence that the best thing to do would be to remove his account so he can no longer concern troll with it and revert his IP edits (although I suppose if Human wants to retain them on his talk page, that's his privilege).--^talk 06:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

1. Funny... because all I'm really doing is repackaging MC's arguments.

2. Reading the link you provide, nothing in the comment is defamatory... it is offensive, but the funny thing about patently offensive speech is that it is automatically not intended to be a factual statement, and thus opinion, and thus entirely exempt from defamation law. And being offensive just to be offensive is a bannable offense now? huh. Fuck that noise... fuck it in the ass with a two-by-four sharpened to a point with huge big barbs on it.

3. You're making an ad hominem attack here. Just because MC is a drama whore doesn't mean that his criticism of Psygremlin being a drama whore is wrong. In fact, I've had particularly strong evidence to suggest that his criticism is valid.

4. Ah, so, now the plan is to delete his account? Or are you just being imprecise in your wording? I'll assume the later, because it's less fascist, and I don't think you want to be a fascist. (Maybe somewhat authoritarian, but not fascist.) The funny thing here is that we're given open authorization for people to ban a BoN simply because they think it might be MC. Due process out the window, guilty by association. This is why censoring abusive speech is dangerous and wrong, because you're going to cause collateral harm. How far will we go to stop MC from trolling us? Will we resort to rangeblocks when blocking single IPs doesn't work? --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 08:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

For fuck's sake, this proposal does nothing apart from extending the current procedure of dealing with MC to two years. Let me walk you through it: BoN in the 86.xx range makes a trolling comment, edit gets removed, BoN blocked for a day. Just how many false positives and "collateral damage" do you think this will yield? How many people are there who just happen to share Marcus' IP range and behavior? Let alone that a revert and short-term block would be completely justified even if it's not MC, but just someone who behaves in the same destructive manner. If it was just a slip and they actually plan to contribute to the wiki, they can come back right the next day. As MC undoubtedly will as well, up to the point where he tires of resetting his modem and making comments that vanish seconds later. And please lay off the slippery slope bullshit about rangeblocks, banning dissent or general impending fascism. Discuss the proposal and the case on its own terms, everything else is just bashing strawmen. Röstigraben (talk) 08:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

(EC) 1. I am not sure how you are repackaging his concerns... I mean except to the extent that he is a concern troll - he disguises attempts to cause trouble with a facade of "helping." Maybe you could provide some more detail on what he is saying that is valid? Because as far as I can see, it's mostly just attacking people by calling them authoritarian and declaring that so-and-so is ruining RW - in other words, trolling.

In other words: why is this fair, open, and public vote some sort of authoritarian crackdown?

2. Sorry, I'm actually lost here... who accused him of the legal crime of "defamation"?

I think trolling has been a bannable offense for some time now. He's not being blocked just for being offensive. He was blocked for trolling, and this latest round of trolling is just more evidence.

3. I was pointing out hypocrisy - I guess to the extent that such an observation is another the other person it's "ad hominem," but generally speaking pointing out hypocrisy is meant to demonstrate entirely inconsistent standards. In this case, MC accusing Psy of attention whoring, while in the past having engaged in that practice on a huge scale himself, implies that MC is not actually concerned about attention whoring but rather is just searching for an attack.

4. The plan is exactly what is above to be voted on - I meant "remove his account" in the sense of "remove it from immediate consideration." Thank you for your assumption of good faith. I am seriously trying to both adhere to our community ideals.

I should note that I have already worked to stop people from reverting and blocking IPs just because they sound like they might be MC. Certainly this will be something to keep an eye on - we don't want this to become some crazy thing where anyone who criticizes RW from an IP is assumed to be MC. Generally speaking, he identifies himself and is very distinctive, though - don't you agree?

We will not rangeblock. I would vote against that. If this really doesn't work, then we can vote again. I'm not sure what we'd try. You could propose to unblock him, though, in the hopes of appeasing him.--^talk 08:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Foster, get a fucking grip. You and I know that Cicero enjoys being hopelessly, hysterically over the top. Gremlin reverts an edit on Humans talk page so Cicero calls him an authoritarian cunt in his own unique, hyperbolic way (By comparing him to an apartheid era white solider beating and raping black people) Its absurd, its extreme, but surely the absurdity and the extremity is evidence of its intention? Does Cicero really think Gremlin is a racist and a rapist? Probably not, but he is an authoritarian dickweed. Gremlins first instinct after provoking an insult from somebody is to pretend to leave and never come back, then demand the head of the person who insulted him, and then retreat to his blog to make his petty slanders. You're all prancing around as if Gremlin is some innocent naive virgin who is being hopelessly drilled by Cicero. Bull fucking shit. Gremlin gives as good as he gets, he is an incredibly nasty person as many people on this site can testify to. So less of the crocodile tears Foster, learn how to fucking see'. And maybe watch a little Chris Morris too, extreme and deliberate nastiness has its own form of genius.

