RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive19

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

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

In case no one's noticed[edit]

...Blue has her rights back. Human still has his and hasn't edit-warred for promoting her etc. So why is everyone still arguing about imposing sanctions and changes and all other sorts of bullshit that will never be put into practice? Can't we all just get back to working on RW again? ADK is right, visitors coming here and seeing practically the entire regular userbase arguing over a very minor issue which half the people above have probably forgotten about by now. But instead of moving it onto RWW, can't everyone just get a fucking grip and MOVE ON? Garçon (talk) 19:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

It will stop when everyone realises they either need to eat or sleep. ADK...I'll shake your scroll! 19:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
To the untrained eye, it may appear that things are out of control. Nothing could be further from the truth (as defined by Armondikov, of course). Occasionaluse (talk) 19:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
It's like group therapy. We need each need to spew, and then something material will get done. Blue Talk 19:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, but[edit]

( DogP let fly with stupid misplaced nonsense here. He meant it to go here, then decided to LANCB. Though he was completely in the wrong and had his head up his own arse, he finally decided that enough was enough and he is since departed. This corrective comment added by DogP (talk) 22:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC))

WTF are you talking about? Occasionaluse (talk) 21:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
He's confusing the talk page with the main Chicken Coop page. DogP, the section is here. Blue Talk 21:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
That's what I suspected, but I didn't expect that confusion/reaction from DogP. lol...wound tight much? Occasionaluse (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Ha! That's hilarious! I'm such a useless fuck. Well, there goes a specific reason for LANCB. But you know what? I think I will anyway, the entire level of conversation here is so unentertaining since Human buggered off and now people are admonishing me for my language. Next, they'll be telling Ace to stop passing on his top-notch stories of drug and alcohol abuse. I'm away to the hills in the foggy distance where I think I'll have a nice PCP party. DogP (talk) 21:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Removed the well informed, highly important, well thoughtout and above all "rational" complaints. I'd like to thank all our contributers, listeners and a special shout-out to those in the bay area. Rock on![edit]

Please comment further. Ace of Spades 10:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I archived it, because I assumed that was what you were doing. At any rate, I think the Human section should be archived rather than split off, since no one has commented there for two days. New3.pngPink(Is a perfectly acceptable colour) 10:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Pink. Someone will no doubt complain about this action of mine but fuck it I am sick of it. Ace of Spades 10:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Don't mention it. I don't think anyone wants to continue the debate in that form, so I can't see anyone complaining. Except maybe about the title. New3.pngPink(Is a perfectly acceptable colour) 10:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, I have fixed the title. Ace of Spades 10:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Well hey, I only meant the "bullshitt" part. ^_^ But that is a nice title. New3.pngPink(Is a perfectly acceptable colour) 11:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Ahh! Now I get it. All it takes is for the initial posters to say it's stupid and unnecessary and then archive it, thus making it verily a non-issue. Yay tis genius at work. Golly I wish I'd known that when some of the intemperate ones here were sharpening their stakes. PS I'm complaining that the coop is a fucking joke. I propose that we hand RW's fate over to Cthulhu for safekeeping (talk) 12:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Let us bask in the ending...Call me Ishmael...Ace of Spades 12:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

What are the worthwhile discussions taking place?[edit]

At the moment this page is being used to snipe at other users once again. I don't care to read through it all. Which are the current discussions that are seriously under consideration? The rest can go in the archive. - π Moderator 01:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Guys, "not caring to read it" is not an excuse to block it. you really need to let some of this happen, even if it seems childish and trite. shutting off people's means of discussion is unproductive and will make the chicken shit worse.--Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 01:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. There is far too much meaningless sniping on this page at present. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 02:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I am not trying to shut off discussion just get people to reflect on the discussions taking place. I don't want to read through it all because I use to enjoy being at RationalWiki at it is disheartening to see a community I once enjoyed desend into this. It would be nice if people thought, "is this something really worth getting into a fight over, is it that important"? Most of these discussions the answer is no. At the moment it seems like people are thinking: "I don't like this person and they have done something in the grayish area so I am going to start a clusterfuck about it". - π Moderator 02:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
While that is very true, and 99% of all this is personality, and he said she said - my fear and concern -- a very big concern that has developed over the last week -- is that it's not really right that you should say "according to me, this is worthless". or "I feel as if this page should be blocked without discussion". i read the same "rules" of the mods (such as they were) that you did, and this arbitrary "do whatever makes sense right now" doesn't seem to be 1) the plan or 2) how any of you positioned yourselves when you ran. There have been four or five edits over the last week that really seem far more about "look what I can do", than any real grown up moderation. All you had to do, PI, was ASK for 5 minutes or even 20 to say "I think this needs shut down, anyone else?" all you had to do was get a semi consensus of the mods online, etc. this arbitrary shit can get out of hand very quickly. I do get how frustrated you are over one particular user and his socks... but please be careful. power quickly becomes a control thing. a "we get to run teh place" thing. It's happened before to good people. and you all are good people.Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 02:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
It is not one user and his socks that bother me, they have largely been dealt with as far I am concerned, it is actually the established users contiuing fights no ends. The only way those will ever be resolved is if one of the two clashing users leaves the site, in which case we are poorer off as a result. As I noted in my edit summary this page is effectivly a duplicate any way now, but I would like to see the central discussions hammered out first, before moving on to the peripherals. If the other mod is unhappy they are free to unilaterally unlock the page, I will not insist on it being locked. - π Moderator 02:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
If there is a dearth of worthwhile discussions going on, or if those that are potentially worthwhile are getting off track, then make that point on the page. If any sections are just trolling then archive them, but this locking the page because one person doesn't like parts of it is not cool. When did we elect CP sysops? If you're going to protect the page at least have the courtesy to turn it into a redirect to Atheism, obesity, ponies, baked beans, and Hitler first. DickTurpis (talk) 04:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
WfG, your caution is wise. But we're trying to walk a delicate line: too much interference and we get cries of fascism (well, really any interference at all...) but too little and we might as well not have been elected. It is a matter for serious care, though, I absolutely agree on that.--ADtalkModerator 04:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please unlock the damn page. There are two votes going on which people cannot take part in because of this. DickTurpis (talk) 04:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll take that as you are saying there are two worthwhile discussions taking place. - π Moderator 04:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I moved them to more relevant pages. Looks like AD has since unlocked the page, so revert at will. - π Moderator 05:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Alright. Fair enough. While I agree that large sections of this page are basically bitching, there is, I think, a little wheat amongst the chaff. DickTurpis (talk) 05:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Archiving[edit]

