RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive21

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

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>

, (new)(back)

Psygremlin

For desysopping me out of process, and basically because he doesn't agree with my opinions. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the log, it is clear that his last promotion by Nx was marked "unjustified" and he has done nothing to show it was justified. Ergo, I'm just restoring the natural order of things. --PsyGremlinPrata! 11:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

PG, Nx said the promotion by Ace was unjustified, so he demoted me again. Your promoting me is not restoring any status quo ante; it is repeating Ace's misbehaviour. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Nope, in my dictionary "promotion" means granting rights. Yours were granted unjustifiably and in addition you have shown behaviour unbecoming a sysop. Now, fuck off. --PsyGremlin講話 11:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The RW meanings of "promotion"/"demotion" are opposite to the normal meanings. Aren't you aware of that? You have been here for a long time. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Longer than a little troll like you, MC. I also know that we discussed removing the joke meanings. Thus promotion means promotion in my book - and you don't deserve it. In fact, I'm going to make it my mission to see you removed from this wiki, like MC, of which you are just a sad little sock. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 11:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, funny, now you accuse me of being MC! Talk about paranoia! (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

To quote Community Standards, Clarification: In keeping with RationalWiki tradition, an increase in the number of privileges is referred to as "demotion" and a decrease in privileges is referred to as "promotion". I am using the standard terminology of this site. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

And I'm using the dictionary. Either way, a lowlife cunt who insinuates that his fellow editors encourage suicide in others does not deserve to be here. --PsyGremlinTal! 11:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you support amending the Community Standards to prohibit encouraging people to commit suicide? That was my point. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Psy, when I said unjustified promotion, I meant unjustified desysopping. Hence why I sysopped Maratrean again. -- Nx / talk 13:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

So is he facing any consequences for his actions?--User:Brxbrx/sig 14:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Fuck off Bricks. Maratrean issued threats aganst members of this wiki, and accused others of pr0omoting suicide. For that alone I want him gone from this site. His trolling is bad enough - that behaviour goes beyond the pale. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 14:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

This is why I don't use the terms "promotion" and "demotion" in any important forum. We should try to use less ambiguous terms. Anyway, we have a process for rights removal and long term blocks, and it doesn't involve Psygremlin taking unilateral action. As his actions have been quickly reversed there's no point in making a huge fuss as long as it doesn't become a recurring problem. DickTurpis (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually his actions haven't been reversed. See here (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you think you should have sysop rights? You are fundamentally opposed to the spirit of this website. In many respects you are the personification of what the site was set up to oppose. Why would you want or deserve sysop rights? Damo^Hi 10:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I thought the standard for having sysop rights was not abusing them. Have I been abusing them? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't know/care. Actually the standard is "mostly harmless". Judging by your ability to create HCM at will (even if you are only partially to blame) and your recent accusations against us, I think it is distinctly arguable that you are not "mostly harmless" at all. Damo^Hi 10:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

To quote RW:CS, "the decision to "promote" the sysop should only be reached after a full discussion", and Psygremlin hasn't complied with that. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

granted, and I guess I am beginning that process now. . Of course what I was getting at above is that as someone who is so opposed to the principles of the site, why would you want sysop rights? Wouldn't you feel uncomfortable having responsibilities at a site you are opposed to and is opposed to you?Damo^Hi 10:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I am interested in reforming the site from within — trying to make the word "Rational" in "RationalWiki" actually mean something, which it doesn't now. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

(EC let me reply before typing something new!) Surely it should be obvious even to you that your project is not only doomed to failure but is causing a lot of unnecessary anguish and frustration for no good purpose. Damo^Hi 10:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I should add, that if you want to call me someone who is "so opposed to the principles of the site", those principles have always been rather vaguely defined — and, I should add, there are a number of creationists among the current batch of Sysops, e.g. LowKey... does RW have ideological criteria for sysopship? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it does yes. I mean we welcome people who are prepared to engage in constructive dialogue with us, but that does not really seem to apply to you. As you just said, your goal is to fundamentally change the nature of the site. You shouldn't expect people to embrace you for it. Damo^Hi 10:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, consider for example Essay:Is_RationalWiki_really_rational? — not constructive dialogue? And, tell me, if a creationist comes here, why do they? One reason might be that by responding to this site's anti-creationist arguments, they might influence the views, not of everyone here, but of some people. They'd be silly to expect to convince everyone here, and I doubt they do; but they might realistically influence some people in their direction — and influence needn't amount to conversion, just a shifting of positions somewhat in their favour. Considering that, are my own aims that different from some other users here? I don't think I can remake the site in my own image, but I do think I can be an influence upon it for the better. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if oyu have misunderstood our purposes here. We are not really a philosophical site, perhaps our name does not describe us perfectly. What we are about, at least for the vast majority of people, is in promoting the scientific point of view and having a sense of humour about it. Now it seems to me that you are entirely opposed to the scientific method, and you also don't appear to understand the humour of the place. That is fine, not everyone will agree with everything we say or do, but given that this is the case why bother staying? You have been completely unsuccessful in winning anyone to support you on changing the nature of the site, and your constant attempt to change us has made you very unpopular - far more so than some of our other idealogical opponents (ie Rob and Lx (if he can be classed as an opponent)). My point is that your continuing to push your attempted changes over and over again eventually becomes trolling and not helpful or pleasant for anyone. I think you have crossed that line. I therefore think that you are not "mostly harmless" and I doubt there are many who would disagree with me on this". Damo^Hi 11:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, so if you disagree too much, and keep on disagreeing, then you are being a "troll", and should leave or be ejected. Isn't that the same argument that Conservapedia used to turf out many RWians? As to your statements about science, I don't agree with your characterisation of my approach, but I responded to that elsewhere. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I see. You because we don't agree with your made-up view of the world, we're not rational. Fuck off, you little prick. --PsyGremlinTal! 09:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I never said anyone has to agree with my religious beliefs to be rational. In my book, a person could be perfectly rational and reject my religion entirely. In my book, a person could be an atheistic materialist and be perfectly rational. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

(EC)I have never said anywhere that CP should put up with people actively working to discredit it or argue against it. I think that Andy has every right to remove people that he thinks harm the project. It is just amusing that he can't seem to see that all his decisions (and non-decisions) have the opposite effect. --Damo^Hi 10:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

" I do think I can be an influence upon it for the better." No you can't. You're a crazy idiot who has made up his own religion from whole cloth, a concern troll with no sense of fun, and a drama queen who too often sees this collection of people as an audience, not a community. Twenty-five years ago, the best you could have hoped for was access to a photocopy machine so you could hand out grubby pamphlets on some street corner; now the internet lets you peddle your pathetic drivel to the whole world. That doesn't make your belief system any more correct, or you any more sane, intelligent, or worth listening to. B♭maj7 (talk) Shut the fuck up, Maratrean 13:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a cool story, and I have to agree with Maratrean. PsyGremlin acted in violation of our rules and regulations and should be admonished. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

So send him to bed without any dessert, make him promise to not do it again until next time, and let's move on. B♭maj7 (talk) Shut the fuck up, Maratrean 14:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Nutty Roux on Maratrean: "I sincerely hope someone proposes a community ban."

I'm proposing it right here. Same terms as applied to MC. B♭maj7 (talk) Shut the fuck up, Maratrean 02:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

TABA!! GAAAR!!!

I agree with the community ban, but are you including the "and his IP edits be reverted and IPs blocked for three months" bit (or whatever it was exactly) in this proposal? Blue (is useful) 02:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It also might be worth waiting a few weeks, until after we're done voting on the standards for banning votes. Or at least vote on a provisional, short-term ban now and vote again later. Blue (is useful) 02:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I like that second idea a lot. Waiting a few weeks will only lead to more HCM . He doesn't have a history of socking, so lets cross that bridge only if we get to it? B♭maj7 (talk) Shut the fuck up, Maratrean 02:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I knew there would be another lynching, I even narrowed the choice of victim to a field of two. I especially like "ban him quickly now, and then do it properly later". You get to lynch him twice! LowKey (talk) 02:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Give us a chance, love. But in all seriousness, we ought to see difflinks and specific charges before considering specific penalties. Blue (is useful) 02:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget Jimjast, Rob, brxbrx and ListenerX ^{— Unsigned, by: 85.182.145.82 / talk / contribs}

(ec) I believe it's fundamentally unfair to issue a provisional ban only to subject Maratrean to a vote he may very will win on an issue that's without sufficient precedent to justify what amounts to a pre-judgment attachment. Another way of putting it, courts only issue injunctions to preserve the status quo; it's unfairly arbitrary to choose a status quo that occurred before Maratrean began plaguing us. In any event, it's more or less a moot point - moderators lack the authority to make such a provisional ban (it would be a hugely draconian abuse of moderator authority in my opinion) and there's no point in letting the community make another shitty decision like the MC kangaroo court when we're already discussing coming up with sound procedures for exactly this kind of situation. 85, Brxbrx is the only real troll in that list and he's such a hapless shit-for-brains that most people successfully ignore his every word. 02:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Community ban: postponed until after the standards votes? Blue (is useful) 03:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

All I did was express a wish. That doesn't mean it's a good idea. There's no point in discussing this now. It looks like a lynching. 03:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

To lynch someone you need a rope tied into a noose which is what people do when they commit suicide!!! We must change the standards now to be careful. Blacks used to get lynched so Nutty you are also a racist. Ace^ace 03:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I am in favor of a ban. Do the comments posted on other wikis rise to an actual libel ? Hamster (talk) 03:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

If we're going to delay this I would hope some time is spent in the interim making a case against him. Substituting his name for Marcus's and proceeding as if they're exactly the same case isn't going to cut it for me. Apparently, I've done a much better job than everyone else at ignoring the guy, even though I'm constantly hearing that that's what we should all be doing. DickTurpis (talk) 03:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I haven't attempted to ignore him - I am deliberately antagonistic because I knew he was a cunt when he first penned that ridiculous "Smoking violates human rights" essay. Ace^ace 03:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

