RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive20

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

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

SuspectedReplicant[edit]

For edit warring and vandalizing Maratrean's user talk page. I've desysopped and blocked him for 30 minutes to stop the edit war. [1] -- Nx / talk 23:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Human again[edit]

For undoing the removal of MC's comments from his talk page. -- Nx / talk 04:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

It's actually rather comical how he keeps coming up with new ways to circumvent community decisions. Blue Talk 04:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, clever too. Aceace 04:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Anyway, do we really have to go through the whole tedious argument and vote again? Blue Talk 04:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
No, there's no inane vote needed. This is a childish attempt to avoid a decision arrived at by a full and fair vote, through wikilawyering ("It wasn't MC guys it was me!"). We're not going to have a huge vote every time he comes up with some new slight alteration to try to defy everyone else - it'd just be a big dramatic time-suck that allows continual relitigation of a decision he didn't like.--ADtalkModerator 04:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Preach. Blue Talk 04:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
We banned someone for 2 years on a simple majority vote with a 20/16 margin. That's revolting. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 04:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
20/14. Goats are not nays, you know. And 4 of those nays only objected to the length, wanting to give Marcus a chance to return and reform (lol, how many times did he pull that stunt?) before having another vote. -- Nx / talk 07:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
21/13, if we held the vote again I would change. - π Moderator 03:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Aye = for. Nay = not for. Goat = not for. Not vote = abstain. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 02:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
yeah, i don't think we can count goaxs for anything. Aceace 02:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Precedent is that "goat" votes are abstentions. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 06:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
That makes no practical sense. It's a vote. An abstention is the lack of a vote. And Pi, you rascal. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 13:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Go on, then. Undo the blocks yourself. Restore all the comments. What's stopping you? Blue Talk 04:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Dear child. You've completely missed my point. The choir you think AD's preaching to just ain't that big. Sure, it was a "community ban," but it was real shady. I wouldn't sharpen up my elbows and glory in being on the side of right when my mandate was so slim. But you think you're grooming for a leadership role, so don't listen to me. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 05:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Although the actual banning of MarcusCicero had a somewhat slim majority, the subsequent measure that Human is here accused of ignoring passed 20-3. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 05:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I like to pretend there will come a day when people like you and WfG don't question my motives at every turn. But to the point - well, you've completely missed mine. You thought I was threatening you? Come on, honey. I was asking why you tacitly support the legitimacy of the ban while shouting about it being "revolting" and impugning its legitimacy at the same time. I voted against the ban, you know. Well, I suppose you've given an oblique answer. Blue Talk 05:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Mindless imposition of the rules can sometimes be a dickish thing to do, it doesn't hurt to sometimes turn a blind eye to the odd infraction especially if it doesn't involve you directly. I have seen several instances of people sticking their noses in solely to enforce some 'community decision' and thereby escalating a situation rather than backing off and letting it go. As a moderator I am more interested in containment of situations than being a 'jobsworth'. Reading the sections on this page I see several people jumping in with both feet to attack someone they hold a grudge against. Yes, there are are other editors here who irk me but I largely cope with that by not getting involved unnecessarily. What a lot of people have singularly failed to grasp is that the simple way to deal with trolling behaviour is to ignore it. "Oh DFTT doesn't work" - well that's because people just can't help themselves from sticking their fingers between the bars and getting them nipped. A user's talk page is meant for interaction with that user, while it may be sociable to join in a good natured discussion on a talk page, piling into a dispute is rarely a constructive thing to do. Nobody is obliged to visit Human's talk page unless they wish to communicate with him directly so as long as Human isn't objecting I see no big problem here other than those who want to make it one. I would really hate it if RW had its own Karajou(s). Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 08:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Marcus can communicate with Human via email. He was banned from this wiki. We had an overwhelming vote that said Human was not allowed to give Marcus a sanctuary. And Human's response is "fuck that, I'll do what I want". If we let him, what's the point of having rules or community decisions or mods for that matter? How many more votes do we have to have before Human accepts that the community doesn't want to see Marcus's shit anywhere on this wiki? -- Nx / talk 09:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Well the whole process of permabanning MC was flawed in my opinion; first of all it was to be a rush vote of two or three days when his current ban had not expired and then the wording of the vote conflated the action with the duration rather than having separate votes of what to ban and then for how long. As in any referendum the original worder of the motion can skew the outcome. Also blocking IPs that might be MC is a very un-RW procedure and difficult to enforce, just like whack-a-mole. Although the decision may have had a simple majority it was not a particularly large vote and not everyone was given the chance to vote - you know not everyone manages to log in to this site several times every day and despite the number of people who did vote for the ban I don't see them all actively pursuing this, it's just a small number who are making an issue of it. And if you don't want to see MC's shit then don't look at it. What I am seeing now is a bunch of busy-bodies getting their knickers into a twist and demanding that something must be done because they are outraged at the rules being flouted like some Christian fundies complaining about blasphemy at a show they forced themselves to go to in the first place. Can't you see that the constant reversal of posts only encourages the trolling and aggravates the situation rather than making it better? Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 10:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
All right then, let's see how your idea works. I'll stop deleting MC's comments. -- Nx / talk 10:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
(EC) A couple points:
  • I am super-psyched that we're still talking about this. But whatever.
  • If MC were to make IP posts that did not distinctively sound like him, then they would not be banned nor would they be a problem. He craves attention and drama (i.e. this) and if he was just another anonymous IP then no one would care. This is not a "whack-a-mole" situation. In other words, if the edit was not distinctively him then no one would have given a shit.
  • The vote in question is the troll sanctuary vote, which was 20 to 3. If you want to propose unblocking MC, then fucking propose it. I wish someone who was whining about this would do it. Short of that, the solution is not to just start ignoring votes that we dislike.
  • No one is retarded here. Everyone recognizes the phenomenon caused by even more attention when this sort of controversy happens. Seriously, everyone at this point is aware of the if we let him bother us the terrorists have already won line of thinking, because it has been spouted by every crusader two or three times.
  • Consider that by making your own criticism and response, you are helping increase the drama more visibly, lengthening the argument, and causing a problem. But no one busts your goddamn chops about it because we recognize that you're doing it because you think that it will help minimize drama in the long run. You're thinking, "Maybe I can show them how their busybodiness is helping make the situation worse, and this won't happen again and they'll just relax." We have the same goddamn intentions, because we're thinking, "Maybe if entitled assholes didn't think they could ignore the rules and slap their balls against the window to draw attention to how awesome and rebellious they are, we wouldn't have to do this shit again."
  • So anyway. Yeah. Butts.--ADtalkModerator 10:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Trolls will always be around. (Some would argue they've never left.) So, indeed, we will have to deal with this shit again. Like, duh. Damn fools. steriletalk 11:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
There's also nothing shady or even just narrow about a decision that was reached with 20 out of 34 valid votes in favor. That's a 59%-to-41% margin, for god's sake. Every single real-life election or referendum that had such a lopsided result has been described as a landslide victory. The vote was announced properly, ran for more than a week, and every editor who's not comatose must have seen it pop up on RC during that time. Apart from that, nobody voiced any procedural concerns during the vote itself, these complaints only came after the result had been certified. So please, if you've got a problem with the outcome of the vote, don't make it about the rules. Say that you think the majority was mistaken, stupid or didn't properly consider the eventual consequences of their decision, that's all fine. You can also schedule a new vote to reverse the outcome if you feel that community sentiment has shifted. But don't try to delegitimize the only instrument we've got to reach those decisions. If we don't accept that votes are binding or set an unrealistic consensus requirement, there will be no way whatsoever to reach policy decisions. Röstigraben (talk) 13:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