It seems a bunch of these section can be archived, as they haven't been commented on is about a week and weren't really going anywhere anyway. It's probably worthwhile keeping the Occasionaluse and Brxbrx sections going for now, but I don't see much worthwhile in the rest. I'd feel most comfortable if a mod did it, though. DickTurpis (talk) 17:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

This page is a fucking joke[edit]

I say we delete it and create something new in it's place where only people with real problems can go to have those real problems addressed and any of the drama and attention whores are reverted and deleted without mercy. And, yes, that would include any perceived drama and attention whoring by yours truly. The only reason our moderator system isn't working as well as it should is because pages like this, where real problems are meant to be redressed, are made into a laughing stock. Lord of Reckless Noise Hooray! I'm helping! 15:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

change the name back to admin abuse.Тytalk 15:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Seems you're basically arguing for a rebranding. Does that ever work? Delete this and create a new page in its place and we'll see exactly the same thing under a different name. The problem with deleting drama and attention whoring without mercy is that inevitably real issues get deleted under those pretexts when someone wishes them to be. It's my opinion that the real reason the coop is filled with frivolity right now is a dearth of real problems. That is a good thing. DickTurpis (talk) 16:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
This page has been of some use in the past, and will doubtless be of some use in the future. All we need is a little restraint from certain editors. For instance, I basically agree with some of the current coop calls but have restrained from posting because my feelings don't matter when compared to the site's mission. Now let's see if that useless waste of space Maratrean can exercise similar restraint by not replying to this. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 20:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Now that we've all calmed down a bit[edit]

OK, so we've just been through something, it's taken a while, but, I feel that we seem to be coming out the other end. We've stopped all shouting at each other and started acting like the decent human beings we all are. for what it's worth I've stuck around because this is a fun place to hang out and it would be a shame if it all ended in a bad tempered brawl.

So, business as usual, everyone? Jack Hughes (talk) 21:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Er, this is "business as usual." Continually recurring bouts of HCM. The only difference in May/June was that it involved more people than "usual." Blue Talk 21:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
You seem to be conflating "Headless Chicken Mode" with "endless griping". Different things, really. The former we can try to eliminate, the second not so much. DickTurpis (talk) 12:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Eira (moved)[edit]

For Failing to Include me as a member of the "Fucking Everyone" group. I suggest a two-month ban.--Tolerance (talk) 14:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Who the hell are you? --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 15:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
How about for turning completely unrelated conversations into a Maratrean-hatefest. Really, you can think my religion is complete bullshit, you can think I am totally crazy, you can think whatever you want. But, repeatedly turning unrelated conversations into something about my religion... For example, I post this on her talk page, and in response I get the totally irrelevant reply of this. How does my religion have anything whatsoever to do with what voting system RW uses? She can love my voting proposal, she can think it is total bullshit. But why bring up the totally non-related topic of my religion? Or similarly, look at several of her posts above on this page, in the "Fucking Everyone!!!" section. She says her complaint is people who want to ban MC, or revert MC's posts, yet she very quickly segues to bashing me — a paradoxical choice given her original complaint, since I have been lukewarm about the MC ban in general and quite vocally opposed to reversions of his posts on the talk pages of those users who object — the very thing she was complaining about. (((Zack Martin))) 11:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I guess you just don't have enough desire for Eira to be nice to you, so it hasn't come true in this universe. Maratrea is really dropping the ball for you.
In case it needs to be said, people can be as rude as they like to each other. We're not going to ban Eira for being mean to you any more than we will block you for being an idiot.--ADtalkModerator 11:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
You are right, if you want to roll in the mud, I can't stop you. Roll away — hey, there's a tasty pile of fresh dung in the corner, want some? It's vegetarian, it came from a herbivore. (((Zack Martin))) 11:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Telling an idiot to fuck off is not rolling in the mud. Jack Hughes (talk) 11:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Stop sign.svg

This conversation is about to go badly downhill, inevitably ending in comparisons to Hitler, and hurt feelings all around.
Stop now. Step away from the keyboard.
Go pet a jerboa, or milk a goat.

