RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive25

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Moderator Possesses Creationist Bias Against Electric Universe[edit]

This discussion was moved to Talk:Electric universe.

Archiving timestamp. Тyeh? 03:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Abusive blocks[edit]

Several users are ceaselessly blocking me. It must stop, now. I'm not going to roll with the punches, I'm not going to take it in stride, and I'm not going to just forget about it. It is really fucking annoying and I'm getting sick of it. Cut it out and get a life.--"Shut up, Brx." 03:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

"I'm not gonna take it any longer" Good for you, stand up and fight the good fight! but realize this site is not very receptive to you, and realize that the allies you do have is a short list, and realize you might just want to go find a site that doesn't hate you. --il'Dictator Mikal 03:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Brx has allies? Also the claimant makes no documented charges. They're called difflinks/loglinks, kiddo. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Nx/UHM. Both of whom appear to have buggered off. ArchieGoodwin (talk) 03:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
By the way, fuckwad, see how your signature does not link to your user page or talk page? That's fucking irritating. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
"It's just that my threshold for bullshit is busted today" And so are all the people who might be sick of you's. I mean, all the people who are sick of you's threshold is also overloaded. Fuck it. Bricks, you apparently pissed off everyone on the same day. Give me a good reason to stick up for you other than "I am a bored teenager". ħumanUser talk:Human 03:43, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
It is not customary here on the Wiki to deal out long blocks to people with no block rights. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 03:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
He had rights when the blocks occured. ArchieGoodwin (talk) 03:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
It has, however - correct me if I am wrong - become customary to drive off those whose presence is not desired or generally irritating? Hmmm, something seems wrong about that. Heck, why not just drown him in RC with interesting edits to interesting pages and ignore the little twerp? ħumanUser talk:Human 03:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
You aren't wrong. Nothing wrong with it. No. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 14:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Human. Trying to drive Brxbrx away isn't called for; he's not doing anything that can't be ignored. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 14:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


Vote relocated from ATIM.--ADtalkModerator 07:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Brx has been a non-stop irritant at this site, a continual cause of grief for the site ever since he arrived. This recent vandalism 1) Came at a time when Brx had himself said he was going to cause some trouble after being blocked yesterday 2) Brx protested his treatment some time later on RWW, where he has been permently banned he was banned for his troubles. Almost immediately, the vandalism resumed (thanks Archie) 3) The targets were very Brx-centric (including the Brx template and Nutty) 4) The vandalism was very ED in content, a place frequented by Brx 5) Brx engaged in similar vandalism on my page at ED. Someone is either trying to imitate Brx or it is Brx. AceModerator 05:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Sooooo, we voting to ban him now or what? Тyeh? 05:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Sure--il'Dictator Mikal 05:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
It may not seem like it but I don't always aim to disagree with you guys but again I have to. Are we banning BrxBrx for being irritating as is directly mentioned in Ace's post? On what planet do people here agree to ban a person for being irritating? Am I next to be banned; I seem to spend alot of time clashing with people? Or are we banning him for conducting the goatse attack which Ace heavily insinuates was conducted by BrxBrx/his cronies for which only weak circumstantial evidence is presented? Or both?
I can be convinced that BrxBrx conducted the goatse attack, and if so I think that a medium term ban would be appropriate (1-3 months). I cannot be convinced that a person should ever be permanently banned for being irritating and, frankly, anyone that buys into that argument is pathetic.Tielec01 (talk) 06:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Jesus, mutha fucking, Christ. I never suggested any permanent ban. I voted on it but never mentioned it. AceModerator 06:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
If this is addressed to me you will noticed that I didn't say you proposed the ban. However,you are the only person who actually provides any solid reasons that BrxBrx should be banned. It was these reasons I was referring to. Tielec01 (talk) 06:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Brx's defence[edit]