See, I even managed to ignore that one. DickTurpis (talk) 04:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The smoking essay wasn't even that crank-y. Actually that is one of his essays that has a good argument behind them, we others just value our priorities differently. ^{— Unsigned, by: UHM / talk / contribs} 07:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Nutty Roux on Maratrean: I don't think I want to even broach the subject of banning for speech and I withdraw my comment

• I've been called out by 3 people I respect for suggesting we ought to or even can community ban another user for conduct and speech acts and I need to come out and affirmatively say that on reflection I'm troubled by my suggestion and withdraw it. It seems inconsistent with my view of right conduct on RW and how much I abhor the possibility of any rules regulating even extreme but acceptable conduct or speech. I'm not even sure I'd ever want to broach the subject of distinguishing between extreme but acceptable speech and stuff that requires a community response because it's a purely subjective determination that's extremely likely to cause a violent civil war if we're forced to hash it out. We've done a great job so far of handling extreme situations in a satisfactory manner as they arose. On the other hand, our present state of having no rules regulating conduct whatsoerver has had what I consider very serious consequences. Without them, we're stuck with an unwelcome guest who stridently refuses to fuck off. Without them a vote on any margin may be an unfairly arbitrary exercise of mob rule that rises to the level of a tyranny by a majority that may not even have a coherent ideology. People voted against Human out of spite and for reasons unrelated to the charge that led to his coop. That's not fair. Juries can nullify, but they're excused if they admit it. The MC affair was subject to worse problems even if you agree with the outcome. Who knows what people were voting on? Why did we not require a bigger margin for such a sanction? Even with rules addressing very disruptive or destructive conduct, mere majority voting for issues of that importance shut out the voices of significant minorities and create the near certainty that a decision will lack moral authority. The solution is to require a big enough margin and ... have rules for conduct, which I object to and believe could never gain wide enough acceptance in this community to not tear it apart.
• Anyway, I made my comment hastily because I absolutely detest Maratrean and I withdraw it. I have no good solution to this problem in mind other than doing nothing. I'll try thinking about this stuff out loud in my userspace sometime soon if anyone but Maratrean cares to comment.

19:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

You know what the solution is? Stop being such monumental assholes and giving Maratrean grievances to collect. The whole nude picture HCM got out of hand because people just had to jump on the bandwagon thinking they're witty and original and post nsfw images on his talk page. Ditto for the user page vandalism thing. You can hardly block Maratrean for complaining about others harassing him when the community standards are on his side.

Or just scrap the community standards. You want to harass a user by posting badly photoshopped pictures of cocks on their talk page? Remove the part that says they can delete trolling from their talk page. You want to vandalize their user page? Remove the part that says their user page is their property and is sacrosanct. You want to desysop them and block them for 3 months just for kicks or because you think they're worthless or whatever? Remove the whole section about blocking and the part that you need consensus to permanently desysop someone. But if you do that, don't complain when you're on the receiving end. -- Nx / talk 05:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

no. Ace^ace 06:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Ace McWicked on Nutty Roux: "I sincerely hope someone proposes a community ban."

I'm proposing it right here. Same terms as applied to MC. Ace^ace 19:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. 11:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Shall I carry out justice? Just so you know, justice is only justice if it is wet, warm, about as long as a cricket bat, smelling like week old cows udder and thrust into your anus. Ace^ace 11:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

No. 13:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

And I'm the authoritarian fascist prick? LOL. -- Nx / talk 19:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

We're all authoritarian fascist pricks here. DickTurpis (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

And I'm the authoritarian fascist prick? Yes. And you revel in it. Don't be coy. 20:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not the one who is proposing a community ban. -- Nx / talk 20:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not either. Read the above subsection. How odd that this would draw your interest enough to call me an authoritarian fascist when you were the second one to vote to ban Marcus for 2 years and have a long record of doing whatever you feel like to unilaterally impose your will on the entire wiki. Go troll someone else. 20:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes I read the previous section. But despite what you said there you seconded this. -- Nx / talk 20:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I read it as Ace suggesting a community ban of me and Ace's response referring to my anus at least suggests that's what he intended. But thanks. 21:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah. Never mind then. Sorry -- Nx / talk 21:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Sokay. I'm a dick too. 14:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it is a bit ambiguous, and I misread it as well, since it still seems to fall under the overall "Ban Maratrean" section here. I wasn't sure how to reconcile Nutty's statement here with the one above, but since this proposal didn't seem to be going anywhere I decided to let it rest. So what we have here is another snarky facetious coop. Good to know. DickTurpis (talk) 00:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I was just fucking around but the more I think about it the more I reckon Nutty should be banned from the internet. Ace^ace 00:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. DickTurpis (talk) 01:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Thirded and Ace should be banned with me. We're menaces. Menaces, I say! Get a rope. 14:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Why is Ace McWicked still a sysop?

This discussion was moved to Forum:Drama dump. 22:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Motion to recall Nx from position of moderator.

This vote has been closed. Please do not add, remove or change votes. The result of this vote was: Do not remove Nx from office.

Nx stripped B-flat and Ace of their sysop powers, even though neither editor had edited the wiki for several hours at the time of the removal of their rights and neither editor was actively involved in a dispute at the time. He also failed to explain himself when asked at the time. When asked later for an admission that these acts were against the guidelines and a commitment that he would not repeat such acts, Nx replied that he would continue to deal with conflicts in a unilateral manner, and would not commit to following the guidelines set out for the office of moderator. Given that Nx has made it clear that he has no intention of fulfilling the role of moderator as that role is spelled out, I have lost my confidence in him, and am proposing that we vote on recalling him from office UNLESS he makes a clear commitment that he will deal with conflicts in a manner that follows what the moderators’ guidelines call for. Voting to follow the guidelines recently agreed to, polls to close seven days follwing the time stamp of the present post, or to be dismissed if Nx commits to upholding the guidelines for a moderator's conduct. P-FosterAuthoritarian Prick. 02:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC) Votes: Remove Nx from office. Only if he fails to assure everyone he won't abuse his rights further...Aceace 02:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC) Ditto. P-FosterAuthoritarian Prick. 02:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC) ^^ --il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 03:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC) This sort of childish, drama-stirring conduct is unbecoming anyone with the trust of a moderator. To that end, while I'd like to believe it won't happen again, Nx has a history of pulling this sort of drama-stirring shit for no reason other than to stir up drama. The Symphony of Noise The official spikey-haired skeptical punk 05:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC) Tit-for-tat admin abuses to make a point isn't moderating anything. It's the sort of problem mods are supposed to help deal with, not cause. ЩєазєюіδMethinks it is a Weasel 07:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC) If sysoprevoke is addressed, whether it should exist at all and when and if it should be used, I will change my vote. But the only thing worse than a knife is someone who's willing to stab. steriletalk 23:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC) Why lie? I just hate the fuck out of Nx. (No offense.) And I feel that coercing the mob into castrating him with a dull and rusty spoon would be the best option. I don't care what he's charged with or what the merits of the accusation or defense are. I'm just voting based on visceral emotion, just like anyone else in a lynch mob, ready to exact justice for a perceived slight by a perversion of justice. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 05:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC) Part of a long history of this kind of thing with no indication he cares one way or the other. If he expressed any intention to stop being such a cowboy I'd vote differently. 13:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC) Do not remove Nx from office. ...I'll construct your monster! 23:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC) Tielec01 (talk) 02:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC) talk 02:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC) Please count this as my regular account. Pimobile (talk) 03:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC) --DamoHi 05:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC) There is no authority for this procedure. There is no mechanism for Mod recall within the guidelines. Even if this motion succeeded it would be irrelevant and meaningless. Show me the written procedures for recalling a mod and I might change my vote. You can maybe tackle him for admin abuse, but there's no guidelines for dealing with moderator abuse. So, until there is, this vote cannot go ahead. --PsyGremlinTal! 09:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC) I asked about that a few hours ago - I don't think we have one. Aceace 09:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC) Why do we need a special procedure for that? We have a procedure for voting on removing rights. -- Nx / talk 09:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC) --★uːʤɱ socialist 09:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC) Nx may have overstepped the mark; as a mod he should distance himself from these squabbles and refrain from intervening when he might be seen to have any sort of axe to grind. However, a mild rebuke is all that is required and if people don't like what he has done then the mob can decide at the next election. ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 11:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC) WE STILL HAVE NO PROCEDURE TO REPLACE MODS Blue (is useful) 03:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC) Ace is the alternate. What's the problem? -- Nx / talk 03:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC) We are still operating within the confines of that ad-hoc solution even if Ace succeeds you. Blue (is useful) 03:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC) Two months until the next elections. Meh. -- Nx / talk 03:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC) We have a set of voting standards which includes guidelines for penalty votes. Why should removal of Moderator rights specifically be seen as some kind of special case? ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐMethinks it is a Weasel 14:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC) Because a Mod is an elected position, not an appointed one. If there was intended to be a recall provision for a mod it would have been included within the guidelines. There isn't one, and due to the often controversial nature of the mod position there shouldn't be one. --DamoHi 17:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC) I basically agree with the first part of your comment, but I do think there should be a way to oust mods, but it should be a higher bar to clear, not simple majority. DickTurpis (talk) 17:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC) I don't really care that we have no express procedure for replacing mods when there have already been 2 elections for these seats. As mods I think it's alright for us to look back to the replacement election and be done with it. If there weren't enough candidates (I don't remember), then that's a problem but otherwise enough's enough with the voting already. I agree with Dick and Damo's different points that get to the same conclusion. It's hard, for me at least, to be creative enough to credit us with intending that the new 1/2 margin for rights removal would apply to essentially impeaching someone from an elected seat when there may have been nothing more than informal discussion and the regulation itself does not apply by its own express language. While Damo's rule of construction inflexibly requires only one result (needing yet more rules), I regret to say that that result may be less unattractive than pretending we can discern legislative intent sufficient to justify applying sysop removal procedure to mods. This is a tough spot. 18:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC) This is crazy. It's well established that we can vote on community decisions, including removal of user rights which are being abused. I find this idea that we can't take a course of action because there aren't a bunch of specific rules about it worked out months in advance completely exasperating. & Mods are supposed to be responsible to the community. Being immune to any loss of status doesn't sit well with that. ЩєазєюіδMethinks it is a Weasel 22:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC) But we have dealt with this twice before (replacement procedures) and people got worked up about having votes, not having votes, what have you, and we just sat on our asses waiting for it to happen again. And now that it has the potential to happen again, we are going to have the same arguments all over again if we end up removing Nx. In case I'm not being specific enough, I'm referring to the fallout from the resignations of P-Foster and Ace. Blue (is useful) 22:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC) I pulled my vote, cause I'm torn. but "it's goign to be a hassle" is never a good reason to vote for anything, any direction. We deal with the Nx issue, independent of the fact that we will some day, once again, have to battle about what mods are. (and that sounded crappy, "the nx issue", sorry NX you are not an "issue" - i'm tired, counting ballots, dealing with idiots who can't be bothered to read "If you have not voted before, and there is a red mark here, you must send in copies of your id". how hard is reading). GodotGet over it!. 22:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC) You misunderstand. We will have to deal with the replacement question as soon as we remove Nx's mod bit, as we have done twice already in the last few months. This has little to do with mods' purpose et al. Blue (is useful) 23:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC) We have new elections at the end of the year. Is it inconceivable the wiki could survive for six or seven weeks with only six Mods instead of seven? WèàšèìòìďMethinks it is a Weasel 23:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC) Inconceivable! How can we survive without this fundamental institution? Why, we'll be having massive HCMs every few weeks! Blue (is useful) 23:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC) Actually, you missed my point, but that's probably cause I'm stressed and tired adn writing for shit. I'm just saying, make your decision about NX, based on the issues about Nx, not about "it will leave us short handed". that is never a good way to vote. yes, it will mean we will have to deal with that, but that's another day, and another problem. The vote here should be on its own merrits. did he do wrong, or not. and was it wrong enough to care, etc. (and i have no answer... cause i like the guy, but think it was dumb... so i'm being a chicken and not making a decision). GodotGet over it!. 23:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC) I agree. -- Nx / talk 23:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC) I agree too but I think Blue missed my point about us not necessarily having to have another election. If there were more than 3 in the last one, which there were, why can we not just decide as moderators that we're going down the list. Or appoint nobody at all. It's not like we actually do anything so important that the wiki will grind to a halt if we don't have a quorum for our cabal, as the Weaseloid sagely observes. 00:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC) --User:Brxbrx/sig 14:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC) David Gerard (talk) 00:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC) No. But that doesn't mean I won't vote otherwise in the future. DickTurpis (talk) 13:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC) Ass McWiki: Internet Tough Guy --Robledo (talk) 23:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC) Nah. Aboriginal Noise What the ... 01:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Goat Semper fidelis. --Interpreteddestroy all editors I think this is not an isolated incident, but I'm torn if it's really bad enough to remove him from office, but i have to agree that drama comes from over reactions - and a "time out" might be warranted if he does it again.--GodotGet over it!. 14:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC) Is this vote in the right column? DickTurpis (talk) 14:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC) It is, but with reservation. less you want me to move it to goat. Which i'm happy to do.--GodotGet over it!. 14:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC) Totally your call, but there seems an inherent contradiction in "maybe slap him on the wrist of he does it again, but remove his rights immediately". DickTurpis (talk) 14:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