I missed that template :) CrundyTalk nerdy to me 12:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Can we lose this now? It's obviously going nowhere. Can this be, like, the one page on this site which is used for, I believe the term is, "srs bsns"? DickTurpis (talk) 12:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
"srs bsns" - not a chance. This page is for bitching and whining. Always has been, always will be. I wish that it was otherwise but it isn't. Hence Eira's post was actually dob on - it summed up the entire page. Jack Hughes (talk) 13:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Sometimes I get the feeling this site is for bitching and whining. (((Zack Martin))) 13:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Don't conflate purpose with usage. I would pull out of my arse the figure that 20% of edits on this site are bitching about others - even if it's well meant. Jack Hughes (talk) 13:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Very well. Point made. Moving on... DickTurpis (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I object to Maratrean Hijacking this Thread so as to make it about Him. If he wants to bring Eira to the coop for being Nasty to Him then he should consider starting his own Coop thread to that Effect. While I am Sure that it is not his intention he seems to be Bringing Complaints to the coop while being able to maintain the Pretence that he does take Part in Such Activity.
To Eira: your Question "Who ... are you?" is truly Very Profound. Sadly I lack the Space to answer fully. --Tolerance (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Why don't all of you fuck off and leave this page for real problems? Seriously, it's all the drama whores using this page to complain and bitch and moan about stupid drama nonsense that have made this page, and anything that happens here, a fucking joke. As a result, real, actual problems never get dealt with. Lord of Reckless Noise Hooray! I'm helping! 15:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Agree. While social-type chat can grease the wheels of collaboration, when the atmosphere starts feeling like a middle school UFO Spotters Club sharing meeting space with the Helping Hand Troll Mission, srs bzns actually related to the RW mission may tend to suffer from a lack of willing participants. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
This page really should be used for legitimate grievances. Miscellaneous whining, griping, and snark has its place, sure, but that place is probably the Saloon Bar. DickTurpis (talk) 21:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Without meaning to be heavy-handed, I think that any case that is presented here should be subjected to some written-up standards. For instance, when alleging admin abuse, you would need to identify who you're accusing, present hard evidence, and provide an explanation. Any other threads could be removed from this page to make way for actual important discussion. Blue Talk 21:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm just going to start moving non-serious threads (like this one, if I understand Tolerance's wryness correctly) to the talk page.--ADtalkModerator 21:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Can we archive the rest of the page now? I don't think we have any ongoing discussions there, and if we do, I don't see how they're worthwhile. The only actual issue that may remain unresolved is the one pertaining to Occasionaluse, addressing whether a user is allowed to remove edits from his own talk page that he may consider annoying, even if they don't meet the standard of abuse. If anyone still wants to address this (and it appears they don't) let's start a new thread about the matter itself and leave personalities out of it. In the meantime let's clean-slate the coop. DickTurpis (talk) 12:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Nx[edit]

Again, creating a new section to make discussion easier. Nx is being charged with unilaterally acting to abuse his server access in order to remove a page in Human's userspace from Recent Changes. Again, somebody should probably reword the charge and get some diff links before it's brought to a vote. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 18:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

There are no diff links. It's part of an emerging pattern of using server access to unilaterally effect his will, including desysopping hundreds of sysops server side, enabling checkuser, and this latest bit of modifying Recent Changes to exclude a single page. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 18:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Then find a difflink where he admitted to it, or Trent said it was him, or something. That can't be to hard, unless we have no evidence it was actually him who did it, and not one of the other people with server access like Pi or Trent. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 19:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Nx has admitted to all of them. Personally I don't judge him for the first two and applaud him for the last. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 19:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
How about Nx can't do anything non-techy with his special powas unless he puts each issue to a vote? Otherwise the mob is subverted by one guy tech skillz. --Talpidae (talk) 19:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Well no shit Talpidae. Emp, It's easier than that. The facts aren't going to be in dispute. Nx: please admit or deny you did these things. Please also tell us who has server access. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 19:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I did. Trent has server access. The server's root password (as well as other information, see Forum:Keepers of the keys) is on Google docs, in a document shared with Human, Bob, and myself. -- Nx / talk 19:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
If the solution were that obvious to certain people, Nutty, we wouldn't be having this discussion.--Talpidae (talk) 19:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not actually disputing that he did it since IMO it's exactly the sort of thing that Nx would do (that was a statement, not an indictment, don't take it the wrong way). I just think it would set a really bad precedent if we banned/censured/whatevered a tech who some people don't like without evidence just because some techie shenanigans happened that were coop worth. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 19:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
And that's good, because you all are retarded. As far as I understand you are whining about Nx not having a vote on enforcing a voted on decision. --85.78.248.199 (talk) 19:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
What decision would that be? Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 19:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Um, that MC should be banned for a month? --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 19:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
What? This is about him using his server access without consensus, not about a block he didn't make. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 19:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
So what do votes do in your mind? --85.78.248.199 (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I asked you what decision was voted. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 19:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
The BoN means that if Nx was enforcing the Mod's decision, he can do it unilaterally.--Talpidae (talk) 19:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
What decision?! Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 20:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
The MC decision! Apparently this is considered an extension of that.--Talpidae (talk) 20:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not following you. Please read and re-read what's going on here. This isn't about MC. It's about Nx using server access without consensus. I'll point out that achieving consensus later, to the extent he can do that, doesn't obviate the fact that he unilaterally used server rights prior to gaining it. And to clarify for you, there is no relevant MC decision other than the prior block. The vote for a 2 year ban ends tomorrow. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 20:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that the specific incident that inspired this cooping, the incident which theEmperor and others were talking about the most, in which Nx prevented MC's Human subpage from appearing in RC, is being justified by the Mod decision. See the BoN above. I'm not saying I agreed, I thought you didn't understand what was being referred to ("What decision would that be?").--Talpidae (talk) 21:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