(od) nobody voiced any procedural concerns during the vote itself. False. Check "Nay" votes 6 and 12. One of the objections was even strenuous. And those were merely the objections within the poll. There have been objections elsewhere (e.g. above) about that particular procedure and the voting procedure in general. It's enough of a mess that voting can be seen to merely legitimise a pre-determined action. In this particular case, a two-year ban for multi-year behaviour deserves more than a 1 week vote, and said vote should have been well advertised (hint; something a little more purposeful than "people should see it in RC"), and indeed should have been based on a stronger mandate than simple majority. As Nutty has said (although not in quite so many words) you need to systematise elections to lay down established notification methods, franchise, poll duration, majority and accession standards and so on for broad classed of election. That was started around here somehwere but I think Peter left with it. Also I would say that you need a specific location for these. Currently elections seem to crop up in a variety of places, most often talk pages. Oh, and the message box should stop saying "after extensive community consultation", as sometimes it is just plain not true. LowKey (talk) 01:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, as to "nothing...even just narrow about [the] decision" - if three (count them 1..2..3) people had voted Nay instead of Yay then the extremely long ban would not have got up. A totally different outcome if 3 people voted differently; that's a very slim mandate. LowKey (talk) 03:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

its a simple thing, if you do not intend to enforce them then dont make rules. If the duties of a moderator are not defined then dont have moderators. Either accept a vote or require a stated quorum of members for a valid vote. Its just a waste of everyones time otherwise. Hamster (talk) 03:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Your objection was addressed. Check the timestamps, the vote evidently lasted longer than two days. Are you seriously going to argue that a vote is flawed because of a practice that was proposed, but not followed at the time? And do you realize that this is a small wiki, where typically no more than twenty or thirty editors participate in community decisions? Under these circumstances, a six-vote margin is rather large, because three editors represent almost 10% of the voters. And if you want different voting rules, propose them - Maratrean already called for instituting a two-thirds supermajority requirement recently, that didn't garner too much support though. But let's be clear about one thing: you either think a vote is legitimate, or that it's a sham. If you're convinced that procedural flaws will make it impossible to reach a legitimate decision, it's customary to voice these objections up front and in full, usually coupled with a boycott of the vote itself. Voting and then suddenly coming up with all these objections after your side has lost is sore losership, nothing else. Röstigraben (talk) 06:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Had we been able to agree on a regular voting procedure — I was making some attempt to get one in place before the Saloon Bar Putsch happened — we would not have needed the moderators in the first place. Until we get a regular procedure in place, as I understand it, the moderators have free rein to set the terms of votes. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 06:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if they're authorized to do that, but they seem to follow customary rules anyway - simple majority or plurality under mulitple-choice options, keep it open for at least one week, any registered user can vote. That's fine with me, although I'd like to see the eligibility requirements clarified, possibly to the same standards we use for elections. Röstigraben (talk) 06:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
(EC)Please show me the diff where my objection (not Human's) was addressed. That would be my comment that the vote should be longer (for a multi-year solution to multi-year actions) and that there should be some kind of effective notification. Also, check the timestamps yourself, take very careful notice that my objection was lodged with my vote not "suddenly...after [my] side has lost" and then be honest enough to retract "nobody voiced any procedural concerns during the vote itself" since you have actually now changed your claim to "voiced and addressed". To, "It's customary to voice these objections up front and in full," I would point out that I already raised objections to the short voting window in relation to the earlier vote, and my mentioning them with my vote was well after I had initially raised them. As to, "usually coupled with a boycott of the vote itself" may be your view, but why should I be disenfranchised to do dissatisfaction with the system? So if I am against lynchings and someone attempts one am I to sit aside and say "well it's not legitimate so I have nothing to say"? Where I come from it is not uncommon to vote against proposals that are being improperly pushed. You say, "if you want different voting rules, propose them," as if I had not already indicated that that is exactly what has been going on. I found that, BTW, here (and associated talk). "Typically no more than twenty or thirty editors participate in community decisions" could well be due to the rush-to-judgement style employed. Statistics show "active editors" at 671 right now. That is for 91 days though, so for a very rough estimate divide it by 3 and you get 220 odd editors in the last month. In other words voter turnout is about 10% which is truly pathetic, or rather largely apathetic. This particular case in point, if only about 10% of active editors even care about the proposal and 40% of those are agin it, then it becomes pretty hard to claim a mandate for a multi-year ban on the back of the 5 or 6% that want it. LowKey (talk) 06:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Your objection to the vote's length was addressed at the same time as Human's; as to the notification, P-Foster sent out an intercom message on the subject about 15 minutes after the vote opened. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 07:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
To the former, okay, although I was not complaining about the 2 days, but the week. To the latter, what is the timestamp of P-Foster's intercom message? I certainly didn't see one at the time, and the closest timestamp I can find in the index there is about the "Trusted User" group . Rostiwhatsit should still acknowledge that objections were raised. LowKey (talk) 07:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
There is a link to the intercom message in my post. If it does not work for you, the time stamp is "15:16, 31 July 2011."
As to getting the intercom messages, you should make sure you are a member of the "General site news" intercom group. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 07:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
(EC)Do you deliberately misread my posts so you can find some monstrous injustice to complain about? The concerns you raised at the time were addressed, the ones you're bringing up now are new. Two days would indeed have been to short for a vote (a week is customary), so that part was changed very quickly. If you want to split hairs, I will change my statement to "no objections were raised that weren't immediately addressed". Big difference. As to the quorum of participants, the core user base of RW is about fifty to a hundred people in a shifting composition. Even among the regular contributors, there are many who simply don't care about site policy or the tedious, usually MC-related drama. If they don't show up to vote, it doesn't change anything about the legitimacy of a decision. Seriously, if you're so pissed off with the current election rules, team up with Maratrean or somebody else who shares your concerns and draw up a new set. Supermajorities, minimal participation quorums, all of that can be incorporated if you'd put forward a concrete proposal. But don't complain if you lose that vote, too. Röstigraben (talk) 07:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