---

Statement from Ace

As I am the complainant and the next in line for mod if Nx loses this vote I will not seek the position of moderator if Nx loses his mod rights (though if he resigns that is a different story). I don't want people to think a) I am gunning for the position by getting Nx voted out or b) that people might vote on favour of Nx because they don't want to see me as mod. This is about Nx, not me. Ace^ace 05:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion and debate.

Brief procedure note: Nx will be removed if there is a simple majority in favor; goat votes are not included in the total.--^talk 02:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

And if I'm not mistaken the franchise rules apply, i.e. only people in the eligible user group can vote. -- Nx / talk 02:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

BFlat is not eligible btw. Not that it matters, he'll just need to vote as PFoster. -- Nx / talk 02:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I have restrained from commenting on the everything in moderation page for fear of muddying the water. The incredibly hypocrisy of some of those prosecuting this issue is only surpassed by their stupidity. How appropriate that those who love to bully will go crying to teacher when they recieve a dose of their own medicine. Tielec01 (talk) 02:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

You can't fight hypocrisy with hypocrisy, buddy. Ace^ace 02:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

How about this: Nx, don't remove others rights without some sort of due process. Ace and B-flat, don't block Brx or others who can't unblock themselves (for more than a few seconds) without some sort of due process. Everyone have a drink and move on. DickTurpis (talk) 02:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree. A simple "won't happen again" and this gets archived. I'm still being cooped for my role in blocking Brx unjustly, and will abide by whatever sanctions come out of that. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 02:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

What he said. Ace^ace 02:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Well duh. Don't give me a reason to remove your rights and I won't. It's not like I didn't ask you nicely before, of course you didn't take me seriously then, and now you're whining and outraged and it looks like Ace is LANCBing. Lol. -- Nx / talk 02:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I have never LANCB and don't intend to start. I have no faith in the current power structure. Ace^ace 03:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

New mod vote in two months.--^talk 03:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Nx has the right to temporarily remove people's rights. That's one of the points of being a mod. In this case he didn't show great judgment, by reigniting the conflict after it had already ended, but perhaps he thought that by making this point he would stop it from occurring again in the future - and that's a valid perspective. I mean, he's in a rough spot: he already pointed out repeated abuse and things got muddled when someone proposed a premature vote.--^talk 02:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

"Don't give me a reason to remove your rights and I won't." Yo see, Nx, there's no moderating going on there. That's policing. Not the same thing. If you really think someone's rights ought to be removed, you should have the confidence in your position and in the community to go through proper channels. Also, "lolling" at someone going LANCB isn't really a positive attitude. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 03:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

What he said. Nx - a great guy, even better mod. Ace^ace 03:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

There are just too many high maintenance egos on this page; get a life and grow the fuck up. If you don't like other individuals then refrain from interacting with them at a social level because most of what upsets people here is not done at the article level it is on ephemeral talk pages and the incessant bickering pisses the majority off. If you want to make joke blocks then I suggest you restrict it to those you know will appreciate it and not do it in a bullying, mean-spirited or vindictive way. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 11:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

This whole situation is full of problems. While I can't condone Nx's actions here, I at least get where he's coming from, which, frankly, is more than I can say for Ace or B-flat. How a series of throw-away comments escalated into this shitstorm is beyond me. I'll give Ace benefit of the doubt that he honestly forgot Brx couldn't undo his block (that's my basic MO), but he does have a history of poor behavior. There seems to be a precedent for not getting too heavy handed with actions here, which is why I'm hesitant to vote to remove Nx as a moderator. This is compounded by the fact we really don't have a process for such things. I balk at doing so under the auspices of general punishment, as if it were a two-day block, as recall elections really should have a higher standard than the simple majority for initial elections, otherwise someone is removed every time their popularity drops below 50% (and we have recall votes any time it's anywhere near that mark). Add to this Ace's laudable recognition of his conflict of interest and refusal to take Nx's seat should he be removed, and we don't even have anyone to replace him, as there was no alternate alternate. (Not to toot my own horn here, but I totally called this issue months ago.) I guess if Nx were to do the whole "it won't happen again" thing this could be dropped, though he appears hesitant to do that. Honestly, I'm not sure it matters, as the correlation between someone saying they won't do something and them actually not doing it appears negligible. So I say we call this strike one in a game that allows two strikes. In the meantime maybe we work out a process for mod removal, so we have something ready for when Nx abuses his authority again. Hopefully people will stop prodding each other, and we can let matters like 'who laughs last and why' just die without every comment being seen as some sort of affront to honor that must be met. It would also help if Brx accepted his demotion so he could unblock himself and not use his position as a license to whine. But I guess we can't force it on him. DickTurpis (talk) 14:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I think solving the sysoprevoke question would solve the problem and make it seem less like pitchforks and tar. sterile^talk 14:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Hand the issue to the moderators.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

get off the pot

Nx did not get support for being a tech. Nx has been cooped how many times in the past few months? Nx voted moderator and now is cooped again to be removed. This constant bickering is just tedious so I propose the following:

• a vote per rules - should NX be a member at rationalwiki ? if the vote is NO then say a year or two block.
• same thing for ACE
• once these votes are done NO more complaints, cooping or whatnots, leave it to the elected mods to resolve.