So. I have steadfastly denied my involvement in this string of vandal attacks. The evidence against me is circumstantial. If you ask me who I think it is, I think it is SuspectedReplicant. He has used Goatse to vandalize before, and this persistent sort of streak is more reminiscent of him than it is of me. For Christ's sake, I have ADHD. I can't do something like that for 8 straight hours. Moreover, I live in Arizona. During the vandalism spree, it was night time here (right? when did it start again?). I have also said that I was playing Europa Universalis all morning. I am working on provided a screencap of my save file records to prove this. I don't think there are sufficient grounds to ban me. When MarcusCicero was banned, he admitted his crimes. I have done nothing, and have admitted to nothing.--"Shut up, Brx." 08:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Clarity: I am pretty sure I was asleep during the first half of the vandalism, and the morning of I was playing Europa Universalis--"Shut up, Brx." 08:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
And what is your story when it comes to the other, non vandalism edits over the period that claim to be you asking to be unblocked. If you were playing this game, why did you come look at rw, see that you were being blocked and framed, and decide to appeal there and then during the chaos? Peter tanquam ex ungue leonem 08:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I came to ask to be unblocked after my bout of playing EU. Also, I'd like to say that it's nearly 2 AM for me right now, and I am editing because my midnight snack took longer than intended.--"Shut up, Brx." 08:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
...and these screenshots you were going to provide? And it started at 14:37 server time, which would have been 7:37 am for you I believe, which is hardly night time. Peter tanquam ex ungue leonem 08:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
My mistake, I thought it had started the night before. As for the screenshots, it'll be a while. I'm recovering deleted autosaves from my hard drive. And even without the screenshots, there isn't enough evidence to ban me.--"Shut up, Brx." 08:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
And you can't take a screenshot of the process? More importantly, did you make this edit and were you aware at the time of the lull in vandalism? Why did you use tor (and not some other proxy, I'm aware that you were blocked) to do it? Peter tanquam ex ungue leonem 09:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I was unaware of it, and it helps to show that I am being framed. After I made that final edit to DickTurpis' talk page, I resorted to communicating solely through email, so as to not compromise my identity. I emailed several users: Tielec01, Dickturpis, JeevesMk1, ListenerX (who seems to think I'm guilty, sadly), and maybe some others. --"Shut up, Brx." 09:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I'll take a screenshot of the process. And I did not make that edit. Any edits that occurred after this and before my unblocking are not from me--"Shut up, Brx." 09:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Here you go. As you can see, it'll take a little while, but should be done today. Hopefully the program will manage to recover enough files to show that I was playing video games at the time most of this happened--"Shut up, Brx." 09:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
So this 'CamilleT' providing a similar story to what you just did on ATIM is not you? Get your story straight. Peter tanquam ex ungue leonem 09:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC) Oops, misread - gimmie a sec. Peter tanquam ex ungue leonem 09:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: the second shot - can you not provide a screenshot of the recycle bin? How were these saves deleted and when? Peter tanquam ex ungue leonem 09:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The saves are deleted automatically as a function of the game, and are not present in the recycling bin. This is the only way I know of to recover them. --"Shut up, Brx." 09:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The core of my defense[edit]

I do not believe UHM to be guilty, and if he is found to be innocent, then the pitchforks and torches will be at my doorstep again, so here is the continuation of my defense.

I, playing as the nation of Prussia on Europa Universalis, clearly could not have been the vandal, since the large amount of time I spent playing occurred at roughly the same time as the spree--"Shut up, Brx." 15:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I can only see two saves in that that are relevant - one at 10:23am your time (17:23 server) and one at 12:31pm (19:30). Not much for 8 hours, surely? And what were you doing at 7:30 your time when it all began, given that you were apparently up (see below section). And what about between 19:30 and 22:27?
I ask this because it's easily possible that both you and UHM were the culprits: just because he confessed to do it doesn't mean he wasn't helped. Or told to do it. Peter tanquam ex ungue leonem 03:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't take orders. Especially not from brx. --ʤɱ socialist 05:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the whole "brx has allies/cronies" thing is rather silly. Even people that have endorsed my points of view on this wiki have spoken out against me and my ways. Also, Peter, the times are a little funky on the recovery screen cap. They always are. I'll have another look at it in the morning and see if I can't account for it. This may involve math, unfortunately. It's a shame I don't have allies. I could get one of them to do it for me.--"Shut up, Brx." 05:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