The "Active users" list includes large numbers of vandals and small-volume editors who do not involve themselves with the community. A better measure of the number of people involved is rww:RationalWikians by Edit Count. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 07:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
(EC)Rosti, you particularly claimed that no-one voiced concerns at the time in order to argue that we have no right to voice concerns now. As to my concerns that I voiced at the time, it turns out that in fact they were not "immediately addressed" as you so goal-post-movingly put it, but were ignored at the time - as indicated by your apparent inability to provide a diff to where they were addressed. You now say that a week is okay. Well that is address my concern after a fashion - as long as specific dismissal counts. LX is only just now addressing my comment about a message. It is a month after I mentioned it the first time, but maybe if you really squint that counts as "immediately". Simply admit your error and I will stop hounding you about that. Also I have now twice mentioned (once with a link) that I have been involved in proposals about voting rules, and I have again raised issues that should be addressed. Stop pretending that I have not, please.
LX, I see. My preferences are pretty much default, except for RC display. It appears that "General site news" is an opt-in, which I did not know until now (also it's not in Preferences). I don't get why a Saloon Bar discussion rates "Site-wide (urgent)" but the second ever long-term ban is only "General site news" but I guess that's how it goes. Community consultation really should rate as more than general news. Ah, I have added the group and I see now that I wouldn't have seen the message anyway unless I logged in between 31 July and 2 August (the original vote duration). When the vote duration was changed, the message was left unchanged (apparently). LowKey (talk) 07:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Aside from the intercom, our options are limited for notification, and we assumed that people had gotten the intercom message. I thought Nx had reconfigured the intercom so that people were in "General site news" by default; if a significant number of users still have it turned off, we should make a new opt-out intercom group for vote notifications, or at least send out a message through the "Urgent" group telling everyone to put themselves in the "General site news" group. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 07:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
It's not that simple and I didn't have time to do it yet. -- Nx / talk 08:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
(EC!)I like both the new group and the "Urgent" message to opt-in on General site news. Alternatively, vote notifications could simply be always sent as Site wide (urgent). It's largely water under the bridge now, but assuming that people had gotten the message was fine up until I said that there should be a message. At that point, even if someone had done as you did and point to the intercom, the two problems (premature expiry, and need for opt-in) could have been corrected almost within the vote window. Ah well, another of Rosti's claims (proper notification) shot down. LowKey (talk) 08:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Are you dense? The two days proposal was never implemented. Look at the time stamp of your own comment from back then: August 7th. That's seven days after voting began, and it still continued for a few more. A message was also sent, it's not my fault if you don't read it. So in fact your concerns were not just addressed immediately - what you wanted had already been done at the time. I'm also not saying "now" that a week is OK (whatever that is supposed to mean), I've said right from the beginning that a week is the customary minimum length for a vote. And, once again, the vote you're complaining about lasted for longer than that. Lastly, if you're content with making your proposals on a talk page in somebody's user space, go for it - why should I care about that? I didn't admonish you for not participating in discussions, but simply told you what you'd need to do if you actually wanted to see some change in the rules take effect: write up a concrete proposal, bring it to a vote, get a majority. Anything else you do doesn't concern me in the slightest. Have a nice day. Röstigraben (talk) 12:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
It was not to the 2 days that I objected, it was the week. It was Human that objected to two days. Our usernames are easy to confuse but here is a handy shortcut for telling them apart: they are spelled and pronounced differently. My objection to only a week WAS NOT ADDRESSED. In any case, why should a major vote over extraordinary action be subject to the "customary minimum" period? You staked your claim that objections over the procedure only arose AFTER the conclusion. I think we have seen that your claim is wrong, and it is perfectly legimitate to re-raise objections that were not addressed at the time. In fact I had raised objections about short (NB: a week) votes without decent notice before this vote was even proposed. Some of the response was of the tone "well just this once it's a special case", although it looks to be well on it's way to SOP. I did not read the message because I DID NOT RECEIVE the message. Dismissing my concern on the basis of "it was sent" is very very Vogon. I did not blame you for the message not being sent properly. I merely pointed out that although you claimed it was sent properly that in fact is not what happened. As to "I didn't admonish you for not participating in discussions". That is technically correct, but a major quibble. You more than once quite strenuously directed me to address my objections to current practices by proposing new ones, even after I pointed out I had in fact done so. The implication appears to be that I should only propose new processes and not point out the gaping flaws in the current ones. Heads up - that won't happen. LowKey (talk) 13:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Is it me or are we taking this a little too seriously? It's just a wiki, FFS. Bob Soles (talk) 08:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

BUT MC HAS BEEN DENIED HIS GOD-GIVEN RIGHT TO TROLL THIS WIKI!!!!! IT'S A TRAVESTY!!!!!! -- Nx / talk 08:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Nx, for my part this is not about MC. It is about doing it right. LowKey (talk) 13:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
sorry but there is no 'one true way' , its whatever works for this wiki. 67.72.98.45 (talk) 13:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I can appreciate that, LowKey. I'm just tired of this MC bullshit. The last time we tried to do it right we ended up with a stupid vague rule that has caused more problems than it has solved. But if you feel so strongly about this, propose another vote. Then hopefully after that we can finally lay this thing to rest. Yeah, I'm naive. -- Nx / talk 02:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Shifting the discussion away from MC, how about a discussion, and then a vote, on some standardised voting procedures? i.e. who can propose a binding vote, is adding other options allowed, how long must vote be open for, how should it be advertised, who can vote, how to resolve disputes, etc. At the moment, it seems like people just make this stuff up as they go along, and different votes get governed by slightly different rules (for example, in one discussion I had with him, AD said that proposing other options should be allowed... then in the talk page vote, he announced that they shouldn't be for that vote...) Such a process could answer many of LowKey's concerns here... (((Zack Martin))) 02:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