Hamster (talk) 04:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Terrible idea. DickTurpis (talk) 04:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I dunno. Extreme but it has it's attractions. NX has all the collegial warmth of a cornered rattle snake and ACE has become a self absorbed, narcissistic, serially unfunny wanker with borderline trollish tendencies. Fuck 'em both. Cunts the pair of 'em and all that. --MtD^{Pinko Scum} 05:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Nx isn't a tech. Blue (is useful) 05:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Or if you're trying to say "sysadmin," go back and read the forum; he received a lot of support. Blue (is useful) 05:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

yes NX got so much support he declined the position. Personally I like Nx and Ace, but unless people like the biweekly fussing take a final action, be done with the problem and move on Hamster (talk) 06:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Wait wait wait... are you suggesting that we banhammer Nx for a year? Good fucking llama... I thought laying down that banhammer on Marcus Cicero was bad enough, but Nx—except for being a repeat power abuser—isn't a giant trolling douchebag. What's with this notion that banning someone from this webpage for a year is an acceptable solution? :( I told you guys laying down so much on MC would lead to bad consequences, now apparently people think it's ok to ban people who aren't trolling every single post that they make... --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 10:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Calm down. Most think it's a bad idea. --★uːʤɱ constructivist 11:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Do it. --Mack Coster (talk) 12:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

A year block? good lord talk about over reactions. What was done, was done, and is now fixed. *maybe* NX should lose mod rights, *maybe*. but blocking him? and for a year? sheesh. GodotGet over it!. 14:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that he Nx should be blocked at all. He is not a troll. Brx is a troll who should be banned from the site, but that's another question. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 14:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Pi's statement

Anyone that has a wikifriend or a wikivandetta, is a loser that needs a life off the internet. And posting about how much you drink or fuck convinces no one when you are posting 9pm on a Saturday night in your timezone. Pimobile (talk) 08:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I would slightly disagree with Pimobile's statement. I've actually met some cool people here whose friendships have translated into real life ones, so having a Wikifriend does not a loser make. The Symphony of Noise ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 09:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

What about 10pm on a Sunday? Ace^ace 08:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Not bad, that is a pass. Pimobile (talk) 08:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

What about if it is 10am and your in the office? That is hardcore. Ace^ace 08:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

You could be working instead of creating a stink, but if people weren't editing from work this website would have 3 pages. Pimobile (talk) 09:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

If you're out by 9 on Saturday you're not doing it right. 13:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I only post while skydiving, a fifth of gin in one hand and a pistol in the other.--^talk 08:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I think your premise is wrong. I often edit while having sex and I generally drink, constantly. I'm good at multi tasking. --GodotGet over it!. 12:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The site still has to function. sterile^talk 12:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Godot,

All days are nights to see till I see thee,

And nights bright days when dreams do show thee me.

<3 13:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that drinking at home alone on a Saturday night is still, technically, drinking. DickTurpis (talk) 13:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

My take on the above

Given the 2:1 ration in favour of letting Nx keep his post, I think it's clear that that's what the consensus will be. That said, it's less of a ringing endorsement than the numbers might suggest. A number of people have voted to let him keep the mod powers not out of clear support for his illegal cowboy antics, but because of procedural concerns re: replacement, and a few others have said that what Nx did was wrong and they wish he wouldn't do it again. I hope they're right, but I figure they're wrong. I really wish he had dialed it back instead of doubling down on his decision to police the wiki as he sees fit instead of doing the job that he was chosen to do. I am confident we'll be back here soon, but given the numbers, I see no real point in dragging the vote out much longer, and propose the matter be closed until the next time Nx craps all over his commitment to the community. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 23:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. But nevertheless didn't we just decide that these sorts of votes are supposed to run for at least a week? Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

It's all ad hoc. Can we just admit that? sterile^talk 23:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I wish I had never even brought it up. I should have just let Brx and UHM express their utterly bullshit claims of offense stand. Or alternatively I should have let Nx moderate how he sees fit. Ace^ace 23:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I was flaming you and not whinning about anything except your bullshit, hypocisy and stupidity. Now stop the strawmanning me into one with brx and shut the fuck up. --★uːʤɱ pirate 01:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Just what I thought - these guys like to play the flame game and troll then one of them gets blocked (and swiftly unblocked) and BOOM! Nx cruises around 9 hours later and sets everything right with the world. RW Rocks the Disco. Ace^ace 01:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Trolling — "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --★uːʤɱ anti-communist 01:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

RW Rocks the Disco.

There might be people who want to see this vote through, so let's give them a chance to speak up, but for my part I'm fine with closing the vote. Blue (is useful) 02:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The real problem

The real problem is that there are a lot of people who can't seem to be able to give it a fucking rest. The discussion which was basically a catalyst for the recent fiasco was one of the most inconsequential things this wiki has ever seen, but everyone involved had to prod one another over such meaningless drivel, escalating absolutely nothing into something. At any point, someone, anyone, could have just said "whatever" and been done. But no, it had to go on until for some reason a 30 minute block seemed to have been deemed necessary, and later on one for months, followed by some heavy-handed moderating kicking up a storm again after the dust seemed to have finally settled. At some point just admit to yourselves that what someone is saying just isn't important and simply ignore it. This isn't directed at anyone in particular, but is worth a bit of consideration by everyone. End of rant. DickTurpis (talk) 03:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the real problem is that people are not wearing enough hats. Ace^ace 03:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

That could be true too. Now where the hell is my fez? DickTurpis (talk) 03:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Fez? Go back to Russia, Muslim. I wear a foam-dome that has been adapted to take a keg. Hurts my neck so I can only wear it when lying down. Ace^ace 03:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

BLASPHEMY! The only foam hats allowed are those of foam which are shaped in the form of a cheese wedge! --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 05:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

*poof!* --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 10:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

"Nx allegedly revealing SuspectedReplicant's IP range..."

He didn't run checkuser did he? Nx, did you run checkuser over a vote on button positioning? B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 00:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

No. -- Nx / talk 00:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic

SuspectedReplicant

SuspectedReplicant repeatedly posted personal information about Nx, first in an edit comment here and then three times to his userpage.

Nx desysopped SuspectedReplicant and blocked him indefinitely. AD then commuted the block to three years.

This is a unique case because the exhibits are necessarily hidden from public view. The nature of the sensitive information revealed was Nx's real name.

As he has shown no indication that he is willing to cease posting this information, the injunctive block currently in place should last throughout the resolution of this case. If SuspectedReplicant would like to present a defense, he should email me or another moderator and his comments will be posted here. Blue (is useful) 21:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

In my opinion, a two-month ban and revokation of sysop rights is a good penalty. Blue (is useful) 21:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Two months seem a bit short. --★uːʤɱ atheist 21:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I have never been a fan of long bans. Blue (is useful) 21:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Somebody--I'm assuming it was also SR, posted similar information at both RWW and CP. Again, no links because the links would simply reproduce the offence. That's a pretty blatant example of across-the-board trolling, not an isolated incident. Someone would have pretty damn well convince me he wasn't going to repeat such a dick move before I let him back into the community. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 21:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm not stuck on three years, but two months is far too short for such aggressive, flagrant personal attacks. This is one of only a few rules we take seriously, and SR is breaking it repeatedly and with malice. At least six months.--^talk 21:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I would find six months acceptable. Blue (is useful) 21:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) He's only been coming here to stir up trouble, of late. IMHO three years should be fine, unless he convincingly repents--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

What did Uncle Ho get for making death threats? - π 21:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

That was against you, no? B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 21:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually it was against ListenerX, IIRC. Blue (is useful) 21:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Three months, but in this case we have a very specific rule to apply. Blue (is useful) 21:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Is anyone opposed to six months?--^talk 21:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

It's been just a half an hour, but I'd hazard a guess that six months is what we'll be voting on. Blue (is useful) 22:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Six is not bad, just twice the length of a block for a death threat seems inconsistent. My only concern is that once blocked, he is going to go MC and come back and post it every few weeks. Oh well to late now, he will do it any way. - π 22:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

What say we give it a day and see if anyone has any proposals or whatnot, and otherwise set up the vote in 24 hours?--^talk 22:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. Blue (is useful) 22:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

For the record, this appears to have been in retaliation for Nx allegedly revealing SuspectedReplicant's IP range, which is also in violation of the privacy standards as cited above (unless SR has elsewhere identified himself with those IPs or vice versa). Not saying this justifies what SR did, but this is how this sort of stuff can escalate. However, I do suggest that SR be unblocked for long enough to add any comments he wants to in his defence, before any vote or long-term action takes place. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

"As he has shown no indication that he is willing to cease posting this information, the injunctive block currently in place should last throughout the resolution of this case. If SuspectedReplicant would like to present a defense, he should email me or another moderator and his comments will be posted here." Blue (is useful) 01:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed with the weasly one. Ace^ace 00:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Huh? How should Nx know that was SR's IPs? We play that guessing game all the time with IP addresses. --★uːʤɱ federalist 00:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Shortly after SuspectedReplicant leaves with a parthian shot in which he calls Armondikov a shitty writer comes along an IP troll who attacks Armondikov for being a shitty writer. -- Nx / talk 00:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Said it, it's still just guessing. Very likely, but still just guessing. --★uːʤɱ federalist 00:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh btw, I didn't say that, it was another IP editor. -- Nx / talk 00:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Bunp. Blue (is useful) 21:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Vote

As the discussion has concluded, I am moving forward with a vote. It will last seven days and follow the new guidelines. The proposal is to ban SuspectedReplicant for six months and revoke his sysop rights for that same duration. Blue (is useful) 03:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

This vote has been closed. Please do not add, remove or change votes. The result of this vote was: motion passes

Yea Blue (is useful) 03:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC) Behavior was knowingly and maliciously beyond the bounds.--talk 04:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC) Yeah, fuck him. Outing someone like that is a shitty thing to do. Even someone like Nx. Really it should be indef until or unless he eats the Shit Burger of Remorse or does the Apology Dance or something. --MtDPinko Scum 04:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC) Sam Tally-ho! 04:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC) Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 08:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC) --★uːʤɱ secularist 11:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC) Revealing personal info is a dick move of the nth degree, especially when it concerns trolling CP, where people like Kara will use it for their own nefarious deeds. --PsyGremlinSprich! 12:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC) This seems inline with a 2 year ban for a vauge nonspecific threat to imply to maybe sue the site or some of its users that was made off site in a private chat. As always treat this vote as my normal account. Pimobile (talk) 12:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC) Seems about right. DickTurpis (talk) 12:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC) I support this proposal. With respect to the objection that death threats only got 3 months in the past, I will say that if we vote six months for this, then if death threats happens again, we should give more than six months for those. (((Zack Martin)))™ 18:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC) Nay 6 months for revealing personal info that was quickly hidden and 3 months for a straight up death threat. Makes perfect sense. 04:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC) Agree with Nutty Roux, regardless of SR being a dick or not, the sanction is excessive. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 01:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC) We need to be proportionate with this even if he doesn't want to come back. Dick, yes; 6 months, no. ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 19:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC) Goat Too long. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐMethinks it is a Weasel 08:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Nutty, it seems to me that 3 months is too short for the latter, not that 6 months was too long for the former. Are we bound to a 3 month ceiling on all things because of that vote?--^talk 04:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