What exactly is being proposed here? That Nx undo his invisiblizing of the page in question, or that he be punished in some manner for doing it in the first place? It seems we should first decide the issue of whether Human is abusing the system by giving MC a place to rant. If it is decided that it is contrary to the mob's decision to ban MC, then the matter will probably be moot anyway, as hiding the page will be unnecessary. No one seems to be addressing the Human issue much so far. DickTurpis (talk) 21:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I suggest the best thing, would be if Nx undid the change he made, for now at least, and then this discussion can end. And Nx, you must tell me, how did you do it? I am interested to know the technical details. (((Zack Martin))) 21:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I undid it already. -- Nx / talk 21:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Very well then. Can we call this case closed, or do we need blood? DickTurpis (talk) 21:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes we need blood, but we're focusing on the wrong person to get it from. Huw blatantly disregarded a mob-and moderator sanctioned policy, and should be censured for it. He's not aboe the rules here just because he has a lot of edits and has been here a while. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 22:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Nx did the wrong thing for the right reasons. Server access is a really important right and shouldn't be used on a whim, even to enforce community decisions. At the very least it should have been brought here first. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Go for Human's throat all you want. That's a separate issue. This section for discussing the following:

  • Nx used his server access to desysop hundreds of sysops in May (Nx - if the number is higher or lower please let me know)
  • Nx used his server access to install checkuser in the midst of a dispute with Eira
  • Nx used his server access to hide a single page from Recent Changes