So I have to ask. If people voted for option 3 "user's castle", does that mean it's users castle except in the case of MC? Because if Human's talk page is his castle, then I would think Human could keep it the way he wants. steriletalk 02:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

You raise a good point. But various people have argued, that the MC reversion vote would still apply, which would mean "user's castle" would not really be user's castle. That said, users cannot have unlimited control over their talk page - what if someone used theirs to paste gigabytes of text, or defamatory accusations (e.g. user X is a child molester). So "user's castle" will never fully be "user's castle". (((Zack Martin))) 02:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

(OD) Nx, I don't actually want to propose a fresh vote. I merely think that we should be free to point out errors in order to learn from them. I only waded in because claims were being made that the process was uncriticised at the time and beyond criticism once complete. If I hadn't dug my heels in so hard then I would never have found out about the required intercom group, so for that alone my complaint had merit. Also, it turned out that although the poll was extended the notification was not, so right there is a completely noncontroversial fix that is needed. Or I could have pulled my head in as instructed and what went wrong would continue to go wrong. It's quite amazing how authoritarian some of these anarchists get. LowKey (talk) 00:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so we'll make sure to use the site-wide intercom group next time. Can we move along now? -- Nx / talk 08:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

[What is this? Please elaborate.]

Ace McWicked, AGAIN[edit]

Vandalizing user page, as usual. This is getting old. [2] [3] [4] [5] -- Nx / talk 23:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm cooping him right with you: Vandalized Maratreans talk page, vandalized Nx userpage because Nx undid it, vandalized my page because I undid SR vandalism. Nx stripped him of his rights, I blocked him for half an hour so the vandalizing would stop. Repeated pattern of abuse, unwilling to stop. --ʤɱ structuralist 23:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Wait, what? When did Nx get the moderator rights to do this? For people all interesting in other people following the rules, you all seem more than happy to let someone else circumvent the rules to achieve your desired outcome... --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 21:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Do you need to be a mod to do that? --Mack Coster (talk) 21:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
No, Eira. Any sysop can strip another of his rights. You can do it too, in fact.--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not interested in blindly following rules, Eire. In fact, ideally the only rule we'd need is "don't be a dick". Unfortunately, the definition of dick varies from person to person, hence the need for actual rules. -- Nx / talk 08:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Nx (yet a-fucking-gain)[edit]

This discussion was moved to RationalWiki_talk:Chicken_coop#Nx_.28yet_a-fucking-gain.29. 13:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Everyone[edit]

This discussion was moved to RationalWiki talk:Chicken coop#Everyone. 13:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Mikalos[edit]

This discussion was moved to RationalWiki talk:Chicken coop#Mikalos. 13:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Ace McWicked[edit]

Ace McWicked (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · vandal log · block log)

  • He repeatedly vandalized my user page [6] and the header of my talk page. [7] in June and July.
    He has been cooped for this and promised not to do it again. [8] When he vandalized my user page again in July I reminded him of the coop case against him that was still on-going, and his response was this: [9]
  • He vandalized Maratrean's talk page on August 28th [10] and 27th [11] as well as his user page on the 27th [12]
    He has been cooped for this and for harassing Maratrean [13]
  • On September 3rd, he vandalized Maratrean's sig. [14] Maratrean reverted it, then one minute later Ace blocked him for 3 months. After Maratrean unblocked himself, Ace desysoped him and blocked him again (note the "cannot edit own talk page" bit in both blocks). [15] At the same time he vandalized Maratrean's user page [16] [17] [18] and talk page. [19]
    He has been warned [20] and cooped [21]
  • On September 10th he vandalized Maratrean's talk page [22] [23]. I asked him to stop [24] - as a result he vandalized my user page [25] and UHM's user page as well, after UHM undid SuspectedReplicant's vandalism on Maratrean's talk page [26] [27]
    He has been cooped for this. [28]
  • He vandalized Brxbrx's user page on September 10th [29] and his sig on September 17th [30]
  • On September 11th he added Maratrean's user page to Category:Bullshit. [31] After I reverted it he blocked me for 5 minutes with the comment "MYOB". [32]
  • He blocked Brxbrx, a non-sysop, for three months, with the ability to edit his talk page disabled, 3 times. [33]
  • Blocking a user with no contributions for 3 months [34]
    I'm including this because a similar instance of Brxbrx blocking a vandal for three months was brought up as abuse in his case.
  • Harassing RobSmith with 3 month blocks. [35]
    I'm including this because abusive "joke blocks" were brought up against Brxbrx in his case. Though Brxbrx blocked Nutty only once, not repeatedly like Ace.

Ace has abused his sysop powers by blocking a non-sysop for 3 months without even leaving the ability to edit their talk page on, and in one instance promoting an editor to enforce a block. He also has a history of vandalizing user pages. While it may be fun to do that once or twice, and some people might not mind, what he is doing is in bad faith and disruptive.

He has been cooped several times and several people have asked him to stop, but not much else came from that. I've desysopped him after his last block of Brxbrx since it was a clear abuse of blocking powers, but obviously that desysopping didn't last. He seems to think that as long as he can get away with being a dick, he'll continue being a dick. I don't think he should be desysopped and forever remain a non-sysop, but he needs to be told that there will be consequences if he doesn't stop. -- Nx / talk 08:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah! Now we see the purpose of the electoral fraud. Five minutes in his dishonestly-obtained position and Nx is bringing up the same shit about the same person. Chuck this bullshit in the rubbish bin where it belongs. –SuspectedReplicant Support democracy - Ace is the REAL moderator 08:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I'm disqualified to act as a mod in this case because I'm the one bringing this case to the coop. -- Nx / talk 08:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
You missed two important factors I brought up on your "Ace McWicked Love In Hate" page, Nx. Firstly that that SHIT user has a long history of vandalism both here and at CP (some minutes before arriving here the same user vandalised CP) and that RobS has been trolling the shit out of me here. Aceace 09:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
But I deny nothing else, just those two factors should be striken. Aceace 09:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Fair point. Could you provide some diffs or whatnot? That would be good, I think, so we can see the trolling you're talking about.--ADtalkModerator 09:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Robs has been cross trolling me over two different wikis now - accusing me of being several different socks plus sending me some fairly unchristian emails. I'll post 'em sometime (if you really need the evidence - just look at his recent contribs) and we no that SHIT user is a vandal, he has been here before. But everything else I admit - I have been nothing but honest in my RW career.Aceace 09:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I think that's definitely fair to say!
Looking at this evidence and whatnot, I dunno... would you be willing to give up being a sysop for a period, maybe? I know that's not what Nx is calling for with this, but it seems like it would be fair.--ADtalkModerator 09:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I'll leave it to the mods. Aceace 09:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Uhh... well I guess I'll see what other folks have to say about this. I incline towards requesting like a month promotion, but others might feel differently. Thanks for being chill in any case.--ADtalkModerator 10:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Which part of "I'm including this because it was considered block abuse in this other case" is unclear? Brxbrx was admonished for blocking a vandal who actually did vandalize. You blocked someone who didn't even make a single edit because you suspected would vandalize based on their username. Maybe it was the same person who vandalized CP. Maybe they came here to brag on TWIGO:CP. Is that punishable by a 3 month block? -- Nx / talk 10:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I see no reason why it shouldn't be. Would you expect any intelligent convos to come from them? LAx ban rules are no excuse for letting stupid "her der i vandaled CP" people on here.--SmithRob (talk) 12:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The Double Jeopardy issue[edit]