An additional facet to my defense[edit]

Remember this, everybody? Well, I had made an attempt to defend myself over at RWW, with the edit summary I have the right to tell my side of the story. A short while later the vandal used the same edit summary to make this edit(warning- loading this diff may cause you to see the goatse image, depending on your user preferences). This was obviously an attempt to set me up.

  1. Why would I claim innocence and then vandalize, inculpating myself?
  2. As can be seen here my browser does not remember edit summaries in that fashion, so it could not have been a mistake

This isn't fingerprints on the knife or video footage, but this should help to cast doubt on my involvement--"Shut up, Brx." 09:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Curious discrepancy[edit]

A chronology of the early events of the first wave. See these three screenshots: 1,2, and 3:

  1. 14:29 - Nutty permabans brx.
  2. 14:39 - KenY is registered.
  3. 14:37 - KenY vandalises the holydaze template being displayed, taking out RC.
  4. 14:37 - KenY vandalises {{brx}}
  5. 14:55 - Nutty undoes damage.
  6. 15:02 - Brx unblocks himself.
  7. 15:08 - Brx is reblocked and promoted.
  8. 15:48 - IP vandalism begins after a lull since 14:40

But I thought Brx was supposed to be asleep/playing computer games at this time? Peter tanquam ex ungue leonem 02:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Brxbrx: Vote[edit]

This vote has been closed. Please do not add, remove or change votes.
The result of this vote was: No ban.

Standard franchise. See the voting guidelines for more information.

Brxbrx: Permaban him or ban him for an agreed upon length of time[edit]

  1. Тysic semper 05:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  2. Please, PLEASE. AceModerator 05:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  3. Peter tanquam ex ungue leonem 05:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  4. --Dumpling (talk) 05:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  5. --MtDPrematurely Indeterminate 06:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  6. P-Foster (My vote has nothing to do with yesterday's events. It is based on the fact that the guy does nothing here but cause tension and acrimony.) Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 12:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  7. Even with the below, he's such scum. CopperheadHisssssss 12:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  • This vote is only to satisfy my moral outrage at having to see Brxbrx's name ever appear on RC again, but I don't want to see him banned. I want to see him and Maratrean bullied and harassed until they fuck off, because that's what useless irritating narcissist scumbags get when they go up against a more or less coherent group of people who despise them. We suck at getting community bans right. Haven't done it yet in my opinion. This one's already shaping up poorly. — Unsigned, by: Nutty Roux / talk / contribs 15:51, 9 April 2012

Brxbrx: Don't ban him[edit]