And I find it extremely, extremely galling that AD and Foster are leading the charge here. AD who has been for a long time Cicero's greatest source of food, and who had even agreed to hold a debate with Cicero before this shambles, and Foster who once made Cicero a crat and defended him admirably when the cretins emerged from the forest, seeking their blood. Its highly disingenuous and it goes a long way to show the intellectual depravity that lurks here. There is something more to this, anyone with eyes can see.

Eira is doing a better job refuting AD's sophistries than I ever could, (AD really riles me up, he has an infuriating reasoning style that never fails to bypass the core issue at stake) so I'll not even bother responding to his comments. But I do find it rather craven that this IP will be blocked and concentration camp guards like Ratmaster (Oh how he reminds me of a soldier or executioner doing his duty!) will swoop in and revert the comment and ban the IP. Craven, horrible tactics, and you all know where it will get you in the long run. Aye, that is a threat in case you're wondering. 95.154.230.191 (talk) 18:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

This is really getting tiresome. Do we have a "yawn" symbol?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Recklessly Noise Punk ^{What's this button do? Uh oh....} 12:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we should all just drop the argumentum ad ridiculum and admit that this site is becoming authoritarian in the extreme. If we close our ears to Huw and Eira, we will fail to correct the issues MC brings up. Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime. ~Potter Stewart --Talpidae (talk) 16:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I do love when people apply issues for governments, with the running of non governmental sites that need to actually work. That is, technically, removing every person's statement like "Obama fucking sucks" would be censorship in your eyes, but "obmama fucking sucks" does nothing to further the goals of our wiki. It is not Censorship to say to someone "we have rules, dude, follow them or go find somewhere else to play". That is a measure of both parties being grown up. Censorship is saying "talpidae, your very ideas are stupid, so we are deleting them". I don't agree with this silliness that actually gives MC way more power than people in the drama want to admit, but at the same time, addressing it, no matter how we address it, is not censorship.En attendant Godot 17:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

"authoritarian in the extreme." BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!11111111!!!!!!!!!!! P-Foster_{The Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire. Discuss.} 16:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Point by point refutation

1) Who cares? 2) Who cares? 3) Neither true nor relevent 4) MC has nothing else better to do. So who cares? Next. Ace^{of Spades} 02:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Or:

1) You're being trolled

2) You're being trolled

3) You're being trolled

4) You're being trolled

Pay no attention, Ladies and Gentlemen, to the man behind the curtain. During the course of the performance he will repeatedly be sticking his penis through the curtain in an attempt to distract. Please to chuckle, if that be your thing, else enjoy the show. DogP (talk) 17:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Nx,and Human, and MC or, "This is why we can't have any nice things."

Nx has used his mojo to block a page from appearing in Recent Changes. This is probably not something people should do without checking in with the mob. He's been asked to undo the act, but his reply makes it seem as though he's more interested in deflecting the issue to Human's decision to give MC a "sanctuary" in which to troll, even though IP edits that have the stink of MC are supposed to be undone on sight. Human is claiming "his user space, his rules." So, Nx should prolly not use his server access to fuck with what appears in recent changes without consulting the mob. Human should probably not give MC an out when the community has decided to revert on sight, but it's Human's wiki and he's gonna do what he's gonna do. MC should get a hobby or something, but what he does here is probably best taken up with his therapist and not us. Finally, if the sanctuary works, maybe we should just let it work? P-Foster_{Authoritarian Prick.} 17:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Nx's action is likely the most innovative method of not feeding the troll we've come up with yet. He probably should have consulted the mob first, but otherwise I congratulate him.--User:Brxbrx/sig 17:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah of course you do. Because despite being our worst and least contrite rights abuser you're apparently also an authoritarian. Strange that you've only been here a few months and that your talk page is filled to the brim with "firm rebukes" that you openly defied and even made fun of. But when it comes to someone else there are no limits. You'll even applaud it.

I asked Nx to undo the recent changes skullduggery here. I don't understand the caption for this section, though. If you want to charge these guys with some misconduct do it in separate sections. They're not codefendants because they're not accused of participating together in remotely similar conduct. As for the sanctuary, I semi-agree that it may be improvident according to the community's decision to ban, but MC wasn't given a space to respond to the charge and it's not so clearly contrary to the letter or spirit of the rules for Human to have done what he did. Nobody forced anyone to jump onto his page to continue having strong emotional reactions to MC. Re: MC being permitted to respond. some expressed their expectation that he'd disregard his block and post as an IP to do it. Others wanted to deny him the right to even respond. I recognize you all didn't like his continued charge of fascism. I definitely don't like the racism and weird rape shit. But, if the sanctuary works to keep him out of your hair in other spaces it's a damn good fucking idea. And I've said before that you're not going to get rid of MC by banning him. By all means do what you all feel is right, but do realize that his goal is not to go along to get along and this particular sanction is unlikely to do anything but cause more of what you all seem to dislike. Actually, it's not unlikely. It's a promised certainty. 18:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