Most of these items have been brought to the coop before, so fall under Double Jeopardy and should not be considered here. –SuspectedReplicant Support democracy - Ace is the REAL moderator 09:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
If Double Jeopardy did apply, it would only do so in the case of a previous vote (i.e. you can't keep bringing a vote based on the same evidence). But no vote has ever been taken - we've always just been pretty "eh" about it. So I don't think that's valid, exactly.--ADtalkModerator 09:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I think the fact that most people have seen this list several times and don't give a crap means a "meh" vote has been definitely cast. –SuspectedReplicant Support democracy - Ace is the REAL moderator 09:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Who is most people? --Mack Coster (talk) 10:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
The people who said "meh" in here, here, here, etc, etc. –SuspectedReplicant Support democracy - Ace is the REAL moderator 10:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
What about the people who said "you should really stop being a dick now, Ace"? -- Nx / talk 10:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Let's not get into this, or it will turn into a Thing. Let's just all accept that this is not going to be any kind of rule (sorry Damo, but no way) but it's just something people can take into account if they want to.--ADtalkModerator 10:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Surely anything that has been brought up before on this page is not valid. Whether there was a formal vote or not does not mean that the issue was not properly considered in the RW way. We need to have some semblance of order and procedure. DamoHi 10:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
the issue was not properly considered in the RW way. We need to have some semblance of order and procedure. - err... how long have you been here. The RW way is for everyone to shout until we get bored and move on to the next HCM. Mobocracy =/= "order and procedure". Now, I guess you would say that the days of the mobocracy have gone. If so, this is no longer RW. It's another beast with the same name. Bob Soles (talk) 10:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Fuck it. I'm sick of this drama. Let the signatures speak.[edit]

Desysop Ace for one month. Eligibilty is 70 edits in two months before this vote is posted. Two-third majority will win the vote. Vote will run a week from 12:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC) till 12:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC) (servertime). Goat votes are not counted. No socks voting. --ʤɱ kant 12:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good idea. Desysopping for a month is too extreme, people will vote against it, and if Ace ends up being acquitted we'll be back to square one. -- Nx / talk 12:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
AD suggested it above. Brxbrx got 2 months, Ace list is about half as long. Also: "Fuck it. I'm sick of this drama." --ʤɱ constructivist 12:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
He's a big boy, and he doesn't need to be a sysop. I'll cast the first stone.--User:Brxbrx/sig 12:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Damn, I wish I had gotten here sooner. I decided that if this happened again I'd start a vote on whether some sort of action should be taken, or if the community wanted to allow this (with the specific action to be decided later if the yeas won). Now my worry is that people who think the action is too severe will vote nay, which would seem to exonerate Ace and give him permission to carry on. Oh well. DickTurpis (talk) 12:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Wait a minute. Two thirds majority wins? So the yeas need 2/3 and the nays need 1/3? We didn't require anything like that for a 2 year ban on Marcus, why for a 1 month desysopship? DickTurpis (talk) 12:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

A two-third majority means that the community is able to actually enforce the decision (as Blue outlined in her Essay:Voting). It's a "lets be safe" thing. --ʤɱ heretic 13:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Probably we should include a certain level of participation as well. If only five people are still interested enough to vote would that still count? --BobSpring is sprung! 13:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

No[edit]

There is no reason to call this vote. We need less of this kind of show trial; I don't care what happened with Brxbrx. We can't simply call votes in place of discussion, especially votes with arbitrary rules. Blue Talk 16:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