Nx did these things without securing community consensus beforehand. I have no idea what the sanction should be if the community disapproves of this behavior. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 23:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe Nx had either the consent of the Foundation or Trent for the first action. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 23:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Just for the record: Nx certainly did not have the blessing of the Foundation for item #1, and there have been resolutions before the Board of Trustees before to chastise him for various server-side actions (and there still are various resolutions before the Board). That being said, the Board moves very slowly on Wiki politics because we prefer to have as little to do with it as possible (as our bylaws state). Lord of Reckless Noise Hooray! I'm helping! 12:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Is there a rule against the last one? 24.246.11.252 (talk) 00:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Number 1 can probably be classified as implementing a directive from the foundation, as Theemperor suggests. Number 2 was naughty, but after proving a point the extension was removed. It was on the site for only a couple of hours, and only Nx and Eira had access during that time. Number 3 is very naughty, although as I said above, done for good reasons. It's not one person's decision to take the law into their own hands when another user violates community principles. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 00:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
There was no precedent / "case law" about number 3. So we can't say it was that wrong when there was no clear rule about it before hand. Of course, this is the opportunity to make a clear rule about that, and then if someone did it again, in violation of that clear rule, it would be a different story. (((Zack Martin))) 03:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
This is getting ridiculous. Permission from the foundation? LOL. No, it was a couple users agreeing (Armondikov, Psy, Pi). I thought we all agreed that Radioactive afikomen is a tosser and that sysopping everyone who's been here for more than 5 minutes is a bad thing, but when I actually try to fix that everyone gets upset because they lost their banhammer. -- Nx / talk 05:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
In my personal opinion, hiding Human's page to force us to avoid feeding the troll, while heavy handed, is not cause for action against Nx. To the contrary. I think that if a page grants trolls the freedom to post whatever the fuck they want, then the community (which blocked said troll) is within its rights to block that page from appearing in Recent Changes. That way, the troll can post without being "oppressed" and so that we can go on without more of these stupid arguments when we most certainly have better things to do. Lord of Reckless Noise Hooray! I'm helping! 12:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Since this case is less clear-cut than Human's above, as he was using discretionary powers granted to him by the community to enforce a decision of the community, I'd say that we should first have a vote on whether or not he actually did anything wrong or if he was within his rights before we try and determine the sentencing. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 18:49, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I may be arguing semantics here, but was Nx granted powers by the community? I sort of thought he was given the powers by Trent. I only bring this up because some people have been making noises about the Tech position, who gets it and what in entails. I'm not even sure its necessarily relevant int his case, or whether guy with access to server and tech are the same thing or not. Either way, at some point there should be some process for deciding these things. I've noticed there's been a certain amount of grumbling about Nx in particular among several editors, and at some point I think there should be a way for these grumblings to be expressed in an actionable manner, so this can be discussed and settled, and we don't have to hear "Nx desysopped us all months ago!" every time someone gets bent out of shape over something he says or does, which seems to be about the only outlet we have now. DickTurpis (talk) 19:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I may be arguing semantics here, but was Nx granted powers by the community? No. I sort of thought he was given the powers by Trent. Yes. or whether guy with access to server and tech are the same thing or not No. Techs are people who can edit mediawiki space and stuff like that. This is mostly stuff sysops can do on WP, but we can't let sysops do it here because everyone who makes 3 edits is a sysop, and that'd be dangerous. Although it's only Trent, myself and Bertran (because he's the main administrator of RussianalWiki) now, it really should be granted to more people. -- Nx / talk 07:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Thanks for the clarification. This brings up another entire matter which needs to be settled at some point, in as much as how tech powers are granted, as well as the position of (for lack of a better word) "serverdude". The community sensibly wanted to sort of moderators first, but now that that's settled (mostly) we should address this. I don't know how many techs there should be or how they should be decided. A regular election isn't ideal because, even more so then moderators, we need people with specialized skills more than people who we like or agree with. Perhaps some sort of nomination process, with an election from a group of vetted candidates? Whatever it turns out to be, we need some process in place at some point. Sooner rather than later. DickTurpis (talk) 13:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, go and address it. -- Nx / talk 08:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Trent and the board have offered me the newly created position of system administrator. If you want to have an election, now would be a good time. -- Nx / talk 06:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
According to the Foundation's bylaws, Trent, as the Operations Manager is responsible for overseeing all aspects of the daily activities of the Foundation. As such, the bylaws delegate to him alone the authority to appoint people with server access to assist him in this role. At the last board meeting, the board resolved to charge Trent with drafting a job description for the position of Server Administrator, which would be subordinate to him as Operations Manager and responsible responsible for performing certain tasks on the server. Trent's made a proposal, which we're discussing but have not yet adopted. We resolved by unanimous vote to offer the position to Nx once the job description is decided on. So at least for the time being it's still within Trent's sole authority to appoint people with server access to assist him in his job as Operations Manager. Nx is uniquely suited to continue making this wiki work server-side and in the MediaWiki space and we're lucky that he's been so generous with his time and talent.
But several issues relating to 2 distinct roles have been raised in this section. I hope it's clear that the position of tech as someone with user rights to edit the MediaWiki space but without server access is a different role than that of Server Administrator. While it's Trent's job to appoint his own team server-side, I have no idea what procedure ought to be followed for appointing techs and I'm agnostic whether it's within the community's authority to elect techs. I will say that it makes no sense for someone with server-side access to not be able to edit whatever is necessary in MediaWiki to do his job, so whatever the community comes up with consistent with its authority obviously needs to accommodate the Server Administrator's mandate, but that's just a mostly premature side thought right now. I'm inclined to say that it ought to be Trent's or Nx's job to appoint a limited number of techs to help out since their role should only be to assist them, not get involved in the daily happenings of the wiki except as a regular editor, or as a moderator if elected. What are peoples' thoughts on how to approach the duties, term, etc. of the tech spot? Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 16:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, but if the mob wants to have a say in it, they can now. As for techs, we have this discussion. -- Nx / talk 19:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Just to make my perspective clear on the issue, the motion passed was to authorize me to make the job description and offer it to nx. I have done so and sent a copy to the board and gave 3 days time for feedback. Which I received none. Therefore, based on my mandate I have created the position and the job description and officially offered it to nx. Now it is totally his prerogative to seek community feedback before accepting or rejecting, but I don't think we need another board vote. Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, I'm happy with it! Ends a nebulous area, and Nx has proven himself competent and responsible.--ADtalkModerator 23:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

New section[edit]

AD, surely you jest. Nx has been deleting content I added to my talk page. http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHuman&action=historysubmit&diff=865092&oldid=865089 the creature is neither competent or responsible. I think he should be blocked for a month for egregious abuse, and his server access removed permanently. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Repeatedly. http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHuman&action=historysubmit&diff=865093&oldid=865092 ħumanUser talk:Human 04:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't Pi's server access be looked into as well? We are in a very nebulous era, after all. Blue Talk 04:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Pi doesn't have server access. -- Nx / talk 04:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
It was a joke. The point of the comment right before Human's was that we were coming out of a nebulous era. Blue Talk 04:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I suspected as much, but felt the need to post a disclaimer nonetheless. -- Nx / talk 06:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
And into a stelliferous era? Aceace 04:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Nx was pretty obviously doing the right thing in not ignoring a blatant attempt to circumvent a community decision.--ADtalkModerator 04:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Ignoring? -- Nx / talk 06:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Haha mispoke! Fixed.--ADtalkModerator 06:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Last chance[edit]

Since I'm running in the moderator elections, I'll ask Trent to remove my server access. After the moderator elections are over, I will be accepting the job. You have until then to figure out whether you want to have a say in it or not. -- Nx / talk 10:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Ace McWicked again[edit]