MC is an attention whore. Why do you think the page he created has such a turgid title? He wants it to stand out on RC, poking people until someone responds, and someone will respond, and the whole bullshit will start over again. The community has decided that it has had enough of MC and his trolling. At least what I did was in accordance with that. -- Nx / talk 18:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it was. Can we just go through the formality of putting it to the mob? It feels really weird to know that there's one user who can do all kinds of spooky shit to the wiki all by his lonesome. P-Foster_{Authoritarian Prick.} 18:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. More pointless voting over something that we've already agreed on. -- Nx / talk 18:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Or alternatively, grow some balls and tell Human that it's not his wiki and he can't have his troll playground. -- Nx / talk 18:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

At what point did we agree that you can arbitrarily, unilaterally, and secretly screw around with the server?--Talpidae (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The community did not agree that you have the authority to go into the server and do whatever you feel like, whether it's enabling checkuser, desysopping hundreds of sysops, or filtering a single page from Recent Changes. Nor was it within your purview to filter a single page from the trolltop template after having edit warring over other revisions, but that's not a Tech abuse so we'll address that elsewhere if it continues. 18:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

My 10c, let MX have his little toy box and *ignore him*. He can't post anywhere else. If you act like a grownup yourself and don't go read his little antics, then he's done. or he raises the stakes and "we" ban him longer. You can't say "don't feed the trolls" if you are playing with the trollEn attendant Godot 18:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)s. bullies and brats quickly go away when the other kids play hop-scotch without them. or they behave and ask to play too.En attendant Godot 18:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's probably going to work well. Like it has so far. I really can't understand how MC is still a problem, since we're all ignoring him. -- Nx / talk 18:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

"his user space, his rules" isn't a cast-iron maxim to ignore the wishes of the mob. You can't delete talk pages without archiving even if they are in your user space. Messing server side to target a single user isn't a good precedent, troll or not. At the very least it deprives members of the mob the opportunity to counter troll for fun. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 18:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

NX, i have *tons* of respect for you, and most of the editors here. but none of you have learned how to ignore him. He controls this place, by pushing people's buttons. Ironically, the single best idea was yours, I just agree that it shouldn't be done without mob knowledge. But the fact that they noticed what you did, and CARED about what you did shows they are (at large, not any editor in particular) curious about what he says and willing to have their buttons pushed. Some editors (and i can't even follow the 'sides' on this, so i am really using some as 'i don't know', not as a way to point fingers with out naming names) not only don't ignore him, they escalate things. they focus on MC's actions on human's page, and human's lack of "attention". they focus on you blocking MC from being seen. not block him from posting, just block him from being seen. (again, that's why i think it was probably one of the best ways to handle this...) I don't really give a crap how any of you handle MC, i just hate that it seems to make you all fight against eachother. En attendant Godot 18:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)

"prevents us from counter trolling for fun". but don't you get it. that's the very center of this entire tying. by paying attention to MC and playing "counter troll" you are not helping end this childish bullshit. Trolls exist to cause fights, to start "in fights", and to see exactly how much they can mess up a smooth running world. I don't know why, but that's what they get off to. and you "playing with the troll" just adds.En attendant Godot 18:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

My personal opinion is a) let MC have his sandbox and b) let Nx fence it off. If MC tries to stretch outside his sandbox we'll stamp on his hand with our jackboots. While I think that Nx should have run hiding the page by the community first, it's actually a really good idea and I like it. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 19:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Eddy. Nx should have asked nicely beforehand, but then again - it's often easier to say sorry than it is to ask for permission. PsyGremlinPrata! 09:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Human shouldnt have done it at all. Ace^{of Spades} 09:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Human

Since it's really stupid to create one section for two people charged with two different things, let's split the above discussion into two sections. To the best of my knowledge, Human is being charged with subverting the community's decision to ban MC by creating a sub-userspace for him to play around in. This charge should probably be formalized and expanded before it's brought to vote. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 18:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

WTF? Human isn't being "charged" with anything nor should he be. He said "I don't really give a shit about these games, so sure, play on my page". if you don't want to read MC's stuff, don't go to Human's page. --En attendant Godot 19:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

"Anyone who deletes your comments to my user talk space, for the time being, will be blocked for 48 hours.", blocking people who have deleted MC's comments in accordance with the community's decision.