How exactly is this vote premature? We've only been discussing Ace's actions for a month or so. Do we need another month? The main reason this hasn't been resolved is because people complain and argue but no one ever gives an unambiguous call for action. So what has to be done before RationalWiki officially condones harassment? At least UHM's vote would have established whether Ace's actions are acceptable behavior here. I, for one, would like to know. And since when are mods the only ones allowed to call for votes? I'm pretty sure at least some mods would disagree with that analysis. I've done so pretty recently and didn't catch any flak for it. But if it's up to a mod to call a vote, can some mod call a goddamn vote. We've examined and discussed this enough. Is Ace's recent behavior condoned? Yes or no? DickTurpis (talk) 17:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I never said that I believed only moderators could call for a vote, simply that UHM should not have called this one under the circumstances. Blue Talk 19:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. So who is allowed to call a vote and under what circumstances? DickTurpis (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, there are no rules about it. I think we should only begin a vote after a good amount of time and significant number of people have voiced their opinion, not after just a few hours and one or two people. Blue Talk 19:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
It's been like a month. DickTurpis (talk) 19:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
But not since this particular case was opened. You have a point, though; this isn't the first time Ace has been Cooped for these or similar offenses. Blue Talk 19:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
The problem is this vote will turn into a popularity contest. It's ok if Ace does it because he is the cool guy and Maratrean is the weird crank who annoys everybody and Brxbrx is like CUR except for some reason worse. No way is this vote getting 2/3 yeas -- Nx / talk 17:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
In other words, "we can't call a vote because we know we can't win it". –SuspectedReplicant Support democracy - Ace is the REAL moderator 17:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm inclined to say that Nx is correct that 2/3 will never get met and recommend that Ace demand this be brought to a vote so that he can be acquitted. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 17:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
So, the community standards aren't worth shit. Nice to know. -- Nx / talk 18:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Read about Jury nullification. –SuspectedReplicant Support democracy - Ace is the REAL moderator 18:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, I see no reason for a 2/3 majority to be needed. We didn't need that for MC, and this is a much more minor case. But if a vote is going to be a pep rally for Ace then so be it. At least we get a result, and we know that harassment is condoned on this wiki in at least some cases. Someone else will probably have to test the limits of this. I don't care so much about punishment or anything, I just want an up or down vote on whether we, as a site, really have no problems with what Ace has been doing. If not, alright. But I've learned not to read lack of action against something as support for it. DickTurpis (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
But that's exactly the reason why it's important not to push a vote without considering where people actually stand on this. "Not condoning harassment" is not the same thing as desysopping someone for a month, and then there's the completely unnecessary two-thirds-majority requirement. I definitely do not condone vandalizing Maratrean's (or anybody else's) user page, that's a silly and counterproductive way to deal with someone who's a minor annoyance. But I don't see myself voting Yea under those terms, and would be surprised if two thirds of the community chose that option. If somebody had proposed a vote on something like voicing community disapproval of those antics, that would've had more chance of passing. Sure, it would've been as toothless as your average UN resolution and probably not more likely to have an actual effect either. Still beats a vote that is destined to fail and can then justifiably be interpreted as a total acquittal, though. And no matter where you stand on this issue, it's simply stupid to allow a random, totally uninvolved user who unilaterally decides to push a vote to set the terms. Röstigraben (talk) 18:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
In this I basically agree with you. I would prefer an up or down vote on Ace's actions and whether they are considered not a problem. If the community were to agree that they aren't a big deal, we have our answer and nothing more is done. If the vote goes the other way, then we can decide on what, if anything, is to be done. That being said, a month without sysopship is basically a slap on the wrist. Other than not being able to take part in block wars, what would he really be missing? DickTurpis (talk) 19:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Nice false dichotomy, dear leader Nx. People can vote however they want. What you don't seem to get is that when it come to your rigid approach to implementing your rules ought is a lot different than can. Voters are entitled to exercise their own judgment even if you don't. And even if you think they're wrong. Dick, I hope you're not using the MC railroad as a benchmark for fairness. You aren't doing that, right? Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 18:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Not holding up the MC issue as a model of fairness, but it does sort of set a precedent. In any case, I'm referring more to the first case of the 1 month ban, rather than the more heavy-handed follow-up. I don't really have any issues with how the former was handled. DickTurpis (talk) 18:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
My rules? Lol. -- Nx / talk 18:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Also, We've got very few rules but we're serious about blocking fairly. Yeah right. Nice double standard. -- Nx / talk 18:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
This is why the moderators should handle this without putting the community to the polls. There are rules and Ace broke them. He is unrepentant. He must face the consequences.--User:Brxbrx/sig 18:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
That's not what moderators are for. –SuspectedReplicant Support democracy - Ace is the REAL moderator 18:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the punishment for vandalism is the vandal bin and there is nothing about abuse of blocking privedges. That and Community Standards refers to bureaucracts still. Aren't we on new ground? steriletalk 18:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

"Blocking should only be used on spambots and vandals. Sysops should limit most blocks to an hour or two in case of vandalism. Blocks longer than this should be discussed first before implementing." -- Nx / talk 19:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Sterile, fuck off. Nobody here is interesting in looking at what the "rules" actually are 4 months after the lynching of Human. Get off your high horse you simpleton. This is about Nx pounding the table about his RULES!!!! But, eh, Nx, it isn't about me. You yourself said there wouldn't be a 2/3 vote. That's your whole answer. Lol consequences, you little rascal. Oh wait. Hypocritical authoritarian nonsense from a dull assclown. It may very well be that you played possum seconds before you were about to lose your rights to a unanimous vote because nobody but your 2 buddies likes you and you saw the writing on the wall. Maybe you know people think you're a herpetic waste of skin. I know it's not because you thought it was because you did anything wrong. Anyway, I'm not responsible for how people vote. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 19:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
What the fuck are you rambling on about? -- Nx / talk 19:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
You being an authoritarian cunt and Brxbrx being a hypocrite. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 19:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
There is a very sparse discussion I initiated on the CS talk page about the issue of the bureaucrat language, feel free to join in. Blue Talk 19:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. And besides, the moderators were elected. Buyer beware, or something like that.--User:Brxbrx/sig 18:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Well you're wrong. There's a clear job description for moderators and elections were held on the basis of that description. Adding extra duties after the vote is not on. Are you suggesting that should happen? If so, we must have another full vote for all moderators. –SuspectedReplicant Support democracy - Ace is the REAL moderator 19:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
We may very well be reaching the point where none of us knows what anyone else is on about. Blue Talk 19:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Probably. Time to move on. Can we just get and up or down vote on whether Ace has done anything wrong? We've discussed this more than enough. I don't care if the vote is binding. I just want to know where people stand. DickTurpis (talk) 19:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Good idea. A vote asking "Is Ace's behavior against the spirit of the standards?" Not specifying a penalty. Yea or nay. Blue Talk 19:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Though "the spirit of the standards" sounds a bit wishy-washy, I think this is the way to go. DickTurpis (talk) 19:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
If we get an overwhelming majority saying this whole pattern of behavior is against the spirit of RW:CS, we can move forward with a proposed sentence. Blue Talk 19:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
You're the mod. Word is this is your bailiwick. Set it up. DickTurpis (talk) 19:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Fuck the vote. Moderate. If I were you, I'd desysop him and tell him to knock it off. It's not like being a sysop is that big of a deal.--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

There's a lot of TL/DR here, so can someone tell me in short sentences why this is any different from any other case brought to the Coop? Is there a reason to involve the mods when a procedure that we've been through before was already underway? B♭maj7 "If two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong." 20:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, there was no moderation involved. I closed the vote because I thought it was premature and unwise, not because I was trying to fulfill any moderator prerogatives. Blue Talk 20:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Vote[edit]


Let us hear some shit falling from the horses mouth[edit]

All this talk from assholes like Brxbrx going on and on how a vote in favour of Ace would only empower me/condone my behavior is complete and utter garbage. Even if I wasn't punished and received a hand-job for all my good work I wouldn't consider my actions to be condoned. Just saying...I know what's what. Aceace 20:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Still, what happens if/when you keep doing stuff like this? Blue Talk 20:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
That's something you'll have to figure out yourself if/when I keep doing it. I can't help you there. Aceace 20:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
If the vote goes in your favor, it sets a precedent allowing more of your behavior. And I'm not talking about dick jokes, but harassment, vandalism, and abusive and unfair blocking. I usually like jokes, but not bullying. Also, the 2/3 majority is just an arbitrary number put up by UHM. I think a simple majority would be fine.--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
We will probably have to have votes to end this matter, but the moderators will have to set their terms; that is what the office of moderator was created for. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 21:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
it sets a precedent allowing more of your behavior no, it doesn't. You did't read what I wrote. Regardless of the outcome, I am aware of what my actions are and neither a yay nor nay vote will change that. The reason being this is a fucking website and I don't take it seriously. I have a real life to worry about. Aceace 21:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Great. Then you won't care about being desysopped and you won't care to vandalize, block, etc.--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, so anyway, I was kinda hoping someone else would pop in and be like, "Yeah, a month sounds reasonable." And so they would agree and I would agree and Ace would agree and that would be that. The amount of hate I have for UHM is a lot (not really but yeah really).