  • Not enough evidence.--ZooGuard (talk) 09:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  1. I think this is part of a continuing vendetta against Brxbrx by certain users, including the moderator who has proposed this ban started this discussion. There is no hard evidence that Brxbrx was behind any anonymous attacks. For all we know, one or more of Brxbrx's enemies has done it, in an attempt to frame him. (((Zack Martin))) 05:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  2. Don't care for him, but haven't seen damning evidence or arguments against him. Blue (is useful) 06:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  3. it's all circumstantial. Nothing brx has ever done has hinted at him being behind it. Over-reaction. Get over it and move on. PsyGremlinHable! 06:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  4. See below.--Bob"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." 07:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  5. Not sufficient evidence against him.--ADtalkModerator 07:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  6. As yet the evidence is not compelling, but I am prepared to listen to any new evidence or arguments. --DamoHi 07:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  7. --"Shut up, Brx." 08:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  8. Banning would not stop the vandalism. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD memberModerator 08:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  9. He's a waste of good bandwidth but banning him wouldn't fix the problem. rpeh •TCE 10:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  10. If there was enough evidence I'd be the first to say 'shove in the airlock', but right now I can't see that there is enough evidence.--Stunteddwarf Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 10:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  11. We need a goat her at RW that we can slaughter when we get particularly upset.Tielec01 (talk) 10:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  12. Brxbrx is no TK. --Editor at CPmały książe 11:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  13. Apparently not guilty of this vandalism; doesn't do much harmful that can't be ignored. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  14. It seems like the only argument to ban him is that some of the more vocal members dislike him, not a reason in my book. Pi 3:14 (talk) 13:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  15. i cant vote to ban somebody if somebody else is admitting to doing it--il'Dictator Mikal 13:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  16. Gettin' too much like Wikipedia around here with all this talk about banning. Sheesh. Secret Squirrel (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  17. Given the new evidence that UHM did it, I cannot, in good faith, support a ban of Brxbrx for something he likely didn't do. At least, there's no real evidence that he did it and not UHM. Lord of Reckless Noise Hooray! I'm helping! 14:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  18. Other than the way too general "he's a dick" complaints, the only thing brought before the Coop has been the vandal attack, which it seems more and more to be not his doing. Personally I find people's reaction to Brx to be more annpying than Brx himself. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 14:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  19. He's a revolting liar, a racist, misogynist, and ED troll who's done nothing but cause trouble and upset people I respect who contribute things of value to this site, unlike this shit for brains with the charm of a greasy wad of someone else's pubic hair or a befouled public toilet. But we don't ban people for that sort of thing, no matter how occasionally disappointing that is. Let's just continue blocking him and removing his rights until he gets the picture, now that we're in this lovely utopian rules-based regime where that kind of thing makes perfect sense. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 14:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  20. Don't ban. BootMii 15:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  21. Despite his creepy and continuing intrusions into my personal life, I'm going to say "not ban". Occasionaluse (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  22. He might be a pain in the ass, but he hasn't done anything. Why is this vote still here? Senator Harrison (talk) 23:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC) //I don't mean literally take the vote down.
  23. More Ace & crew bullshit. nobsbullies are people, too. 12:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
  24. I like Ace, but sometimes I think that he is a bit hard on brxbrx. --Opcn with regards to regarding my regardliness 09:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
  25. wikipedia:Parable_of_the_Tares. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Brxbrx: Goat[edit]

  • Even in this era of goatse, the Goat vote most not be left untaken. Osaka Sun (talk) 05:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Can we get a twofer on Maratrean? - David Gerard (talk) 08:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Given the confession below, probably doesn't warrant a ban for the vandalism. Still, I'm not familiar enough with the other issues to comment one way or another on the appropriateness of a ban for general behavior. Omar (gibber) 14:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Best alternative: goat him! Rursus dixit (yada³!) 07:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Brxbrx: Those weighing in with a vote per Bricksbricks' request[edit]