For desysopping Maratrean and subsequently blocking him for three months. That's pretty bad, especially seeing as how Maratrean is one of our nicest and politest editors. If this were MarcusCicero or someone else who obviously means only to disrupt the site, I'd be a bit more sympathetic and would let someone else coop him (actually, I think this is my first coop! So exciting!!!).--User:Brxbrx/sig 03:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly support Ace's actions, and suggest cooping Brxbrx for cooping Ace. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 07:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly support Ace's actions, and suggest cooping Brxbrx for cooping Ace. Pippa (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I suggest cooping Suspected Replicant and Pippa for suggesting we coop Maratrean and Brxbrx. DickTurpis (talk) 16:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I suggest cooping everyone for reading this when e has better things to do. 68.116.168.154 (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
(e/c)I think everyone will agree that DickTurpis should be cooped for that last comment. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 16:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Stop sign.svg

This conversation is about to go badly downhill, inevitably ending in comparisons to Hitler, and hurt feelings all around.
Stop now. Step away from the keyboard.
Go pet a jerboa, or milk a goat.

Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 07:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I delivered a warning of sorts on Ace's talk page. If anyone has something further to argue constructively here, feel free. Blue Talk 09:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

An admission of guilt and a show of remorse would be nice.--User:Brxbrx/sig 16:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
An admission of guilt and a show of remorse would be nice. Are you out of your fucking mind? Good luck getting remorse out of me. Aceace 20:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for resigning then. --ʤɱ libertarian 21:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I didn't resign as an acceptance that I had behaved poorly, I resigned because this website is hamstrung by a bunch of fuicking concern trolls who bleat on about being suppressed. Aceace 21:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I believe you. I was questioning your character. --ʤɱ secularist 21:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Good for you, penis-pie. Aceace 21:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I approve Ace's distaste (mmm, penis pie. someone else may have my entire helping of it; see what a fine fellow I am?) for being hobbled by the need to be seen playing nicely with concern trolls. In the class struggle, he will be more effective as a rouge admin. Just keep the rouge off my end of the goat, will you? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
It would be concerning if we took concern trolls seriously. --Mack Coster (talk) 22:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
this website is hamstrung by a bunch of fuicking concern trolls
Spoken like a true concern troll, and backed up by his actions. nobsI am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp 02:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
What happened Rob? I thought you guys were pals. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 02:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I am such a genius concern troll that I waited four years for a person like maratrean to come around so i could leap into action. Genius! Aceace 02:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm a lot smarter. I'm waiting like maybe a few more weeks before I start concern trolling. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 02:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Ace's actions may have been part of a reactionary counter-revolutionary effort to thwart reform and return RW to the bad old days. nobsI am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp 03:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Go for it, bricks. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 16:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
So do I: I think Maratrean should admit his guilt as a wanker and show his remorse by pissing off for good. Pippa (talk) 16:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Ace is Hitler. I feel bad. steriletalk 18:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

since Maratrean has turned his user page into a promotion for the sort of thing this sites mission is against, and covered the site logo with his own , I think desysopping was perhaps warrented. grumping at ask is also tacky. Ace may have his faults but he is still Ace. Hamster (talk) 04:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Faults? What fucking faults? Aceace 04:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
(ec)Yes, yes, that's so CP-esque, what Hampster wants to do. nobsI am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp 04:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
OMG, not only does he have the audacity to not leave forever when bullied and abused, he is also promoting his made up bullshit religion on his userpage, AND he covered up the site logo on his user and user talk pages with his own? Death's too good for him. -- Nx / talk 06:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I think Hamster was joking there. I hope he was, anyway. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 06:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
And after Maratrean, we should block Human too, I mean he covered the site logo with his face, how egotistical is that? Does he think it's his wiki? And also anyone who uses displaytitle, since it forces me to look at the url to figure out whose talk page I'm on. -- Nx / talk 06:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
And also anyone who uses displaytitle... The specific target being the user formerly known as "Cabbage Wedge Gank," I presume? Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 06:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

A challenge[edit]