No, and you've made an inverse error by suggesting my point was anything that's not a death threat must necessarily get less than or other than 3 months. We have a responsibility to give a sanction that matches the severity of the harm, not arbitrarily punish because you think SR is a dick or have your own idea about how horrible outing is. Different people treat it differently and even if they guard their identity like a trade secret, we've got to credibly evaluate the harm including how quickly it was hidden; if we're committed to being a rules based community we must be just. I haven't seen Nx express any concern that you know who will contact his employer. It occurs to me that Nx lives in a distant non-English speaking country and that any such threat isnt likely credible, but I don't know it all. If Nx expresses any other opinion I will reevaluate mine since I certainly have no interest in substituting my judgment for his, as some here are doing, but I want to know how he feels about this and what the harm is. If the harm is merely that SR went against Nx's druthers, 3 months is a ridiculous abuse of authority. 15:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Pi, if you're using the TK incident as a metric, you might consider what actually happened. There is nothing vague, nonspecific, or maybe about TK telling me he was going to sue Trent and that his lawyer told him not to talk to me anymore, presumably because suit was imminent. Or him telling me he was going to report me to the bar and sue me for malpractice. The threat to sue me was frivolous but the threat to beef me to the ethics board is a big deal. Lawyers have to report that stuff to their malpractice carriers or they won't defend you if you do get beefed or sued; even frivolous claims must be defended. 15:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this should be evaluated based on how much harm he has done to me personally. You seem to be suggesting that it's no big deal because I don't live in the US or because I'm not a lawyer like you. But if he felt it was justified to reveal my name in this case, I'm sure he'll have no problem justifying revealing your real name or reporting you to the ethics board when you piss him off. -- Nx / talk 08:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Then by what metric will you judge it? By how much he pisses you off? If not by the harm to you, by what? Without some standard that's not merely whatever subjective baggage a voter brings in with him, this is just another railroad popularity contest taken on the heels of all these moderators condemning SR. No wonder the votes are going they way they are. I mentioned what I do for work in responding to Pi's very odd characterization of my TK block to show that context matters, namely the real damage a threat can do. I had to tender the potential claim to my insurance carrier and spend money to confirm TK's identity to intimate the threats further. Surely you recognize there's a sliding scale of severity depending on the circumstances? It matters to what degree one keeps his name secret. There's a large spectrum of approaches to that, and editors' approaches may change. Mine has. It matters what the harm is - if one doesn't use his name on RW but doesn't otherwise make a big secret of it, the potential harm from a disclosure is nonexistent. Oversight it and move on. If he does keep his name secret, we need to know why he's concerned enough about this to block someone infinitely and then acquiesce to a mob reducing the ban to a mere 6 months. I'm not interested in hearing what you think SR would do to me, which of course couldn't actually know the first thing about, when it's offered to justify an arbitrary sanction. My point here is that outing is not a black and white issue and employing purely subjective criteria, which is what happens when there's no guidance on how to judge the crime is unfair. Does anyone even know the point of the 6 month block would be? Deterrence, rehabilitation, denunciation, protection? Or just plain old retribution? 13:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

So, "no harm, no foul"? --★uːʤɱ atheist 14:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

No. Less harm less foul. More harm more foul. 6 months without any guidance for determining the severity of the crime is arbitrary. Arbitrary is unfair. Short enough sentences for you, UHM? 14:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

So what would be the harm in revealing somebodies real name in this case? Because, if there was no harm, there shouldn't be any punishment either. And thank you for starting to flame me, that's how I like my banter. --★uːʤɱ pervert 14:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

For potential harm try looking up the recent doc-dropping by Dawahfilms against Thunderf00t, ask Theo Van Gogh why that was bad. While we wouldn't necessarily have a problem with Islamic Fundamentalists firebombing and axe-murdering RW users, I won't say that our future certainly won't hold those risks. Nevertheless, the take-home message is that the person revealing it may not intend any harm, and no harm may be immediate, but the unforeseen consequences may be considerable. ^bomination 14:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I know there can be a lot of harm done, it was rethorical question. --★uːʤɱ digital native 14:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Neither of you read what I wrote. It's neither "no harm no foul" nor the grotesque Islamo-Poe straw man Armondikov posed. The actual harm matters. 14:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

And I was pointing out that you don't know what the "actual harm" is until it happens. ^theist 14:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I said I don't know, not that it's impossible to know. If one has been sloppy about associating his real name with his RW handle then the actual harm is 0. If one has no legitimate fear because the edit was over sighted within minutes then the actual harm approaches 0 and is at that point subject to the same speculation you're encouraging where SR gets banned for 6 months because a young computer programmer or student or whatever Nx is may have his head sawed off by Islamists. Or aliens. Because we don't know. Just make a real effort to figure out what happened here instead of shitting on SR because he's not popular right now and what he did was obnoxious. 14:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not shitting on him, I haven't voted to ban him for 6 months and I haven't made a comment either way on whether that's appropriate. ^postate 15:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I know you didn't and haven't. I apologize for being unclear - the exhortation to be fair was to all of us and generally. 15:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

So what would, in your mind, be the appropiate length?

I'm not dismissing research, I'm dismissing your argumentation because it is unrealistic, neither will just guessing it in any way make anything substantial out of it. You could be horribly wrong and to evaluate the full consequences you would have to wait basically until Nx is dead. For me, the intent matters and in this case the intent was shortsighted harm of a community member, including a breach of confidence we all agree upon silently by revealing our real names to each other. Breaching that trust is the greatest abuse of trust we have in any internet community, it is the message that the community can not trust this user and it should be treated that way. --★uːʤɱ anti-communist 15:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

(EC) I'm not saying no punishment is appropriate. I wouldn't have made a big deal about this if it was a 2 week ban. 6 months for someone who's contributed here for years merits a closer look at what we're doing and why. I don't know what's appropriate or I would have made a suggestion. Your point about abuse of trust seems to be where everyone here leaves off the inquiry. It can't be the whole answer. As you say, intent matters, but it's not to be assumed and it's not the only inquiry. "Intent" is a stand-in for "whatever level of malice we find objectionable enough to punish." Inadvertent disclosure merits a "dammit be careful." "SR hated Nx enough to disclose Nx's name as hard as he could" isn't the end of the inquiry. You must determine if Nx had a reasonable expectation of privacy that SR intended to subvert. There are lots of users here who have previously associated their real names with their RW handles. We'd have no business punishing someone who "outed" one of those users because you cannot maliciously do that which is not prohibited. Oversight at the user's request and move on if that's the policy you want. We know some user's full names and even seem to exult in rubbing their faces in it if they're as actively disliked as Maratrean. Again, oversight and move on. Treat repeat performances differently. So we need Nx to briefly state whether he had a reasonable expectation of privacy and why. If not, no harm in the disclosure. If yes, what's his concern? I'm not talking about guessing about improbable horrors (I'm being unrealistic?). I'm talking about having Nx's own honest assessment, however vague he feels is appropriate, of why this is a big deal. In the absence of contrary evidence, Nx's statements re: privacy and why he cares are all we have. There's no such thing as a trial without a witness. 18:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course, somebody who reveals private information about himself publicly here on RW and leaves it has no business getting up in arms about others repeating such information. Not you are unrealistic, but the concept that you have to look what the harm was, because not all the time such information is clear and unfiltered - even worse if it is only the victim reporting he might exaggerating or flat out lying because of some vendetta against the user that did it. --★uːʤɱ pirate 19:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

[1] When I use my real name in emails with RW members, I do that because I trust them. You could call that careless, but I did that with the assumption that a) those users won't be dicks and reveal it and b) because RW has a rule that prohibits revealing personal information. Because of the latter, all users should have a reasonable expectation of privacy. We'd have no business punishing someone who "outed" one of those users because you cannot maliciously do that which is not prohibited. But it is prohibited. -- Nx / talk 18:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Nutty Roux was referring to it not being prohibited to "out" someone who has already outed themselves. He clearly acknowledged that there is a policy against revealing someone's personal details, but the point is, that if someone has already posted their own personal details, then reposting those personal details is not prohibited. I means it's possible that you're intentionally misreading him, or maybe you just didn't actually read what he posted? --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 18:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I misread it because he said it should be oversighted, but if it's not prohibited, why oversight it? But anyway that's not relevant as I did not reveal my real name. -- Nx / talk 19:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking of users who out themselves somewhere else, but not on RW. Sorry if I wasn't clear. -- Nx / talk 19:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Your comment here struck me as particularly inconsistent - apparently Ace has no right to keep his IP address private after unintentionally revealing it since it's his own liability, but the same doesn't apply to you knowingly revealing your name to another site user by email. The onsite/offsite distinction seems completely arbitrary; if we're going to take people's privacy concerns seriously (which of course we should) then we should allow them to conceal any info which they did not intend to be public & which could be used to trace their real life identity, regardless of how it first came to light. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Not so long ago we frowned upon using revdelete to hide one's IP address like that. I don't know when that changed, but I was a bit surprised. Anyway, I was just pointing out that there's a difference, not saying that Bricks was right. -- Nx / talk 19:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Attitudes have changed a bit. If somebody makes an edit or two without realising they're signed out, & did not intend their IP to be displayed, then I think letting them conceal it & respecting that is fair enough. If it's dozens of edits, it gets ridiculous. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement from SuspectedReplicant

From: Thread:User talk:SuspectedReplicant/Coop/reply:

"I really can't be fucked. Since you've decided that every bit of IP vandalism from a certain range is me, and refused to accept any statement of denial, there's absolutely no point. You and the other pair of joyless dickheads you hang around with have turned this site into something I no longer want to be associated with. Make the block indefinite. I couldn't care less."