  1. Derp. El TajDon't make me do stuff 11:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Brxbrx: Discussion[edit]

You fucking idiot. I didn't propose the ban. AceModerator 05:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
That's what I thought based on what Blue said. Apologies for any misunderstanding in that regard. The rest of what I said stands. (((Zack Martin))) 05:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
You fucking idiot. The conversation started long before I commented. AceModerator 05:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
The current entry, on this page, was raised by you. (((Zack Martin))) 05:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
You fucking idiot. AceModerator 05:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Maratrean, can you suggest any means to furnish the requisite "hard evidence"? Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 05:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Server logs? A confession? Evidence taken from his computer? Hard to get without getting the authorities involved, and maybe even hard for them too. Rather than trying to pin anonymous attacks on individuals — an impossible task — concentrate on technical measures, like temporarily or permanently blocking IP editing, requiring email confirmation for new accounts, rate limiting new users, etc. I'm sure if Nx had not been driven away by certain people, this site might have some such solutions already. People have to sleep in the beds they make. (((Zack Martin))) 05:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure if Nx had not been driven away by certain people Nx was not driven away. Indeed, he tried to drive myself and Human away (possibly more) and left, voluntarily, when he lost out on becoming a mod. Driven away. You fucking idiot. AceModerator 05:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
He tried to drive you away because you are a troll. But your trolling won, so he left. Your trolling drove him away. (((Zack Martin))) 05:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Since Brxbrx, by his own admission, has used Tor to edit here, server logs would be no use. We cannot reasonably operate by the same standards of proof used in law courts, where physical evidence and search warrants are available. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 05:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Rather than trying to prove who did it, why not simply block all editing from Tor? Or at least all anonymous editing? I'm sure Brxbrx is not the only editor here who has used Tor (anyone can download and use it), so the fact that he has admitted using Tor on other occasions is very marginal evidence. I'm not saying this site needs to apply the same standards of proof that courts of law do, but at the same time, the legal system recognizes that it can't solve every case, and sometimes letting a case go permanently unsolved is better than convicting someone on flimsy evidence. (((Zack Martin))) 06:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
when it is because of a dedicated attack on our website with evidence pointing to one person, no, it isnt best to just let it go.--il'Dictator Mikal 06:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

It could have been anybody, it could have been a homeschooled kid from a Religious Right family, a slightly older Aspie connected with the Riligious Right. It could have been anyone who feels other RatWikians are picking on him/her. Proxima Centauri (talk) 06:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

  1. It could have been Bx wasting eight hours of his life for something useless.
  2. It could have been someone on site who hates him so much they were prepared to spend eight hours of their life framing him in order to get rid of him.
  3. It could have been some random jerk on the internet.
  4. It could have been some weird combination of the above or something else entirely.
Not enough for me I'm afraid. --Bob"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." 07:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Maybe it was a conspiracy to make people believe that there is a conspiracy to make people believe that there isn't a conspiracy to make people believe that there is a conspiracy against Brxbrx? Just like 9/11 (((Zack Martin))) 07:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Or a giant bat?--Bob"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." 07:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
(EC: fish) It's fairly clear that #3 is not what happened: again, the targets and methods are too closely related to brx to be a coincidence. Peter tanquam ex ungue leonem 07:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
The vandal repeatedly targeted pages that came up in the Recent Changes, so if there was a brx-related discussion at the time, the pages may have attracted its attention. As far as I can remember, the attack started from highly visible pages, such as templates included in RC and the Saloon Bar. If you have evidence (diff links, log entries, etc.) that shows that the attack started from brx-specific pages, please present it.--ZooGuard (talk) 09:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Try the files recently uploaded onto RWW. [1] Peter tanquam ex ungue leonem 09:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Brxbrx: Ban length[edit]

Would 2 years be better then? Peter tanquam ex ungue leonem 07:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest 3 - 6 months. AceModerator 07:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Then cancel the current vote and start a new one when this discussion has borne fruit. Blue (pester) 07:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
You mean like this? AceModerator 07:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Again: one vote possibly misplaced in a vote that was not started according to the guidelines anyway doesn't concern me. Ten votes misplaced after the vote has been established according to the guidelines is a cause for concern. Blue (pester) 07:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Well that is fucking great Blue, I am happy it doesn't concern you. But the choice only being between permanent ban or no ban isn't particularly helpful. Changing it to a mere "ban - length to be determined" isn't going to change the permaban voters because they'll elect a permaban anyway. However it might change someones mind in that they may feel a 2 month block is warranted. AceModerator 07:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Blue; once the vote has started, it is unfair to change the rules. If you want a different ban length, start a new vote. It seems to me that Ace is trying to manipulate the vote to maximise the chance of the outcome he desires. (((Zack Martin))) 07:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
(EC)So it might make more people vote "yes," is what you're saying. It's great that you're willing to manipulate the voting process to help do Bricks in.
The change is helpful, but we would need to start the vote over to make it fair. Blue (is useful) 07:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
No, Blue, no. I don't agree with a permaban but I think he deserves a ban. My only option however is permanban. So people like me who don't want to permaban him have little choice. It isn't about doing Bricks in but about making sure there are more than permanent or nothing. AceModerator 07:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
But I do like that both you and Maratrean jump to the conclusion I am trying to manipulate the vote instead, you know, actually making the vote fairer for those voting and for Brx himself. AceModerator 08:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Simple solution: start a new vote then. (((Zack Martin))) 07:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes. I agree with you, Ace, but we can't change the options mid-vote. We would need to start a new vote with new options. Blue (pester) 08:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