Also, he shouldn't be allowed to go against the community's wishes and create a troll sanctuary in his userspace. -- Nx / talk 19:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

In fairness Human's offense here was basically undermining a community decision unilaterally, whereas Nx's was enforcing one unilaterally. Huw's was a more serious offense, so I'm really surprised it's being glossed over so easy in favor of Nx-bashing. I'm actually inclined at this point to say that this whole coop case is a few users taking out their personal vendetta against Nx rather than dealing with the actual abuses that took place. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 21:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I am super pissed at Human to be honest. He is going directly against the community decision and I think he needs a slapping. Ace^{of Spades} 22:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

He does need a kick up the arse, but I think that'll only make him more obnoxious. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 22:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Declaring a "troll sanctuary" in one's user space is not against the rules, but blocking users for enforcing a decision from the mob or the moderators is an abuse of block rights. ListenerX^TalkerX 23:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

It's well past time that Human was called to account for his continued abuse of the rules. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

If MC edits Human's userspace, what's the harm? If MC is using it to launch blatant personal attacks, those attacks can be reverted. Otherwise, he should be left alone to play in his sanctuary. If you don't like it, ignore it. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 23:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

It takes a troll to defend a troll. Using one's userspace to bypass a community ban is irresponsible. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

No personal attacks please, SR. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 23:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Unless your real name is "Maratrean", I'll call you a useless fucking trolling asshole all I want. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

You need to learn to moderate your aggression. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 00:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Truth is defense against libel, M. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 00:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

This whole sub-converstaion has nothing to do with Human anyway. Why not stick to the topic at hand? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 00:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I fully expect to be flamed for this, but Human's actions need to be seen in a serious light. The community, along with the elected moderators, took a decision to take action against a member of this wiki. Now, not only does the member concerned ignore the edict issued against him, but Human also actively encourages his behaviour on the wiki, and sides with him - violating community policies by blocking people who revert MC's trolling, in line with the mod's decision. Now, this is somebody who has basically issued a big "fuck you" to the community and the moderators. This is also somebody who is a Trustee of the Foundation, which supposedly represents the community he is saying "fuck you" to. Now, some will argue that he's not acting as a Trustee in these matters, but that is irrelevant - should somebody who is deliberately working against the will of the wiki be allowed to be a representative of that wiki? Human must resign as a Trustee. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 09:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I wont go as far as saying Human should resign as Trustee but I wholeheartedly agree that he is basically saying "fuck you, I'll do what I like". I like him and all but yeah, what a dick. Ace^{of Spades} 09:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

This is the second times Psy has basically demanded removal of a trustee, and while his complaints both times have not been without merit, bringing trusteeship into the matter is starting to get tiresome. That said, the community did, by a wide margin, vote to ban MC from rationalwiki for a month. As far as I can tell, a user subpage is still part of rationalwiki, therefore Human did break the rules here. If we want to discuss the validity of a "troll sanctuary" and under what conditions, if any, it could be allowed to operate, this probably isn't the place for it. Furthermore, Human blocking other editors for enforcing community consensus ain't cool. What is to be done about it, if anything, is the question. Anyone have any proposals? DickTurpis (talk) 17:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Amazing. We're talking about demoting a user (again!) for abuse of powers (again!) - something you agree with - and this should somehow have no bearing on the office he holds? It's a bit like saying "Oh, we're suspending this employee because of maladministration, but it's ok, he can remain a director of the company." --PsyGremlinTal! 16:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Whatever your opinions on Human's position on the board are, and whatever validity they might have, this isn't the place for it. Hell, we can't even get the community to do something like remove his sysop rights for a day; removing him from the board (which I don't think there is even a process for) isn't imminent. Baby steps. DickTurpis (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I suggest demotion to editor for a specific period of time, say a month, and perhaps a ban for a few days to a week. Naturally rights would be reinstated at the end if he behaves himself and obeys the community's decisions. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 18:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I find it interesting that human comes up with an out-of-the-box solution to MC trolling everyone, while everyone else was going "the 2 month block was met with ban evading, so obviously we need to ban him for 2 years". If MC is trolling less outside of his sandbox, then happy days, mission accomplished, right? --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 08:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit break

Human is still reinserting MC's comments on his talk page [3] What should be done about this? -- Nx / talk 09:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Nothing at all. +1 for Human. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Right. Let's just unblock MC. Fuck it. -- Nx / talk 09:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

That is an orthogonal issue. I have no objection if you revert MC's posts on your own talk page, in main space, main space talk pages, saloon bar, CP WIGO talk, you name it. I just believe that when it comes to user talk pages, it should be left to the individual user's discretion. Stop pretending there are only two choices here (MC gets reverted everywhere vs. MC gets reverted nowhere), when there are many more options than those. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Almost all of which have been tried and failed, talkpages are community pages and the mod decision was as follows: 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. Ace^{of Spades} 09:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Our orthogonal friend above aside, I am going to redo the revert.--^talk 09:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Just making a point...

