RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive27

RWW

I've been trying to get Trent to stop hosting that crap for years. ħuman 02:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

wha?--il'Dictator Mikal 02:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It's a disgusting meta-trollfest with no value to the Foundation whatsoever, that we still pay for. ħuman 02:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

why DO you pay for it anyways?--il'Dictator Mikal 02:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

When I was first editing here, I was thankful for the existence of RationalWikiWiki, which gave me a wealth of background information about RationalWiki's early history and who was who. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I use RWW to see a generalish opinion of me. --il'Dictator Mikal 03:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I know that Goonie is trying to work out buying the operation. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 02:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

That story is over a year old. We should pull the plug on its hosting, mothball it in archive, and let anyone who wants to buy the DN or the content make a compelling offer. I'm thinking about $1000 for both, as a starting point. Or, of course, anyone could fork it while it's live and take honest ownership of it. ħuman 02:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's some real information about this, for anyone who cares. Blue (is useful) 03:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah that's some "real" information right there. Smooth move, asshole. 03:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I always assumed the cost of hosting RWW was sort of negligible (not sure why, probably due to the fact that it exists at all). Anyone have an estimate on it's real cost to the Foundation? Before we talk about shutting it down we should know what doing so will save us. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 11:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Approximately $20 every month or so. There's currently a discussion going on over there and something in the works to offset this expense to the Foundation. RWW is going to, in the near future, set up and account to reimburse the RWF for RWW's expenses. Otherwise, the costs of hosting RWW are negligible compared to other costs the RWF incures. Especially when one considers the donations members of RWW currently make to the RWF that indirectly cover RWW's expenses. Lord of Reckless Noise ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 12:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

That plus the intellectual cost of hosting what has become a site where people whose only aim here is to mess the site up brag about their exploits and whine about their lives... It serves no purpose. ħuman 02:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Tor

OK so this is related but also off at a tangent. It seems most of the problems we have with dickheads going off on a vandal spree is people using Tor. On RW there really is no need to use Tor, as we don't have checkuser and anyone can set up an anonymous account without even setting (let alone verifying) an email address. Therefore would it not save a lot of these HCMs if we use a script to regularly check the list of exit nodes and ban the IPs (including account creation)? If people are concerned about their host / ISP detecting them accessing sites such as RW could we not install a cheap SSL certificate to allow people to use https://rationalwiki.org? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 08:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Trent has mentioned somewhere around here that banning tor - I'm not sure about the mechanism he proposed - would cause the site to become rather slow. But if that's not an issue when it comes to simply blocking 'em all I'm all for it. And how cheap is cheap when it comes to SSL? Peter ^{tanquam ex ungue leonem} 08:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Something to take into account: Iran, Dubai, etc. Some countries have a national firewall, and Tor and similar programs are used to circumvent it. Not sure if this is a significant factor, but it's worth nothing.--^talk 08:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah that's why I thought of the SSL version for those situations. Wouldn't help against man in the middle attacks, but then I thought Tor wouldn't either. @PeterL: You can get a domain verified cert for less than a tenner in under an hour these days. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 08:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

A bit of a discussion about tor was/is happening on Trent's talk page Blue (pester) 09:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you link to the appropriate thread? That things a mess. ħuman 02:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

This was not an "HCM" in any way that I can see. We need a better acronym for these events. I suggest MLMLM. ħuman 02:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Can we close this down now

No ban for Brx, Ban for UHM seems to be the outcome. Ace^Moderator 20:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 20:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

^--il'Dictator Mikal 20:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

We should wait until the votes actually expire before implementing anything. Blue (pester) 20:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

if you really think so but it seems pretty clear cut as UHM admitted it and the server logs suggest this is the case. Ace^Moderator 20:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd leave UHM open, at least for now. Votes still seem to be coming in, and we allegedly have a lot more active members who should get a chance to have their say. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

And considering we need a 2/3 majority to ban UHM, the margin is actually pretty small right now. Blue (pester) 20:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

What are the options with UHM exactly? Be banned as punishment or basically face a severe shunning as punishment, right? il'Dictator Mikal 20:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Ace hates our rules (and by extension RW), so it's understandable that he would want to shit all over them. There's no consensus about UHM and the whole thing is soon to blow over. Let's let sleeping dogs lie before Ace can turn this into the dramafest he so desires. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't hate the rules. Just wanting to close this shit down. I am happy to wait until the vote is over. Ace^Moderator 21:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

What are you proposing, Ace? A Bush v Gore type solution to stop vote counting? nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 21:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Theres a dispute as to which side has more votes?--il'Dictator Mikal 21:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It is a moot point anyway because as an admitted vandal he is in the vandal bin as per RW policy. Ace^Moderator 21:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

PFoster wants him banned? a high school kid who doesn't even know what a fucking GED is? gimme a break. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 21:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that comment rob, it has added so much to this discussionil'Dictator Mikal 21:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