So now I'm again thinking that it should be a month. And I think after that month (or before it, I guess? If there's villainy somehow) then we'd have a vote on a longer period of promotion of six months. Because this rabble-rabbling isn't really helping anything, but it is providing an excuse for a couple of people who are already worked-up to get back into it.--ADtalkModerator 21:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey AD - I left it your hands remember. But don't listen to brx - the guy is a tool. Aceace 21:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Okay well I'm just gonna do this. I guess that vote thingey up there is gonna be a moral vote or something.--ADtalkModerator 21:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Censure vote[edit]

This vote has been closed. Please do not add, remove or change votes.
The result of this vote was: Whatever progress we may have been making in this case has fallen apart quite badly.

Are the specific actions of Ace McWicked as documented above against the spirit of our standards? Simple censure vote, no consequences or penalties implied. Will last at least two days. Accounts must be one month old to vote (we really have to sort out that voting standard...) Blue Talk 21:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes[edit]

  1. --User:Brxbrx/sig 21:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  2. --Mack Coster (talk) 21:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  3. Blue Talk 21:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

No[edit]

  1. Blue Talk 21:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to cast a real vote in this because I feel like it implies a moral judgment against Ace when all I really want is for these sorts of votes and things to stop and him not to be a butthead and sorry for the long section title it started off small but then it just kind of got away from me[edit]

  1. --ADtalkModerator 21:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  2. Aceace 21:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  3. --DamoHi 21:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  4. --B♭maj7 "If two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong." 21:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


Let the signatures speak redux[edit]

This discussion was moved to Forum:Drama_dump#Let_the_signatures_speak_redux. 16:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Ace McWicked[edit]

For vandalizing my talk page right after being desysopped, thus showing he has absolutely no interest in following the site's rules, respecting the community, and cooperating with other users. Block him for a week.--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't be silly.--ADtalkModerator 21:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
File:Aceshouse.jpg
This means you Brx
{ec}Did he not break the rules? Did he not act in bad faith? Did he not commit the same offense he has been on trial for? I'm getting tired of his shit.--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Then why don't you fuck off? Aceace 21:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Yeah if you left Ace could move on and start bullying someone else! Get a brain brx. Tielec01 (talk) 23:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The Goddess Maratrea[edit]

For telling me to commit suicide. Does it need to be stated, that telling other editors to commit suicide is completely unacceptable. (((Zack Martin))) 03:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

That's what you get for dabbling in the spirit world. Shouldn't mess with powers you can't control. B♭maj7 (talk) Shut the fuck up, Maratrean 03:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Troll--ADtalkModerator 03:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
You'd think a moderator would take this issue a bit more seriously than that. (((Zack Martin))) 03:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I am sure none of us care. Get a sense of humour is my advice. - π Moderator 03:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
When "Kill yourself" Is humor i will weep for the world--Mikalosa (talk) 03:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't consider jokes about suicide to be funny. My cousin killed herself, there was nothing funny about that. What's next, how about some Holocaust jokes, some 9/11 jokes, a few jokes about rape and paedophilia? (((Zack Martin))) 03:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
So these two SS guards are walking through the camp, and one of them turns to the other and says... B♭maj7 (talk) Shut the fuck up, Maratrean 03:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Troll--ADtalkModerator 03:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Maratrean[edit]

  • For repeated concern trolling
  • For accusing RW of promoting suicide
  • For repeatedly instigating HCM on this site and then running off to ASoK to write about it.
  • For openly threatening behaviour

--PsyGremlinHable! 11:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

No diffs provided. (((Zack Martin))) 11:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Do you deny it? Does your made-up religion allow you to lie through your teeth, troll? --PsyGremlinFale! 11:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Now fuck off. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 11:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

If you want to coop someone you need to provide specific evidence, e.g. diffs. You have given two links — you need to provide diffs to justify each of your specific claims above. I deny your allegations. (((Zack Martin))) 11:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
So you didn't write "Is RationalWiki a pro-suicide website?" and "Prepare to have your behaviour called out relentlessly and kept in view"? (both of which are in the links above). Deny it and I'll block you for being a scummy little liar. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 11:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't deny writing the essays I have written. I don't agree with your interpretation of them, however. (((Zack Martin))) 11:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't give a flying fuck what you think. You accused RW editors of encouraging suicide in others. That makes you a reprehensible individual and you don't deserve to be here. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 11:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I didn't accuse them of anything. I challenged this site to demonstrate its sensitivity to the issue of suicide by taking appropriate actions. So far it has failed the challenge miserably. If you actually bothered to read my essay, it is clear in the end I am hoping the answer is "No" — but it is not up to me what the answer is, I have done all I can — the rest is up to others such as yourself. So if you don't want the answer to be "Yes", the power is in your hands. But instead, you spend your time trying to shoot the messenger. (((Zack Martin))) 11:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh fuck off you tedious little cunt. Nobody is required to respond to your pathetic trolling and for you to claim that this proves your point is just shit. Fuck the fuck off. Nobody likes you or is in any way interested in anything you have to say. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 12:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
This is basically bullying at this stage. Real shame how this site turned out :( ThomasHobbes (talk) 13:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Nice try, Marcus. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 13:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
  • For repeated concern trolling
    • This is somewhat a valid point, though differentiating "concern trolling" and "whining" can be tricky. Do we ban people for whining?
  • For accusing RW of promoting suicide
    • This is a bit over the top of him, and while I do not want criticism of aspects of this site to be grounds for punishment, hosting an essay that accuses this site of promoting suicide doesn't seem like something we should have to do. (I think this whole controversy could be settled if we gave ourselves enough credit to discern the "choke on a bad of dicks" comments from actual attempts to encourage someone here to kill themselves, but that's another issue.) Throw his essays in his userspace for now.
  • For repeatedly instigating HCM on this site...
    • Don't see any evidence of this, just a penchant for instigating excessive amounts of arguing.
  • and then running off to ASoK to write about it.
    • Who gives a shit what happens on other sites?
  • For openly threatening behaviour
    • No evidence of this