Okay, so I'm watching Watchmen with a few bottles of Magners and loving it. I'm in a merry mood. This is good, because it gives me the balls to do something silly, so I figured I'd just post these:

• http://www.rickross.com/reference/firstborn/firstborn13.html
• http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23882698/ns/health-kids_and_parenting/t/faith-healing-parents-charged-babys-death/
• http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/death-of-baby-brings-new-debate-over-role-of-alternative-medicine-721091.html
• http://www.jennymccarthybodycount.com/Jenny_McCarthy_Body_Count/Home.html

Welcome to RationalWiki. This site exists to help expose and refute pseudoscience, shams and paranoid beliefs. These cause actual harm, loss of life in the four cases about that took me about 25 seconds in bed with Google to find. If one of our articles dissuades one person from trying a sham medication who might otherwise have died... just think about it. The site does not exist for the bitching, moaning and pedantic procedural clusterfucks that everyone seems to enjoy. Now, face it, we exist for this and this refutation above all else. Sod this bizarre concept of "freedom" and "anti-fascism" that some people are throwing around. How many people are actually in on RW's mission? From what I can tell so many aren't, especially the ones who love to just drama-drama all day and yet people who have donated to the RWF are expending their money, actual money, on hosting this bull. People die because they take bullshit instead of real medicine, so why do you insist on diverting your attentions away from stopping that to this sort of crap? ADK^{...I'll sell your handstand!} 00:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

ListenerX^TalkerX 03:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

A good post, which makes me think: do we actually have a page on the dangers of such beliefs? As in a cover-all page for people harmed? EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 09:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I usually spend 25 seconds in my bed with Google searching other stuff. But ADK has a very good point. SJ ^Debaser 12:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Somewhere like this is probably a good starting place. Worm (talk) 16:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Not really the place, but I started watching the film and hated it so much that I switched off after about 30 minutes. I bought the graphic novel years ago, and never really understood why people loved it so much. Alan Moore has done some great work (From Hell was wonderful), and some of his Swamp Thing scripts were fantastic, but most of his stuff is rambling shite. Give me Neil Gaiman any time. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 00:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that American comic books are of an intrinsically inferior quality. Authors continue to insist on ludicrous tropes such as latex costumes and overpowered heroes with lame themes such as "the yellow sun makes me strong" or "green light makes me strong." I would suggest that you invest in graphic novels that were not created on the North American continent. Instead of Watchmen, try Valerian, Requiem, or Lanfeust de Troy--User:Brxbrx/sig 01:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

So hopefully the only reason I will ever edit this page (No Drama is ny guiding principle) will be to talk comics. Brxbrx makes a valid point in that there are lots of great comics out there that most US-Americans are unaware of, but I think he's off with his narrow view of what US comic artists do. Yeah, there's a lot of crap, but there's a lot of great stuff that doesn't fall into the "tights" genre : DMZ, anything by Azzarello, Mike Bendis, Logicomix, Mike Smith, James Vance, Nate Powell...BbMaj7 On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. 03:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

ADK makes a strong point. This site is more of a trolling haven than an actual "community working together" to explore fundamentalism. The fact that CP is fascist makes a few on the extreme left here want to cry "fascism!" at everything that limits editing due to innappropriate behavior. It's beyond ridiculous. RatMaster ^háblame 20:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

"CP is fascist" ListenerX^TalkerX 20:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Good point LX. Fascists are organised. Real first name and last initial^{Talk, talk, talk skim my contributions} 21:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Evangelical/fundamentalist Christianity and fascism are two highly disparate strands of thought, except for the authoritarian factor in some strands of fundamentalism. The only reason why the groups have been lumped together as they have is that they are both anti-communist.

If Conservapedia is to be compared to a country, it would more resemble the one in Woody Allen's film Bananas where the tinpot dictator decreed that everyone had to wear their undershorts outside their pants. ListenerX^TalkerX 21:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, there is a significant contingent of people who do just Keep Calm and Carry On. But it's still an insult to them that we continue to host utter bollocks. And fascism is being thrown around too easily, some people need to actually go find a fucking dictionary and look it up. ADK^{...I'll lick your kitten!} 15:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Idea

Shunt off the dramatists and trolls to a subwiki where they can piss on each other's chips all day long, and the rest of us can get on with refuting pseudoscience and stuff as Miss Armondikov suggests. We have enough numbers that we don't need them. Even GLP is blocking trolls now, why can't we do it? Why are we so afraid of being called fascists just for trying to stop abusive behaviour? Real first name and last initial^{Talk, talk, talk skim my contributions} 21:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

(I'll be off, then) Pippa (talk) 21:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that we deal with trolls in the same way that Thor dealt with Loki at the end of Lokasenna, viz., use the hammer if they do not shut up. I suggest also that we use "preponderance of evidence" instead of "beyond reasonable doubt" as a standard of evidence when identifying suspected sockpuppets of banned trolls, since ironclad proofs of identity are beyond our capability to make. ListenerX^TalkerX 21:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

As a fan of the way Thor dealt with Blockbuster in Thor #374, I concur. Real first name and last initial^{Talk, talk, talk skim my contributions} 21:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Occasionaluse

Occasionaluse is deleting this comment from his talk page, claiming that he is allowed to decide what is trolling and what is not. The community standards say: "A user's talk page, like any other talk page on the site, is public and does not belong to the user. However, users are permitted to delete posts containing personal attacks or trolling from their own talk pages, being responsible for any abuse of this permission." Even though it's quite clear in this case that OU is abusing this privilege just to make a point/be a dick/cause drama, I think the LJ's decision should be repealed, as it's wide open to abuse and wikilawyering such as this. Furthermore, I think Occasionaluse should not be allowed to trolltop his entire talk page for similar reasons. -- Nx / talk 15:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

As you said in defending the use of your trolltop template, "hiding comments is not censorship". So what the fuck are you bitching about?