So what else do you have? a bunch of socks voting to ban someone? BFD. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 21:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, Rob once again demonstrates he has no idea what he's talking about. Anyway, about the vandal bin, how long does he stay in there? It seems that's only meant to prevent an ongoing vandal attack, and since he hasn't been vandalizing of late, and the vandalism wasn't done from his account anyway, is there a point in keeping him there? Turpis 3:16 (talk) 21:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Probably not, but it isnt like any of these would stop him either, as several ban and dont ban voters have pointed out. il'Dictator Mikal 21:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

He admitted to being the goatse vandal and used his main account to delete pages. Vandal's go in the vandal bin. Ace^Moderator 21:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Correct. Тy^rannis 21:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Mikalos just told me vandalism can be justified. So I don't see what the fuss is here. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 21:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, Rob, stop talking. You just look like more and more of an idiot with each edit. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 23:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It never ceases to amaze me how many people you want to "just shut up", Foster. Quite suspicious… quite suspicious…

If I remember correctly I was nearly feathered for blocking Ace longer than 9 hours for wandalizing my userpages. So either you can either only block me for 9 hours + punishment for deleting 4 pages (which considering other blocklengths previously given should be quite less than 6 months or not a block at all but just a loss of sysopship) or you can count every vandal attack as mine and give me 9 hours for every single vandal edit + punishment for deleting pages. Keep in mind that the blocks already given should be substracted of that sentence. I honestly doubt that would be more than a week, although I invite everyone to personally count it. Also, Rob, stop talking. There's no agenda against me, only a witch-hunt against brx.

Oh before this thing goes through and I don't have a chance to say it anymore, the e-mail put up by brx is authentic, just thought I say that so any BS thinking he'd make stuff up to save my ass is out of the window. Also, the RW account Ullhateme is mine. And no account has been hacked. ★uːʤɱ constructivist 06:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you want to make up some more rules or are you done? Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 06:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Depends on wether you recognize sarcasm or not. --★uːʤɱ federalist 07:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Say that's great. Ace^Moderator 07:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

An alternative proposal

Lets just ban everyone under 21 years old. These kids are more trouble than they're worth. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 21:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Ohhh good plan! Ace^Moderator 21:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey! If I am old enough to go to war, I am old enough to edit RationalWiki!±KnightOfTL;DR^{going galt: the literal crazy train} 21:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Тy^{Please do not click on this} 21:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

perhaps we could create a creche or playpen for those under 21? Ace^Moderator 21:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that I am 21 now.--"Shut up, Brx." 21:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I think we meant 22 actually. Ace^Moderator 21:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I accept ace's idea as long as there are building blocks and lego's. --il'Dictator Mikal 21:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Why not 26? Because liberals who passed Obamacare made it so an "Adult Child" can remain as their parents dependents until they are 26 years old. Let's get with the program. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 21:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Jesus fuck that was a moronic thing to say. 22:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Given that he is parroting Ann Coulter any way it highlights what a moron he is. Pi 3:14 (talk) 07:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I should like to propose banning everyone under 50.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 06:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm 24, bitch. And don't make Dumpling wait another 60 years till she can edit. ★uːʤɱ kant 06:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

As is well known, I would also be banned under this proposal. Blue (is useful) 06:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

WTF? Some people round here really need to grow up and act their physical age. (No names, but you know who you are.)  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 06:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

(EC)Well, it's a good thing thy're not being serious then. Right, right? Peter ^{tanquam ex ungue leonem} 06:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

She's right as usual. 12:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't ban me! Mr. Anon (talk) 00:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Just a question: how old are the oldest users on this site? I know TK was over 50 when he died, but who else? Mr. Anon (talk) 01:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Put it this way, if we followed Bob's suggestion that anyone under 50 is banned there would still be quite a few of us left. We could stand at the bar wearing Arran sweaters and drinking real ale out of pewter tankards grumbling about how the young have no respect nowadays. Bob Soles (talk) 07:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

TK was 60-odd. There's a few 60-somethings around. I'm not aware of any users aged 70+, but who knows? ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Weren't we going to start an old codgers club one time?--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 08:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Ace Mc Wicked and P-Foster

This discussion was moved to Forum:Drama dump. 04:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Rob

For being a prick. He can fuck off to Free Republic where his moronic dribblings belong.