Some seem to be of the opinion that Maratrean is the most concern trollingest troll that ever trolled. I'd like to see a rap sheet of his greatest (worst?) hits if he is such a troll, otherwise, the cries of "concern troll" are just hot air. Nebuchadnezzar(talk) 03:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Because someone says something that the hearer is either (a) not interested in, or (b) too fucking stupid to understand, does that make the poster a troll? nobsI am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp 04:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
There is also category c) the poster says something too fucking stupid for anyone else to understand. That is not a troll as such, but very annoying. - π Moderator 04:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I understand most of what Maratrean says. Yes, most of it is bunk, but it is at least comprehensible. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 05:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
True, Maretrean makes the mistake in thinking we mean rational as in behaviour and not as in the philosophical sense. - π Moderator 05:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
To me, the two, while not identical, are nonetheless strongly connected. But I acknowledge that many others seem to think the linkage between them is much looser, or even non-existent. (((Zack Martin))) 09:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
We've had a few of these Maratrean-related coopings, and each time they devolve into a cacophony of Maratrean-bashing, yet no one ever given a specific complaint about him, in the form of a diff or a link of any sort (SR's "evidence" was a link to Maratran's user contributions page, but that's less than helpful). If people have a legitimate gripe against the guy, make a case here. Until then, he's going to come off as the wronged party, and guys like Ace and SR are going to appear to be the bad guys who admit they are trolling. Does anybody want to coop Maratrean, or is the plan just to irritate him until he leaves? DickTurpis (talk) 15:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Permit me to join the throng who decline to trawl through Zach's editing history. Some of his more "serious" contributions, such as Independent Catholic churches and the Waldensians, take a pathologically procrustean reading of the mission statement to justify hosting. Fuck it, they aren't on mission at all; they fall easily into the same class as articles on teeny-bopper movies or "Homosexuality and deconstructionist views of See Spot Run." Digital storage is cheap, but why do we waste our time and attention on this self-inflated popinjay? Irritation until departure is one way to go. Getting the mob to shun and ignore him seems to have skimpy chances of success. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for at least providing some links. I'll grant that those articles' relevance to our mission is, at best, questionable, but hardly in the same category as the "Camp Rock". We certainly have plenty of articles on religious groups and sects, though they do tend to be more relevant today than these two. However, we do have a process for removing off-mission articles, and it doesn't involve hounding their creator until he leaves. I think he's enough of a n00b still that we can forgive him taking a slightly liberal interpretation of our mission, and education might be preferable to the boot, if that is his worst offense (and I'm assuming it's not). I'm looking for high crimes and misdemeanors here, but so far no one's showing me anything. DickTurpis (talk) 16:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
High crimes and misdemeanors are one thing, but I do not discount the insidious corrosive enervating influence of repeated low-grade time-wasting. From Huxley's Brave New World:
... water, it is true, can wear holes in the hardest granite; rather, drops of liquid sealing-wax, drops that adhere, incrust, incorporate themselves with what they fall on, till finally the rock is all one scarlet blob
Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
"self-inflated popinjay" FTW. Pippa (talk) 16:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't see the big deal with the articles Sprocket linked to. They could use a few more citations (Thus they can be seen as a form of proto-Protestantism as an example of something needing a citation) and a few less red links, but otherwise describe religious traditions that fall right in line with RW's mission of exploring fundamentalism- moreover the Waldensians article is further on-mission for its section on pseudohistory.--User:Brxbrx/sig 17:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Also, "procrustean?" Took me a minute or two to look that up and I don't understand how that's a relevant adjective to this case.--User:Brxbrx/sig 17:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
He wrote articles of questionable missionality? Off with his head. -- Nx / talk 18:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
throng, trawl, procrustean, popinjay, shun, skimpy — JMFC, did you swallow a dictionary at some point? That's six words I didn't know before reading that post.
I think it is good to keep a framework of off-mission articles to support those on-mission. Or how would you explain this, this or that? Maratrean certainly contributed to this wiki. I'm sorry but, "he has done nothin' but complainin'" doesn't work in this case, fuck that argument works better for me than for Maratrean. He is one of the few editors who made the philosophy stuff on this wiki relatively stomachable. --ʤɱ secularist 18:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
JMFC means Jesus Mother Fucking Christ. I had to look that one up too. Score one for the German, who knows more English (English web slang, that is) than the Frenchman living in the States!--User:Brxbrx/sig 18:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
throng, trawl, procrustean, popinjay, shun, skimpy — JMFC, did you swallow a dictionary at some point? With the exception of "procrustean" and possibly "popinjay" those are words I would expect any English speaker who has survived twelve years of schooling beyond kindergarten to understand.
  • "Procrustean" is about stretching or mutilating something until it fits. In this case, I use it to mean stretching the letter of the mission to cover articles which hardly fit. You may debate that usage if you wish, but I will not participate.
  • I would expect an historically informed German or Belgian or Dutchman or Frenchman to be familiar with the concept of a popinjay, if not the English word. The English word is seldom used, but still holds meaning. Never mind; the discussion has moved on... Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Dude, as a French expatriate I am not expected to know the Old French appellation for "parrot." That's asking too much.--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Get yourself a bow, and some rubber-tipped arrows. Find a suitable path through the woods, and hang a bunch of gallon milk jugs from branches here and there, so they dangle just above ground level, using a fathom of string for each. That is about as much string as you can stretch between both hands at arm's length. Hearing the THOONQUE!! of a well-placed hit, and watching the jug bounce on the end of its string, is guaranteed to put a grin on your face. No need to ask how I know this. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
You know that was just a remark and not a criticism, right? The density of words I don't know was high and I'm dorky enough to enjoy looking them up. If I would have been in an English-speaking school or country for a while I would probably know this stuff. --ʤɱ socialist 11:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
All is cool, even mildly entertaining. Gave me an opportunity to bask in pleasant memories of roving along bosky paths with a bow and a handful of arrows. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 11:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
As a germanophile, who has lived her entire life in this country, and even has a very extensive vocabulary knowledge, I can tell you: No, you probably wouldn't know those words even if you had spent time in an English-speaking school or country for a while. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 12:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Wait, you're talking about procrustean and popinjay, right? I sure hope you don't think "shun" and "skimpy" are hard to understand. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 12:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I was a bit skimpy on details, but please don't shun me over that. Those words are fairly well-used... --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 12:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Whew. You just saved me from trawling through the history to find reasons not to join the throng of RW's detractors. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 12:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