-- Nx / talk 17:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion for future votes

When people put up a vote for sanctions it's largely a take it or leave it package. I would like to suggest that decision to impose a sanction and the duration of any sanction be split up because, as with referenda, the person who frames the question guides the outcome. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 19:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

That happened - there was a discussion where people could suggest or oppose the suggested duration. It was left up for a day. It's a good thing to do, though, and we should probably make it a standard thing.--^talk 20:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Ideally, there should be multiple options in the vote. In the SR case, the vote was either "yes, a 6 month block" or "no, not a 6 month block". It's hard to gauge how many people would have backed, say, a two month block, or a one year block, instead of the proposed 6 months. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Multiple options get tricky, since we now require a two-thirds majority. There was a long discussion period preceding the vote in which only one person suggested something other than six months. This is why we need a community portal; people don't regularly check the Coop, so whenever we have these types of votes, every man and his dog want their opinion heard after the discussion ends. Blue (is useful) 21:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the "guilty/not-guilty" part be a two-thirds majority but the period be a simple majority (although I can see a major flaw in that last bit). Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 11:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd also like to suggest that there should be a minimum level of participation before any "punishment" vote goes through. I'd say that at least 20 users should have voted at least pro or con and goat should not be counted as participation.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 13:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes to quorum and yes to bifurcating culpability from the sanction. The quorum challenge may very well get us closer to seeing the coop used as a legit forum rather than a place for pointmaking and vendetta. The boy who cried wolf will reconsider being a snitch when he's forced to consider whether his claims have any legs and if so whether public approval will fall in his favor. Cheers Bob. 15:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

G, the major flaw you're referring to may an ambiguity that's bridgeable by mod fiat. I'll have a closer look. 15:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it's odd that for someone who has repeatedly argued we shouldn't be "hamstrung by rules," you are arguing for new rules to hamstring our ability to deal with coop cases. That's not an argument against it, just a note.

The only way a quorum would work would be if we made it easy for people to keep up with Coop discussions and community votes. Site intercoms are an inconvenience and a terrible solution, since they appear to all site visitors, not just users, let alone eligible voters. Spamming links on the saloon bar is also a non-option. We ought to have a dedicated ticker for these things that's transcluded on Recent Changes or the Bar or both.

"Bifurcating" culpability and penalty adds unnecessary red tape in my opinion. Would we seriously ask the community to vote twice in all but the most serious of cases? I don't see why, for most cases, the final vote could just be "Penalty X; [Penalty Y;] No Penalty." Blue (is useful) 03:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The issue of a simple penalty/no penalty vote is that whoever poses the vote question guides the outcome. When people were voting on human's conduct he claimed that he was exonerated but basically it was a question of the penalty being seen as too severe rather than him not having done anything wrong. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 09:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I would agree to splitting the vote in two for serious cases like that. I only object to making it a hard-and-fast rule. Blue (is useful) 16:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

You know very well the strongest positions I've take as a moderator have been regarding basic fairness, which comes through in my harsh criticism of how unfairly Huw and MC were treated. The majority of rulemaking this community has done since the moderator position was created has been addressing the very concerns others and I have been raising for 6 months or more: concerns strictly related to fairness that would have radically changed the procedure and outcomes of the Human and MC trials. There's nothing odd or inconsistent about me being in favor of adding further safeguards to the process for sanctioning users, while being dead opposed to more than cursorily regulating behavior, when we have such an abysmal record. Calling it "hamstringing our ability to deal with coop cases" is wild.

Unnecessary red tape is a terrible excuse for permitting what the rules may require without our intervention: a perpetuation of the same old pattern of someone slapping up a vote section with whoever from the mobs feels like it making a completely ad hoc determination of the penalty if that even happens before the voting's concluded. Due process isn't just making sure the proper number of votes are obtained to find liability but also ensuring that the penalty is fair. Again, we've got no guidance whatsoever on what penalties obtain for what infractions so it only makes sense that people would be forced to give some consideration to the appropriateness of the sanction before it's meted out. If RW has become the site that bans users for periods of months or years, this ought not be too much red tape for anyone's taste. 23:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Human

Human has thrown his hat in with MC over at his little hate blog, where his actions include referring to long-standing editors as "boring cunts" and as a source for venting his butt hurt at MC's banning.

Now, as an editor of RW, he can do what he likes. However, such behaviour from an appointed Trustee of the RationalWiki Foundation is completely unacceptable. People in such position have a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the organisation they represent. His actions are his most blatant infringement of this obligation to date. A director of a company can be removed his he starts bad mouthing the company; the same should apply here.

Quite simply, Human no longer has the best interests of this community at heart and should therefore step down as a Trustee with immediate effect. If he does not, the remaining Trustees should remove him forthwith.

• Venting his butt-hurt
• Human's contribs at MCWiki

--PsyGremlin講話 13:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Go fuck yourself you stupid whining loser. You are building your hate castle on an incoming tide of sand. ħuman 07:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's my problem with this accusation: there is no solid proof (unless Human really admits it) that that is actually Human. Looking at his comments on that site, it could just as well be a sock pretending to be Human. The Symphony of Noise ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 14:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Though I will state in full disclosure that Human is a personal friend of mine and that, as he is my friend, my opinion is biased as such. As such, I will recuse myself thus from any votes for sanction. Futrhermore, if it is, in fact, my friend Human, than it does have the potential to damage our friendship. I did, after all, defend him thusly when Ken

and TK were pulling similar shit to try to troll and libel him, and it would be hypocritical for me to make an exception, even if Huw is my friend. The Symphony of Noise The official spikey-haired skeptical punk 14:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Given that Human has openly linked to the site on his talk page, I find it hard to believe that it's not him posting over there. In addition, he has consistently backed MC against RW, even offering him "sanctuary". This is HUman's response to MC's banning, and if he's turning against RW in this way, then he should not be in a positionn running anything linked to RW. We simply can't trust him anymore. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 14:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

If that's actually Huw, it's totally unacceptable behavior for a trustee. Has anyone e-mailed Trent? B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 14:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Not that I know of, but, as Chair of the Trustees, I will notify the Board of this accusation and, if the Wiki votes thusly, I will float a resolution in front of the Board to deal with this situation though, I again, I must recuse myself from any such votes. The Symphony of Noise ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 14:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Since there'll be new elections in less than a month, isn't this pointless? We'd need at least a week for the wiki vote alone. -- Nx / talk 14:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, IIRC the last time Human's actions were called into question, the bullshit argument was that his actions on the wiki, shouldn't affect his status as a Trustee, because he wasn't acting as a Trustee (never mind the breach of faith issues, etc). Therefore, I feel the onus is on the Board to take action on this as soon as possible, and not the wiki's voting. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 14:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

EC, EC. Just looking at the here. Which part of this do you feel he is breach of? My inclination would be to say that people who don't approve shouldn't vote for him in the upcoming elections.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 14:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem, though, is whether or not we should keep a member who has lost the complete trust of the Wiki. No matter what the circumstance, I think that if the Wiki cannot trust a member of the Trustees, we, as Trustees, need to take that into serious consideration. The Symphony of Noise ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 15:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

But has he? We need to vote! -- Nx / talk 15:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

To remove Human, per the Trustee's own by-laws, we need a 2/3 majority. Trying to remove him will go nowhere without teeth behind it. The Symphony of Noise ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 15:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Does Psygremlin need it explained what "fiduciary trust" means? It is a financial duty to ensure that the money owned by the trust is treated well, and not exploited, nor unreasonably kept. For Psygremlin to make a charge that Human has violated his fiduciary trust means that he has to show evidence or make the claim of embezzlement or action or omission that resulted in reckless financial loss for the foundation. "Trustee" doesn't refer to having the trust of the community to be respectful or even non-hostile. It refers to being placed in a position of trust to manage the money of the RationalWiki Foundation. Does anyone here think that Human is embezzling money or otherwise failing in his duties to protect the funds of the RWF? No? Then problem solved: Human has not violated his fiduciary trust at all. It doesn't matter if you all hate what he's doing, or what he posted... it's not a violation of his FIDUCIARY trust. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 23:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for trying to clarify that. However, you're wrong. Fiduciary duty is A legal obligation of one party to act in the best interest of another. The obligated party is typically a fiduciary, that is, someone entrusted with the care of money or property. In this case the property is the name of RationalWiki.

However, would you deny that Human has contravened the following goals of the Foundation?