• Move log
• deletion log

• Sophie^{because liberals} 18:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Either Rob really believes in everything he says and does here, in which case he's a delusional idiot and he shouldn't be here, or he doesn't believe it, in which case he's a troll and shouldn't be here. P-Foster Talk "The existing superstructure has handed out crumbs. We don’t want crumbs; we want the whole loaf now.” --Ras Frank I 18:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Although he talks utter bollocks, that's no huge deal; I'm bringing this here because of his moving and deleting of a forum where he's losing the argument. Sophie^{because liberals} 19:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

So vote on it already. -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Sophie, you're coming off like a real bitch. Maybe we should desysop you, too... Occasionaluse (talk) 19:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

It's called Not Putting Up With Shitheads on RW Anymore. Sophie^{because liberals} 19:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I love how helpless the cabal is against it's obsessions. OMG someone is annoying on the internet! I'm unquestionably incapable of ignoring them, so we must act!!!! Occasionaluse (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Can't ignore someone who deletes stuff. Sophie^{because liberals} 20:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Can't blow stuff out of proportion without being a huge bitch. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

There's so much deletion in that log... what exactly is he actually deleting? It looks like he deleted a forum thread only prior to restoring it under a different name.--^talk 20:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

He disliked the name of the thread so he kept moving it to what he wanted, despite the community liking the original name. A move-war il'Dictator Mikal 20:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

So that's not deletion at all, is it? It's an edit war, and he wasn't alone in that. Certainly not cause or evidence for banning. Is there any evidence?--^talk 20:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

We arent asking to ban him, just desysop him. & Deletion was \part of his war to get what he wanted as a topic title. --il'Dictator Mikal 20:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The page title, in this and the last time this happened yesterday, was specifically derogatory to him and changed after it was already going and he was involved. If we're talking about the same incidents?--^talk 20:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Other than "he uses big words", how is Rob any different from bricks? They're both equally annoying, and equally wankers. --24.212.154.38 (talk) 21:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Seriously Rob

There is a vote going on here re: Rob abusing his powers by continually moving a page against consensus. This morning, Rob decided to move the goddam page again. This is like a guy on trial for robbery holding up one of the jurors during the trial. The man is an abusive troll. Please find a way to make him behave. The guy has to learn how to not troll so hard. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 12:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I must admit that it does sort of make me want to change my vote. It certainly does look like a deliberate provocation.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 12:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand the "just ignore the troll" crowd. I envy those folks, 'cause I can't do that and my life would be easier if I could. But for Christ's sake, abusing a power while you're being cooped for abusing that power? That takes a real troll. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 13:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Aren't you the guy that told brx & Co. the wiki shouldn't change just for a few people? How can you say it should change for you? --Rutherford (talk) 14:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Nice try, but I'm not asking for change. I'm asking for existing guidelines to be respected. Continually moving and re-moving a page against community consensus, and then doing that again while being cooped for it isn't cool. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 14:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

IIRC blocking people for three months without community consensus and desysop'ing them without consensus is also "against the rules". --Rutherford (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Alright, you've proven that you're too stupid to know what Tu quoque is all about. If you think my behaviour is an issue, open a separate Coop case against me. Until then, this section is reserved for talking about the present case. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 21:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

(a) You are not a moderator and have no say what can be talked about or not. (b) Cooping you leads to exactly nothing at all, as the majority agrees with you you can do whatever you want on that issue. Everybody knows the electorate only uses the rules. (c) Really? I'm to stupid when you can't even keep a discussion up without getting personal? --Rutherford (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

A. You can talk about whatever you want, but flapping your gums about an irrelevant issue in a particular section isn't doing anything to advance your agenda. B. If the majority agrees with me, then I guess your concerns are of zero account. C. Calling you out for using a fallacy that we even have a damn article on isn't getting personal; your basic argument is "I know you are, but what am I." Surely you can do better. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 12:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

You are way more stupid than you first appear to be. See you RationalWiki, until you clean out scum like this, this project is too dysfunctional to waste time on. --Rutherford (talk) 22:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

THE HORROR! Rob continually (what, like 3 times) moving/deleting/restoring a page made by the cabal for the expressed purpose of trolling Rob. Honestly, you fucking aspies are ridiculous. Stick to adding cats and editing css. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that Marcus.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 13:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Glad you agree OU is right, Bob. 13:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

And I'm glad that you understand so well. We are all very glad.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 13:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not. El Taj^{Don't make me do stuff} 14:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I understand just fine, Bob. For you it's about sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting Marcus Marcus with your head between your knees. For everyone else it's about the rules applying differently to Rob than others, which is good because Foster and Ace's coops would have gone farther if you assholes really had the stomach to follow through with integrity regardless if who gets cooped. 14:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone else find it slightly ironic that Bob originally authored don't feed the troll? Maybe it's time to read it again, old timer? Occasionaluse (talk) 14:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

As the single believer registered here, Bobert, you do realize that "All men will hate you because of me." Fight the power. Godspeedy --99.155.92.231 (talk) 14:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

No way! Was that Andy?!? Can you sign my mouse pad? TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 19:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Desysop Rob

Not for what he says, but for deleting a forum page. Sophie^{because liberals} 20:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Standard franchise rules apply (75 edits and three months), vote to run two one weeks and requires a simple majority to pass.--^talk 20:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