or ban him for an agreed upon length of time - how long is that? Thirteen nanoseconds? (((Zack Martin))) 08:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Presumably this will be worked out via consensus. Blue (is useful) 08:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
"Voting" does not allow for consensus, sorry. It forces the issue. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I guess it would require another vote, wouldn't it now? Assuming this vote passes, there needs to be another vote on how long to ban him for (I guess multiple choice.) (((Zack Martin))) 08:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I was thinking some more about this... I think some sort of straw poll to determine what should be the choices... which I think should include the options of permaban, some sort of de minimis ban (e.g. one day or less), and various options in between. Once the choices have been determined, then there should be preferential voting (e.g. STV) among the choices. Since logically, if you oppose a ban, then if there is to be a ban despite your position, you would want it to be as short as possible, so you should be able to vote preferentially in order of length — others of course could have different preference orderings. First past the post can't possibly do justice to this sort of question. (((Zack Martin))) 08:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually the first vote should be determining guilty or not guilty. The second vote (if needed) would determine sentence. We have been sidetracked by discussion anout sentence. Lets see if we can safely decide on a verdict before worrying about step 2. --DamoHi 09:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I was talking about the second vote, the sentence phase. I was proposing a straw vote to find out what are the major positions, then STV (or similar) to determine which is most preferred. Which I guess makes three votes in all. (((Zack Martin))) 09:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
You are confusing the issue (perhaps deliberately). What we really need is for someone (and one person alone owuld be best) to collate all the evidence into a coherent argument as to why BrxBrx is guilty, and then let Brx defend himself against that. Its all higgledy piggledy at the moment and is guaranteed to result in no action. DamoHi 09:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't the one who confused the issue. The person who confused the issue was the one who decided, part way through a vote on a Permaban, to turn it into a vote for a ban of yet to be determined duration; i.e. Ace McWicked. If he had done what I suggested (and I believe that Blue was suggesting the same thing), and started a new vote for a different determinate sentence, this confusion would never have arisen. (((Zack Martin))) 09:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi Maratrean. I was hoping you'd stay gone. Nobody likes you. Please go away again. Thanks. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 13:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

This is why "voting" is so stupid. Some idiot sets up two or three options with about 7 seconds of thought put into it, and hours later the discussion exposes what the options probably should have been - long after most people who care have "voted". Discussion is far more important than "voting". ħumanUser talk:Human 02:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

When i set it up, it was just "ban" "dont ban" and "goat", partially because we wanted to act fast and partially because i had no idea what a normal length of time would be. sorry. --il'Dictator Mikal 02:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
And I didn't mean to call any given user an "idiot" for setting it up. The idiocy is in the silliness of a system that starts with voting and ends with discussion, signifying nothing. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
My first impulse when I saw the vote set up was to delete it. Had I been a moderator I would have done so. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 17:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I demand a recount[edit]

I feel that wthose weighing in with a vote perr bricksbrixs requestu are underreperesented in this particular sample. El TajDon't make me do stuff 22:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)