• Stop stalking me.
• Stop threatening me.
• Stop sending me emails.
• Fuck off.

Occasionaluse (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Trolltop != deleting a comment. Also, WfG's comment was not trolling, not by any stretch of the imagination. And I'm not threatening you and I never sent you any emails. -- Nx / talk 17:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Then why do you all of a sudden have issue with use of your trolltop template? And WfG's comment is certainly trolling. I know because it's subjective and I said so. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Because you are abusing it. Also, calling someone's comment trolling can be a personal attack. -- Nx / talk 17:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Then consider me personally attacked. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Somoeone set up WikiCreativeTroll so such people can enjoy themselves undisturbed by the rest of us. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I think Occasionaluse has made enough of a nuisance of himself that he could be ejected, despite his being slightly more mindful than MarcusCicero of when he is in hot water. But perhaps my perspective is skewed, I being the only user who rated three entries on his shit-list. ListenerX^TalkerX 01:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

OccasionalUse, if we called a vote on you I think it might be seriously close. But because we've had enough nonsense lately and we all deserve some peace and quiet and pleasant mockery of pseudoscientific idiots, let's just say you knock this shit right off right now. If you abuse your sysop powers like this (with blocks and whatnot for legitimate reverts of your nonsense), then you will lose them. A mod will take them away for a brief period, because of the current circumstances (pretty chaotic and heated, ripe for further chaos), calling a vote later. You are pretty clearly a troll but we're at the point now where you can just back off and be chill and we can all get back to business. We'll all just be cool like Fonzi.--^talk 03:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK he didn't block anyone, he just keeps removing the comment from his talk page, citing the LJ decision as justification. To be fair, the LJ's decision is vague and wide open to abuse and wikilawyering. Ou's behavior is dickish point-making, but not without merit. IMHO we should fix that instead of applying bandaids. This rule has been a source of drama and edit warring from the very start, and it's incompatible with the RW guideline that all talk pages are community property and deleting talk page comments is forbidden. -- Nx / talk 05:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Occasionaluse's modus operandi is called gaming the system on Wikipedia. This is not the first time he has done it, and I doubt scrapping a rule would stop Wiki-lawyers from finding another one to game. I am highly skeptical of those who pooh-pooh "bandages" on "fundamentally broken systems" in favor of "solutions that treat the root cause;" in this case, repealing the Loya Jirga's ruling would likely mean restoring the previous rule that no talk-page post is to be removed, which was the cause of the Loya Jirga's creation in the first place. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily. We could say that talk page comments can only be removed (or better yet, just hidden with {{collapse}}) by moderators. Or we could also say that only MC's talk page comments can be deleted, because the community voted so. -- Nx / talk 06:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

We could, of course, just say that any post by a blocked editor can be reverted, which has much less potential for abuse, but then we come back to lowering the bar for sockpuppet detection. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

That works too. Also, if Ou was gaming the system and clearly in the wrong here, why the fuck did no-one do anything? The only mod action was Ace's, he locked Ou's talk page because the edit warring was annoying him. I guess I should be thankful he didn't block me for edit warring. Then when the lock expired, Ou continued removing the comment, and it wasn't until I brought him here that a moderator finally told him to stop. -- Nx / talk 06:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Getting people to do things around here is an Herculean task at times. I probably would have advocated for Occasionaluse's removal a while ago, except that given his self-declared vendetta against me, it did not seem right for me to spearhead such a motion. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Nah, Ou isn't a troll all the time. He's just an Occasionaltroll. -- Nx / talk 07:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

"ListenerX" it's the other way around. You're the one with the vendetta against me. What the fuck do you think you're doing citing TOW policy and thinking it will stick? If I have to be a dick to skullfuck a point into your thick head, I'll be glad to. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I seems to me that Occasionaluse's actions are frequently not those of an editor who has the wiki's best interests at heart; his posts sometimes seem to be designed to cause offence and raise the level of tension by using bad language or personal insults.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

No foul language? Another leap forward in bureaucracy from the geriatric. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Bob, if we are to hold Occasionaluse's foul language or insults against him, should we not do the same for certain moderators? Let's coop them. I don't think that is going to go anywhere. When will I see you go after foulmouth, tension-raising, insulting moderators? Double standards. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Please read what I said.