• Engage with other organizations and communities with similar values
• Interact with the media, government officials, private companies, and individuals to promote science, critical thinking, and rational discourse
• Promote the site to the community at large

His actions are in complete contrast to these stated goals and show that he does not care about this wiki, or its members and should therefore not be in a position of responsibility. As I've said before - it's not about Human, he can fuck MC on the steps of Dublin Cathedral for all I care. I would raise the same concerns if ANY trustee engaged in his behaviour. --PsyGremlinSermā! 09:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

You just don't seem to understand shit about fiduciary responsibility do you? That or you're trying to twist the meaning of "property" to contain the image of the RWF, and RW, which is frankly, not legally sound. But woe be unto me, for attempting to rain on your parade. Just watching you perform semantic sophistry to fudge "breach of fiduciary duty" into this matter is a sight that makes my eyes bleed. Is Human representing the RW community in a good light? No, but then NEITHER ARE YOU being a fucking bickering asshole and attacking whichever member of the Board of Trustees has pissed you off most recently. And you won't even let facts stand in the way of your holy crusade against everyone you dislike. Let me explain it to you clearly: THERE HAS BEEN NO BREACH OF FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY, AND IF YOU DOUBT WHAT I SAY, THEN TAKE IT TO A FUCKING LAWYER AND ASK THEM. It is simply not my job to explain to you how your wishful reading of fiduciary duty is wrong. It is. That's the end of it, until you can bring in a lawyer, and show me that I'm wrong. (Hint: I know a lawyer, who would have sued Huw for breach in a heartbeat if it actually occurred.) --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 21:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I have to jump in here and say that while I've got my own opinions on this stuff from having done shareholder derivative and corporate governance litigation for 10 years, that lawyer isn't me. I'll share whatever's appropriate with the board of directors, but it's just as a board member. I don't and never have represented the RWF. Just FYI. 21:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I was attempting to mask your identity, and necessarily fudged a lot of the facts to make it obscure. You commented before that you didn't want me outing you as a lawyer. But regardless of if you represent, have represented, or ever will represent the RWF, if you were concerned that another director were in breach of their fiduciary duty, you wouldn't be sitting on your ass about it, and would be ensuring that the RWF dealt with it appropriately. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 05:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I notice Eira's ignoring the proper definition of fiduciary duty quoted above. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 15:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem Psy is that there is a history between you and Human and because Human is the current issue you are not seen as being impartial in this. You have raised the issue but I'd say you should now leave it to others to deal with, otherwise it looks like you are pursuing a vendetta. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 09:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

And who exactly would these "others" be? The so-called moderators are already running for cover. Besides, I was just pointing out Eira's obvious mistake to her. --PsyGremlinTala! 10:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I went over Human's mainspace contribs over there, and this one in particular is worrying. That article basically accuses the RWF of financial mismanagement. While Human only copyedited the article, that can be seen as an endorsement of its contents, and he should've done everything in his power to protect the RWF and remove these false accusations. -- Nx / talk 10:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Psy, I hope you're not seriously suggesting that handling what Huw's accused of is the job of the moderators when you say that we're "already running for cover." Think that through. If the conduct of a director is something that only the board of directors of a corporation can remedy, what role do the moderators have here? None. We're not directors or corporate officers by virtue of being moderators. Everyone: please do some research on the scope of a director's fiduciary duty of loyalty to a corporation is before you start making things up. 22:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

In which I do the unlikely and cast my lot in with Nx

I hear what Nx is saying above. To me, this is an untenable bullshit situation that requires immediate action. If Huw doesn't swing by by Sunday morning New York time and say "that's not me" or "sorry, I was on a horrible bender and take it all back," I think the Mods, as Mods, should be allowed to come to a consensus and approach the Board with a concrete plan. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 15:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that plan sounds perfectly reasonable, B-Flat. The Symphony of Noise ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 15:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec)* Engage with other organizations and communities with similar values

• Interact with the media, government officials, private companies, and individuals to promote science, critical thinking, and rational discourse
• Promote the site to the community at large

His current actions are in breach of all three of those goals. In addition, he has an implied duty as a Trustee to act in RW's best interests. This he is not doing. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 15:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't disagree, Psy. Which is why I think B-Flat's proposal is the most sensible one. The Symphony of Noise ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 15:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this is casting your lot in with Nx, who said it's pointless to try to remove Human as a Board member when there are elections in only a month's time. I'm inclined to agree. Are there actually any Board meetings planned within this time, or any harm Human could cause in the office of Board member before the re-elections? Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 15:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

It's casting my lot w/ Nx as last night my time he posted about this on the Mods' page and sent messages to allt he Mods asking for input as though this were a Mod issue and not a general community issue. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 16:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but that was about Human the editor, not Human the trustee. I don't really think Human will try to do anything harmful, and he's not the only trustee, so even if he decides to do something stupid he'll be stopped by the others. -- Nx / talk 21:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

NO meetings planned in the near future that I'm aware of and, as such, there really isn't any damage Human could do as a Trustee before the elections a month from now. IMO, the solution to the problem is simple: don't re-nominate him or re-elect him if you're mad at him. But as Chair of the Trustees, I'm not about to lose the faith of this website if they think that they can't trust one of the members to the point that they can't wait until the next election cycle. The Symphony of Noise ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 15:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

We'll need to meet by email to discuss an IRS filing after I get the tax return filed next week and can take care of something else with Trent. If there's more on the table we ought to just call a meeting. 18:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok here's an idea: Someone — at best one of his personal friends — swings by Human's talk page and leaves him a message asking if that is actually him, also an email would be good, because if it's not him, he can't know of it. If it isn't him, we'll leave it at that. If he says it is indeed him, everybody that wants him to step down leaves a friendly note on his talk page asking for him to step down. If he refuses the mods work something up and inform the board which can than make a decision. --★uːʤɱ soviet 15:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

If there is no board business with which he would be involved before the election then there is no urgency to take action. If the site don't like what he has done then let's leave it to the vote. Prosecuting some action when there is no particular need is only likely to stir up more antipathy. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 18:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I pretty much agree, but before the butthurt paralyzes a site, something should be done. But as it appears now, there isn't enough butthurt. --★uːʤɱ federalist 21:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Big fucking deal

Having looked through Human's contributions at MCWiki (as linked above), most of which are just spelling corrections, I really don't see what the fuss it about. If simply editing at a site that is critical of RationalWiki is such an offence, we would haul out everyone who has ever edited at Conservapedia or RationalWikiWiki. As for referring to long-standing editors as "boring cunts", such things get said all the time, onsite or offsite, and nobody raises an eyebrow. This just looks Psygremlin's ongoing War on Human combined with the community's perpetual obsession with MarcusCicero. He's just an internet troll FFS. He's not a threat to the site, or at least he wouldn't be if people didn't run around like headless chickens every time he makes an appearance. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 16:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

In addition, the Foundation "roles" page says, "Board members and officers posting on RationalWiki are not doing so in an official capacity unless specifically stated." So now posting on other pages is in an official capacity? Really, are trustees not allowed to have opinions? Has he said anything about RationalWiki the site? sterile^talk 16:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

As has been said before, Human can do whatever he pleases. However, a Trustee has a duty towards RW and by posting on MC's blog, Human violates the trust placed in him, as a member of the Foundation. And to say "ooh, but he's not acting as a Trustee" is just being a fucking weasel. His actions bring the position of Trustee into disrepute. End of story. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 16:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

So foundation trustees aren't allowed to contribute in any from at ASK and CP, both of which are not supportive of RW? And, I still don't see a diff-link in which Human has actually said anything about RW, let alone one not grounded in fact. I mean, he made a redirect from Rationalwiki to RationalWiki. Gee, wow, burn down the barn. sterile^talk 16:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

(EC, reply to PsyG) I disagree entirely. Trustees work primarily in the background; I can only remember who about half of them are without checking. The idea that we should constantly appraise these users' actions at RW and other sites on the basis that they are members of the Boards is unreasonable, as is the idea that we should restrict what external sites they are allowed to copyedit or post comments at. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 16:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. A trustee would indicate somebody having a position of trust. Somebody who willingly joins and contributes to a site designed to attack members of this site has broken that trust. It's as simple as that. How do we know that things that are discussed at Foundation level, or private conversations between members, aren't suddenly going to appear on MC's blog. This is not somebody you want in a position of responsibility and trust on this wiki. --PsyGremlinTal! 16:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

How do we know that things that are discussed at Foundation level, or private conversations between members, aren't suddenly going to appear on MC's blog? We can't predict whether that will happen, but I don't expect it to. If it did, then yes, that certainly be a violation of trust. But the idea that Human has broken the community's trust simply by posting at MCWiki suggests that we have restrictions on who Trustees are allowed to be friends with or what websites they are allowed to use, and I don't think that they have entered any such agreement either explicitly or implicitly. This whole thing smacks of restricting free speech. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

If anyone thinks that foundation meetings are worth quoting then I would encourage them to run for membership. The minutes really are a fair summary.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 21:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Meetings of the board of directors are more or less open to anyone to attend, though not participate. Anything interesting is in the minutes. And we have a legal obligation to make certain records available on request. There really aren't any secrets to divulge. I'll have some comments on the actual legal role of a director of a corporation sometime when things get quieter' but suffice it to say for now it's not appropriate to drive a director out for having some unpopular view on the assumption he will exercise judgment contrary to the interests of the corporation. I think he's done a good job and I know he cares deeply about this project and the RWFs broader mission. If people think differently they should take it up in the voting booth, not get caught up in yet more drama and antipathy. 05:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh bullshit. Just remember - rights come with responsibilities. Human is free to say what he wants, where he wants. However, he is not free to do that as a Trustee of this site - that comes with certain responsibilities, foremost of which is to promote the well-being of this site. If he feels he can no longer do that, but instead needs to vent his disapproval of this site and its members, then he is obligated to step down as a Trustee. --PsyGremlinTal! 17:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

You're not the one being compared to Saddam Hussein. Human is/was IRL/FB contacts with a lot of people here. Nice to know that someone who knows my real name/my dad's name/my partner's name is linking to a site dedicated to insulting me on his user page. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 16:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec)So foundation trustees aren't allowed to contribute in any from at ASK and CP Simple answer: Of course they are, unless they bring their position into disrepute and their actions are detrimental to the image of RW, which in this case it is. (Likewise if Manoftureen tried to be a Trustee here, he would disqualify himself, because of his comments on ASoK)) And as for a diff - here. It's nice to know a Trustee thinks so highly of his community - especially one who didn't have to be elected to the post. Human has crossed a line here and is basically giving Trent a big "fuck you! this is how I repay your trust!" You're also forgetting how he conveniently ignored the community when it came to banning MC here - even offering him "sanctuary." He does not care about the community here, and therefore he should not be representing them. Do try and keep your emotions out of this, and look at the facts. --PsyGremlinTala! 16:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