So, wait, someone who peddles the same stuff all over the place to gain attention with the apparent concern that there's something wrong isn't the definition of troll? steriletalk 12:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

  • A troll says outrageous things, hoping to get a heated response.
  • A concern troll puts on the appearance of trying to help fix "problems" in order to alter a site to suit their own agenda.
  • An attention whore adds items they believe will meet with popular approval.
  • A whack job like Maratrean can seem rational at times, but may carry a whiff of all of the above. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 12:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
This is why the coop is so goddamn frustrating. People always throw around accusations about a user's behavior, but never back them up with links. Not all of us are familiar with all the actions of every editor here. DickTurpis (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Maratrean is not the one being cooped in this section, and even if he were, who would have the Sitzfleisch to go through his tedious tl;dr contributions anyway? Feel free to do some research. Opinions voiced regarding M may be taken as mitigation of the actual defendant's actions. A vocal fraction of the community has expressed such opinions. Thank Ahura Mazda the furor seems to have died down. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Back on topic[edit]

Can we at least agree that the unilateral demotion (or promotion if you prefer) and blocking of other users is a bad thing and shouldn't be done, regardless of who the subject is?--User:Brxbrx/sig 17:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It is a bad thing. Ace has been warned. For now, let's leave it at that. Blue Talk 19:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh he's been warned but he and others seem to be taking a flippant attitude. At least extracting a promise not to do it again from Ace and an admission that such actions are against the rules by some such as SuspectedReplicant should come out of all this.--User:Brxbrx/sig 19:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Give me a fucking break. You're not extracting a thing from him. Either he gets punished or he doesn't. Either he apologizes or he doesn't. Didn't you set the precedent for lacking an iota of contrition until you got desysopped. Yes, you did. There ya go. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 19:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
And therein lies the rub. we've spent six months arguing about the rules and it's all completely fatuous. There are no significant penalties. The only real deterrent is banning and it took how long to ban Marcus - nah, we might try to agree a code of conduct but we won't get much agreement - it's too diverse a crowd and then what agreement we do get is totally unenforceable. Still, it passes the time and makes us feel important. Bob Soles (talk) 20:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
{ec}I'm not on trial here, and I desysopped myself and said I wouldn't do it again anyways. I realize he probably won't apologize or anything, but it sure would be nice. inb4 sarcastic apologies or shows of remorse from the parties I previously mentioned--User:Brxbrx/sig 20:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I ain't apologizing for fucking nothing, Brx. So, you know, fuck it. Aceace 20:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Brxbrx coming in here to pretend he has moral warrant to ask for Ace's apology when he laughed through the whole process of removing his sysop bit smacks of the worst kind of hypocrisy. And it's impossible to take this person seriously when it looks like he's basically concern trolling over something there's no possibility he's sincere about. I'm calling shenanigans. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 21:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
If I'm the standard here then I should note I
  1. Promised not to do it again
  2. Desysopped myself
  3. Admitted that what I did was probably wrong, with my defense consisting largely of "it's no big deal"
Nutty Roux, drop your grudgewank against me--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I've got a grudge? You've been attacking me since May. I'm merely discussing the facts and offering my opinion of your proposition here. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 22:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Huh? Let me recap what's on my screen here: Brx: Ace should apologize. Ace: No, I won't. Nutty: You did it before.
I see you both holding at least an aggressive position towards each other, but this time you brought up the past, Nutty. If you both stop trying to discredit each other with stuff like that, it might help a bit. On the other hand we could discredit everybody who has been cooped before. Well, that would make the place pop up in RC much less… --ʤɱ sinner 22:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm hoping we can agree that unilateral de-/pro-motion and blocking for extended lengths ain't kosher here, whether or not various users can get cajoled into stating as much in this forum. For my part, I'm also willing to let the Ace thing go for now, reluctantly. The whole "he's stopped, we can call this resolved" bit only seems to hold water when "stopped" means "isn't currently doing it at this very moment". There are several times he's done this sort of shit recently, and the first time I was in the vanguard of the forgive and forget crowd, since the dispute did seem to have ended with no lasting harm done. I did want there to be at least an implicit warning in there, but if there was it didn't seem to take. Now, I like Ace. As far as I have any friends here I count him among them, but he can act like a dick at times, and partaking in what is tantamount to harassment on the talk pages of Rob, Nx, and Maratrean, as well as the removal of rights and extended blocking of the latter, are cases in point. He is being allowed to get away with too much, in a way most other editors I don't think would be able to. So I don't consider Ace exonerated here, and while I don't suppose him stepping down as moderator has anything to do with any of this, I'm inclined to view it as a positive move nevertheless. DickTurpis (talk) 20:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I like you too Dick. Hell, you can come over and use my wife. Aceace 20:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Well thanks. I'd like to return the offer, but I guess that would have to basically mean offering you a hand job. I think I'll decline. DickTurpis (talk) 20:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Are you saying you are not married, or that your wife is a hand? Aceace 21:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
What Wayne says. SJ Debaser 21:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)