I'd specifically like to see links supporting the final accusation. DickTurpis (talk) 14:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Read the talkpage diff. Where he starts whining about us not being rational, then makes some statements along the lines of "be prepared to..." In other words, live up to his trolling expectations of the site, or face the consequences. That is a threat. TK was blocked for issuing threats. The precedent stands.
"Who gives a shit what happens on other sites?" - seeing as it's our wiki and we should be proud of it, we SHOULD give a shit what happens on other sites, especially when it's being fermented by the little prick who's writing about it. --PsyGremlin講話 14:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
What consequences did he enumerate/imply? If I said "don't do this or I'll make a critical post on your talk page!" would that count as a threat?--User:Brxbrx/sig 14:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Is this the comment you're referring to? Really, that's threatening? We readily dismiss "fuck off and die" but "Prepare to have your behaviour called out relentlessly and kept in view" is a serious threat? Get over it. DickTurpis (talk) 14:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Considering nobody has ever fucked off and died, that's a moot point. Having somebody here who stirs up arguments, for the sole purpose of masturbating furiously as he posts them to ASoK is not. Why doesn't he do the same at CP, which he thinks is so great? Because his behaviour wouldn't be tolerated there. Why should it be tolerated here? He's no better than MC, and there's no reason to keep him here, especially after his recent trolling. Accusing people of promoting suicide is sickening, even by his standards. --PsyGremlinPraat! 14:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I hope you're not holding up CP as the standard we should strive for. Anyway, "threatening behavior" ain't gonna wash, and I don't see how ASoK is terribly relevant (various CP sysops called us a vandal hate-site and we didn't ban them here for that). If there's a case it's too be concern trolling (which isn't very well defined) and his essay on suicide. DickTurpis (talk) 14:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Please God tell me Psygremlin never stands a chance of being a moderator. Not only is he being a bully, he is being an authoritarian bully. This shit needs to stop. Now. ThomasHobbes (talk) 14:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Um, it is fairly clear that Maratrean instigates the community into a HCM. I don't even need to use diff links for that. He states the same complaints all over the wiki, provokes people to respond to him, and then whines when people calls him on that, especially because lots of people can't help feeding the damn troll.. For the love of Maratrea, he definitely provokes HCM. steriletalk 14:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Does endless bickering = Headless Chicken Mode? I'd consider them different things, but admittedly the definition of HCM isn't terribly specific. In any case, banning him (is that what's being proposed?) for endless heated and largely pointless discussions and excessive whining seems overkill to me. DickTurpis (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
{ec}He has instigated HCM before. The only instance that comes to mind is when he refused to remove MC's crap from his talk page. Most of the HCM surrounding him comes from people vandalizing his user page and talk page.--User:Brxbrx/sig 15:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Ok, so explain him turning two+ topics on WIGO: CP into battle grounds where he accused us of being scum and then defended Ken?--Mikalosa (talk) 15:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
HCM means that the wiki doesn't function properly, because it's tied up in drama. I have no idea what's proposed. ADD: Actually, my official position on Maratrean is that people are finding him increasingly irrelevant and ignoring him, and so notions of social control will take over. Do nothing is fine. steriletalk 15:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure getting tied up in drama has all that much to do with the wiki working. Sure, it can swamp other issues, but if that's the case then at least some blame must be shifted to those others who engage in the squabbles. If we're going to bring these issues to the coop we should have some idea of what solution is being sought, and the evidence (or whatever you want to call it) should be much more specific than we're generally seeing here. If saying "prepare to have your behaviour called out relentlessly and kept in view" is being called "openly threatening behavior", well that sounds an awful lot like concern trolling to me. If there are legitimate issues here they are whether Maratrean's whining has gotten to the point where it is being especially disruptive, and the appropriateness of his suicide essay (and a bunch of his others, too). To some extent, the latter rests on what the essay space is really for, or if it should exist at all. As I said above, moving his stuff to his userspace as a temporary measure while we figure these larger issues out could mitigate that problem. On a final note, defending Ken is not the sort of thing we can really coop people for. DickTurpis (talk) 17:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
He's an attention whoring concern troll. When you motherfuckers give him some semi-valid grievance, like the trolling of his talk page with nsfw images, he'll make sure to maximize the fallout, spreading his complaint all over the place - the coop, the CS talk page, the saloon bar etc. Then he'll run off to ASK to write about it and collect brownie points from Philip and co. And I really don't understand what he hopes to accomplish here, except spam his bullshit made up religion and troll. So yeah. Are we going to proceed with the public lynching now? We have to have a proper vote so that people won't wheel war over his banning and... oh wait... -- Nx / talk 18:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
As others have said - just ignore him. Taking him seriously just encourages him.--BobSpring is sprung! 19:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I generally do, but it's hard to ignore when he drags his whining all over the wiki. -- Nx / talk 19:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
(I understand what you are saying, DT, but because of the size of the wiki and how we interact, someone will always feed the troll. Cf., HeartOfGold, TK-socks, and MC. steriletalk 19:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC))
I warned you fucks about this guy months ago. Aceace 19:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Maratrean's grossly overstayed his welcome and, as a purely utilitarian measure, simply isn't worth the trouble. He has become far more disruptive than MC ever was. Once we get our voting protocol sorted I sincerely hope someone proposes a community ban. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 02:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
"Far more disruptive than MC ever was?" Don't get me wrong, I dislike Maratrean as much as the next user, but really? Are you sure? Blue Talk 02:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if he's gotten more people bent out of shape or not. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 02:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, he certainly managed to get you completely bent out of shape. Far more disruptive than MC ever was? Are we talking about the same MC? -- Nx / talk 07:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Eh I don't know. I'm mostly over the shock of seeing someone so brazenly arrogant that he feels no shame at pushing his agenda on people who have openly rejected it. Just FYI, it's not exactly like I've been the one swearing at him and telling him to take a long walk off a short pier, or whatever. I mostly stopped attacking him a while ago because he just collects grievances and it's ultimately less productive that just waiting for the community to get sick of his shit and boot him if there's sufficient consensus. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 14:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)