That isn't a comment about RationalWiki. It's a comment about an editor, and an opinion at that. You also realize you are now feeding the troll, albeit from afar, at this point, don't you? sterile^talk 16:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh well then. Let's just leave a totally untrustworthy person on the Board then, because you're worried about feeding some insane Irishman. Fuck that. --PsyGremlinHable! 16:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I think this point has spilled over both dispute pages. They should try and sync up otherwise there will be problems of people going in circles. ^{d hominem} 16:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

True - but it probably won't happen. When , exactly, are the next elections? souldn't we be at work with the nominations?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

If it is 1 year after the 2010 elections then nominations will start December 10th. Тy^talk 18:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I also don't think it's a big deal, and will be voting to retain Human. He hasn't actually done anything, and there shouldn't be any restrictions on who RW Board Members are allowed to associate with.--^talk 22:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether I would vote for him again, since he is barely active on-wiki anymore, but I don't support the view that making negative comments (here on elsewhere) about how things are currently being run means he no longer has valid opinions about the interests of the site/community. Quite the opposite in fact; users should speak out about things they disagree with. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The fact remains that he has a perfectly good forum here to raise any complaints. Instead he has scurried off to side with an out-and-out troll, and talk about members of this wiki behind their backs. These are not the actions of somebody who "cares deeply about this site" and certainly not the actions of somebody in a position of responsibility on this site. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 09:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

If you really think it's a big deal, don't vote for him again for the Foundation.--^talk 10:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so at least that makes it official then - RWF Trustees are untouchable during their term, even if they run the wiki into the ground, and accuse by implication the Foundation, Trent and you AD of fraud. Nice one! Just the kind of people we want running the foundation. Hey! Fuck it! Let's make MC a Trustee! --PsyGremlinParla! 11:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Calm down, Psy. Maybe AD didn't see that edit yet. -- Nx / talk 11:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not all busted up about Human's typo corrections. Goddamn, people, just stop reading the stupid site. It is boring. I'm a central part of his fantasy, and even I find it tedious. He's a grumpkin so thoroughly obsessed that he's created an entire site in homage to his need for attention. The whole thing is something to ignore, as he ardently licks his monitor and shudders to climax when reading our mentions of his nom de douche. If Human finds it entertaining and needs an outlet for his anger, that's something to pity. MC is gone from this site, something I am very happy about. So let him fill tissues over on his new Obsess-a-thon, and let's go about our business.--^talk 12:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)q

Jesus Christ, it's like it's run by the self-appointed cool girls in your average junior high school

How, exactly, should we denigrate this particular guy? Sometimes he has cooties, but sometimes he smells. Which do you think, Cindy?" B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 18:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Please stop linking, you're just as bad as Human. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 18:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

You're just as bad as Hitler. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 18:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Well you're just as bad as the Spaniards of Cordoba in 1391. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 18:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I hear that what they did to the Jews was pretty nasty. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 18:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Nothing like the savageries you've inflicted. 22:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Those fuckin' bunnies were asking for it. With their little noses and all. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 22:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I changed my mind

Let's put a prominent link to MCWiki on the saloon bar or somewhere. Anyone who wants to go feed the troll can go there, and keep it away from RW. Problem solved. -- Nx / talk 22:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Just wondering, when did this whole MC shit start up? Can anyone give a quick summary? Osaka Sun (talk) 23:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

MC is older than dirt (or at least he joined right about the same time as I did, just a few short months after the wiki started). He's been "trolling" essentially since the start, and was basically RW's pet troll until people started deciding that RW was too grown up to have pets anymore. At which point we learned that he had no intentions of going anywhere, and just made life more and more difficult for the people who wanted him gone (in that, they spent more and more of their time trying to get rid of him.) --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 23:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Basically, he's a fucking loser. Garçon^coffee! 00:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

And so are the people who make such a drama out of everything he says or does. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

As for me, I'm eagerly awaiting the release of his novel about RW. Yes, novel, you heard right. Blue (is useful) 01:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll just wait for the movie adaptation. ^gnostic 01:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Wake me when the stage musical adaptation of the movie comes out. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 09:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

In that case we should probably think about re-casting. Seth Rogen looks nothing like me, plus I'm not Canadian. SJ ^Debaser 11:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

what ace reckons

firstly, wow! There is an mcwiki? Really? What the fuck? I am signing up there as soon as I drag myself out of bed and clean the blood of the floor. Secondly, I love ya psy but I think thus a nonissue. So Human bitchs, meh. Ace^ace 02:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

My proposed resolution

I agree with Psy that the accusations against Human are nothing at all to sneeze at, especially given the accusations on that Wiki made against the Foundation itself, which is (in my opinion) conduct unbecoming a Trustee. My only problem is that Board elections are just a month away and, until then, there is no Foundation business before the Board other than, perhaps, removing Human from the Trustees. To me, it's a matter of what's most economical. I personally don't think (knowing that a 2/3 vote is required to remove a member) that it would make sense for the Trustee to open a discussion about removing Human. In my opinion, the most sensible and economical way to go about this is to hold a moderator-level vote to see if they'd like to bar Human from re-election. If they wish to bar him from re-election, then there is no business on the Trustee level he'd be involved in until the election and, at that point, he'd be barred from re-election and so someone else would take his place. I understand the level of concern until then, but rest assured that there is little he'd be able to do as a Trustee until that point. What sayeth the Wiki? The Symphony of Noise ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 11:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I mostly agree, except if you want to bar Human from re-election that should either be decided by the board or the voters. This is foundation business, the moderators have nothing to do with it. -- Nx / talk 11:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd have to consult with the Trustees about barring him from re-election. Mostly, however, my point is that, elections being a month away and knowing there is nothing pressing on the RWF agenda, it makes zero sense to me to try and remove him from the Board provided that he doesn't get re-elected. Thus, I'd like to leave this as much at the Wiki-at-large level as possible. If that means that people like Psy need to campaign to keep Human off, so be it. I assure you that actions like this one will win Human zero friends here. But a complete shake-up at the Foundation level just a month out from elections and with no other business pressing before us doesn't make economical sense to me, given the worst we could do is fire him and replace him for a month with someone who'd do just as much nothing as Human would in that timespan. The Symphony of Noise ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 12:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, judging from the edits he's made that aren't just changing things to capital letters and rollbacks, I don't think he has much intention of being involved in the RWF any more. So this will probably be a complete non-issue either way. ^pathetic 12:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, it feels a bit like a "let's hope it all goes away quietly" solution, with nobody wanting to make any sort of decision, or for there to be any censure. If Human does stand for re-election, then the whole thing is going to open up again. This needs to be resolved before the next election. What if it was in 6 months' time? --PsyGremlinParla! 15:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we must seize the moment! A chance for needless drama! Really, 'let's hope it all goes away quietly' sounds good to me. Broccoli (talk) 15:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Just don't vote for him seems the easy solution. If it is like last time and there is as many people running as position chuck your hat into the ring. - π 23:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you have irrefutable proof that that is me? ħuman 03:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

No, no we don't. And if it ain't, I for one owe you a big, fat apology. Is it you? B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 03:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Exhibit A, Exhibit B. Note the time. And if it isn't you, then why was your reply to this coop case "Go fuck yourself you stupid whining loser" instead of "That's not me you stupid whining loser"? -- Nx / talk 07:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh of course it's him. Not even worth stressing about.--^talk 08:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Fresh from under my rock I say:

Anyone who can understand anything written at "MCWiki," and takes it seriously, needs to have his head examined. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 08:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't wait for the Occupy MCWiki movement to start up. sterile^talk 11:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Does ANYONE on this wiki not feed the troll that is MC? Are you all just that chomping at the bit to run out an troll MC right back? Seriously? It wasn't enough to ban him from this wiki, to revert and ban any edits that look like they're coming from him, and to revert edits made by OTHER USERS that look like they're from him. Oh no... now we have to bring the shit storm onto his own wiki... bravo RW... bravo... you're pathetic. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 11:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Somebody call the wahmbulance. MC will be happy for all the attention he gets and meanwhile we can keep him off RW. Win-win. -- Nx / talk 13:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Conservative Punk (talk) 13:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

... and the same "keeps MC off RW" effect can be just as easily accomplished without RW trolling MCwiki. The only thing trolling MCwiki will do is stir up shit here. Rather than having editors be constructive here, they're being destructive there. For an editor like MC, where the community has determined that they won't ever be constructive here, fine, whatever, let him go troll in his own little wiki. But wasting GOOD contributors, like Röstigraben to sitting around trolling on MCwiki? Why? So, if you want to call the "wahmbulance" for me, because I'm upset that good editors here are wasting time there, then go ahead, I'll be happy to ride that wahmbulance to the death of RationalWiki... --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 13:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

So MC can troll RW all he likes and we're authoritarian cunts for banning him, but if we go play on his wiki, suddenly it's "why do you guys have to be so mean? Wah wah wah". -- Nx / talk 13:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Did you even read my comment? I didn't say "you're so mean", I said "you're wasting constructive work that could be spent on RW". --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 13:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

So what? Who are you to tell me what to do with my free time? -- Nx / talk 13:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Erm, Eira... why are you editing MCW then? I'd think you are a good editor so why are you wasting you're time there? I think it would be much more productive to debunk bullshit here, then to smear (or whatever you do over there, I haven't checked your contribs there yet) people over there. --★uːʤɱ pirate 14:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)