• "... designed to cause offence and raise the level of tension by using bad language or personal insults"

You will note that my comment is not about the language per se, but about the end to which it is being used. Should you feel that moderators are deliberately raising the tension in the same way then they are equally at fault.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 14:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I would say at least one of them is guilty of exactly that. Occasionaluse is being unfairly singled out for special treatment. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You are a member of the site with as much input as anyone - more than many. If you feel that you can see a pattern of habitual deliberate disruption by anyone then you are free to bring them to this place.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 10:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really the Cooping type. People take things here far too readily. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Cooping type or not you potentially have it in your hands to prevent "Occasionaluse being unfairly singled out for special treatment" by bringing others to the coop to join him. (I can understand your reluctance to do this as I also have never started a complaint here.) But you are a member of this site as much as me and you have the option to fix what you maintain is an injustice.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 10:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Right now it seems Occasionaluse is being cooped for being obnoxious and removing a comment from his talk page. As for the first, hell, throw a rock. As for the second, a single comment on a user's own talk page isn't exactly the hill I want to die on (yes, I'm going to pack this comment with as many metaphors as I can, thank you). I think minor bickering here is overwhelming the more important issues the coop was designed to deal with. If we are going to coop people for issues such as this can we at least try to keep the discussion relevant and prevent it from a mobius strip of bitch-slaps? DickTurpis (talk) 13:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

But then we'd actually accomplish something! The unbusinesslike^{man of business} 00:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal #2

This discussion was moved to RationalWiki talk:Community Standards. 05:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Ace McWicked

1. Trolling: repeatedly inserting images of nudity on my talk page despite my request not to, and edit warring over my attempts to remove them - [6]
2. Removing a polite request from his talk page that he stop, and falsely labelling that request as trolling - [7] and [8]
3. Vandalising my user page - [9]

Is this appropriate behaviour for a so-called moderator? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 02:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it is unbecoming a moderator. The nude-picture posting is just him horsing around as usual, but I would not say the same about his removing the cessation request and pretending it was "trolling." ListenerX^TalkerX 02:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

This was my original concern when I saw the election results.--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• Were any moderator permissions abused here? Moderators are just janitors who have also been issued a fire bucket, for dealing with emergent situations. Dicking around seems to be par for this course. Move along, nothing to see here. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 02:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Forgetting about whether an individual is a moderator, is this kind of trolling and vandalism acceptable? And, if a moderator is engaging in trolling and vandalism, one has to ask whether it is appropriate that they continue to be a moderator. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 02:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Ace's conduct is unbecoming a moderator, but it is not an abuse of moderator powers. He has to be treated here as a regular user. ListenerX^TalkerX 02:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank FSM for that. If moderators had to be all pompous and politically correct even when not pushing mod buttons, who would want the job? Regular users do better when they get over themselves and move the mission along. Something about dealing with the heat or staying out of the kitchen. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 03:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Right, his behaviour is moving the mission along? Putting aside that he is a moderator, is his behaviour acceptable for an ordinary user? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 03:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I was suggesting that you get over yourself and either contribute to moving the mission along, or go away. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 03:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

(EC) I would focus on his removal of your cessation request from his talk-page; you will not get much support for reining in his other riotous behavior. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

riotous behavior!

^{— Unsigned, by: Ace McWicked / talk / contribs}

This isn't the first time Ace did this kind of thing, and he promised to stop. And yes, moderators should be held to a higher standard, since they're supposed to moderate disputes like this one, not exacerbate them. -- Nx / talk 05:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

He promised to tone down the invective and stop blanking your page, not posting images - as far as I can see. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 12:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

He promised to stop vandalizing in this manner (you could argue that he technically only promised to stop vandalizing my page), but that's irrelevant. The point is, it's not the first time, and he's still doing it despite being told twice already to stop it, and despite being a moderator. -- Nx / talk 12:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Maratrean asks a good question, Forgetting about whether an individual is a moderator, is this kind of trolling and vandalism acceptable? Yes indeed, how Conservapediesque of the Rationalwiki community and the Mod cabal if this is ignored. RobSmith^{I am a victim of anonymous CP trolls} 22:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of how people want to selectively interpret rules over control of one's own talk page, repeatedly inserting images or text that the user finds offensive after being told to stop is trolling. Trolling is bad. He's done this quite a bit in the past, and has implied he would quit it. So, Ace buddy, knock it off. For real. This is getting old. If the roles were reversed in this situation I doubt people would line up to defend Maratrean. DickTurpis (talk) 23:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Maratrean is gaming the system. He's trolling his ass off but staying just inside the rules, which means we can't simply ban him. Ace and I decided to troll him in response, and it turns out he doesn't fucking like it. Well tough. Do as you would be done by. From the number of people I've had emailing me, it's clear there's a large number of people who want Maratrean to fuck off. Compare that to the number of people who object to a couple of outré images and this is only going one way. In the spirit of WP:WP:IAR, Maratrean should be blocked, salted, bound in irons, chucked into the sea, branded, shot, and generally made to feel slightly unwelcome. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Very well, what exactly has Maratrean done? Got some links? DickTurpis (talk) 23:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Yup: Special:Contributions/Maratrean. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 00:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

You will need to be much more specific; I see substantial contributions to mainspace in that list. ListenerX^TalkerX 00:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, as much as I like a snide response, can we see something of actual relevance here? DickTurpis (talk) 00:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

If you don't get it already, there's no point trying to convince you. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 00:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Really? That's all you got? Come on, throw me a fucking bone here. If you think Maratrean should be basically hung, drawn, and quartered show me at least one solid reason why. And no, I'm not going to go through every single one of his contributions looking for the offending material. DickTurpis (talk) 00:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

You should have been here before, I got a hole in one. Mind you, I was playing pinball at the clubhouse

Can we get an impartial moderator in here, please? ListenerX^TalkerX 00:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Yup, put the woman on trial fro screaming "rape". Is this the new & improved version of RW dispute moderation? RobSmith^{I am a victim of anonymous CP trolls} 00:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Moderator Meeting 2.jpg

Call a quorum!!!!!

–SuspectedReplicant retire me 00:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Ace appears to have stopped. Trying to treat him like I would treat anyone else, I think that his behavior has been embarrassing and ridiculous, and has prompted the need to actually have a vote to determine moderator standards of behavior - regardless of how that vote turns out, it's pretty goddamn annoying. He's stopped, though, and exhibited some self-control and awareness - which is more than I can say for other people.--^talk 02:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

exhibited some self-control and awareness Where? His comments to this page are no better than Brxbrx's lols. But of course he's the cool guy so he can get away with it. -- Nx / talk 06:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

He has stopped. If he does it again then I guess we'd have to seriously have a vote. It's true that him being well-liked - and Maratrean being viewed with something that ranges from contempt to suspicion by many - means that he might be getting too much slack here, I don't know. But we also tend to cut everyone a lot of slack. When you do server-side stuff, for example, that seems to be taking decisions for everyone onto yourself (like the sanctuary thing), we cut a lot of slack because you're also liked and you do a huge amount around here. Everyone gets slack, and that's usually pretty good.--^talk 06:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

This exactly how Nelson Mandela Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi felt

Can I go free now? fuck. Ace^{of Spades} 00:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Trolling Maratrean is protesting apartheid?--User:Brxbrx/sig 00:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The godless fascists don't know protest. --Mack Coster (talk) 00:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Still doing it

Still vandalizing my user pages [10]. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 03:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

That was an accident. Ace^{of Spades} 03:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

It's so awful. I don't know how we'll manage while this monster Ace McWicked is allowed to harass Maratrean and disappoint poor Nx so mercilessly. Should we take away his moderator badge and sysop rights and make him sit in a corner? I say we banish him so Maratrean never has to see another penis in his life and can get back to telling everyone here why they're wrong about whatever he decides he wants to be right about that very moment. You moderators suck! THIS UNBRIDLED CHAOS SHOULD NOT BE HAPPENING. You're not moderating shit! You're supposed to be leaders! You're supposed to tell us what to do and how to feel! You're supposed to moderate every conflict into evaporating before it starts! You're not allowed to let anyone say anything harsh or get upset or YOU'RE NOT DOING YOUR JOB. You're supposed to make sure that only super high quality coops about real issues like this one get resolved ASAP in favor of whoever yells the loudest!!! You suck. ESPECIALLY ACE. I want my money back. 99.198.127.150 (talk) 04:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Just been round my neighbours house to borrow a drill but he wasn't home. So I broke in and ate his fishtank. You won't catch me with me trousers. Ace^{of Spades} 21:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

That's enough from you boys!

• Ace, please stop teasing Zachary. As a prefect, you should know better.
• Zachary, stop being such a cry baby. The more you carry on the more Ace is going to torment you. You're just giving him what he wants.

Don't make me come back there. MtD^{Pinko Scum} 05:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

ListenerX^TalkerX 05:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

If he leaves me alone, I'll drop the topic. Simple solution? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 05:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I am going to stick my greasy fish-stick into your face and eyeball fuck you. What do you say to that, you monsterous fiend of virginal values? Ace^{of Spades} 05:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

It reminds me of Yosemite Sam in the cartoon Bugs Bunny Rides Again; Bugs kept drawing lines in the sand and Yosemite Sam kept stepping across them. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Pics, or it didn't happen. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 09:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

[11]. But I can't find the lines in the sand part (yet). Bob Soles (talk) 09:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Starts at 4:03. ListenerX^TalkerX 21:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I meant pics of Ace sticking his greasy fish-stick into Maratwat's face and eyeball fucking him, but it's always good to see a Bugs Bunny cartoon. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 09:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)