This vote has been closed. Please do not add, remove or change votes. The result of this vote was: Do not desysop Rob; final tally 13 yea, 13 nay, 7 goat, motion fails as it did not achieve a majority

Rob's defense In which Rob, instead of presenting a defense, says "I know you are, but what am I?" We had a good discussion going on the BBC until these trolls disrupted it, including their deletion of other users comments. RW needs its version of wp:WP:POINT. P-Foster renamed TheoryOfPractice move log deletion log block log Mikalos move log deletion log block log Sophie block log Congratulations, you three. Way to kill discourse your compatriots are involved in. nobsCorporations are people, too. 21:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC) User:Mikalos209/ww?--il'Dictator Mikal 21:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC) What's that got to do with the price of fish? ...Yep, it's all their fault you're a troll. -- Seth Peck (talk) 21:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC) How exactly does my restoring pages to their original location after you needlessly moved tme become disruptiv trolling? P-Foster Talk "The existing superstructure has handed out crumbs. We don’t want crumbs; we want the whole loaf now.” --Ras Frank I 21:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC) I say take this to RationalWiki talk:Community Standards and discuss some form of RW:POINT, which obviously would apply to myself, as well as this cabal of petty prejudiced pissants emulating their idol, Karajou. nobsCorporations are people, too. 21:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC) No need for you and your stupidity to metastasize to other pages. Answer the question: How exactly does my restoring pages to their original location after you needlessly moved them become "disruptive trolling"? P-Foster Talk "The existing superstructure has handed out crumbs. We don’t want crumbs; we want the whole loaf now.” --Ras Frank I 21:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC) What does it say on the Main Page? "We welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue." Twice in the past week, you've removed constructive dialogue several editors were involved in to Forum space with derogatory headings. nobsCorporations are people, too. 21:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC) How exactly does my restoring pages to their original location after you needlessly moved them become "disruptive trolling"? P-Foster Talk "The existing superstructure has handed out crumbs. We don’t want crumbs; we want the whole loaf now.” --Ras Frank I 21:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC) Here and here. nobsCorporations are people, too. 22:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC) ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘That doesn't answer the question. How exactly does my restoring pages to their original location after you needlessly moved them become "disruptive trolling"? P-Foster Talk "The existing superstructure has handed out crumbs. We don’t want crumbs; we want the whole loaf now.” --Ras Frank I 22:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC) To begin with, you violated a whole shitload of Helps and guidelines. The namespace titles you've chosen more aptly belong in Fun:Fun namespace rather than Forum, but you're trying to minimize offending other editors who are part of ongoing discussions, presumably. You routinely disrupt. RationalWiki:Community_Standards#Conduct says, We encourage everyone to join in, be bold, and engage in sensible debate, but expect them to do so without resorting to vandalizing articles or harassing other users. Yes, it uses the word, "harassing." It further says, please keep the dispute within the relevant talk pages. Don't turn every possible page you or they appear on into another front of the battle, yet you routinely violate this guideline. Help:Etiquette says Don't crowd other editors. Need I go on to other more serious violations you make as a matter of habit? nobsCorporations are people, too. 23:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC) What's that got to do with the price of fish? --il'Dictator Mikal 21:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC) Need I go on to other more serious violations you make as a matter of habit? Nope, cause that's irrelevant to your defense. Take me to the Coop, if you have the balls. Also, your edit-warring my reversions of your needlessly renaming an article is far more in violation of all the guidelines you mention than anything I did, so shut the fuck up. P-Foster Talk "The existing superstructure has handed out crumbs. We don’t want crumbs; we want the whole loaf now.” --Ras Frank I 00:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC) Take me to the Coop, if you have the balls. He already did; see above under "Drama dump." ListenerXTalkerX 00:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC) Yes Fuck yes. Though I know that RW's desire to be so open that its brains fall out, will mean this will fail, I think it's best for the community that blatant trolls be kept from the levers of power. P-Foster Talk "The existing superstructure has handed out crumbs. We don’t want crumbs; we want the whole loaf now.” --Ras Frank I 19:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC) There has to be some sort of check on this moron. If it takes a desysopping, so be it. Cow...Hammertime! 19:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC) what foster said--il'Dictator Mikal 19:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC) Sophiebecause liberals 19:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC) For burning stupidity and obvious trolling. -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC) Oh hell yes. --transResident Transfanform! 20:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC) Enough is enough. CopperheadHisssssss 21:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC) --Dumpling (talk) 22:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC) There's being open, and then there's bending over and greasing up for every fuckwit that comes along. P.S. Rob, have you worked out which senior sysop I am at WP yet? No? Not exactly living up to self-proscribed role of Counter-Intelligence there…Oh, and by the way, learn how to spell 'hypocrite'. Practice in the mirror, it'll be good for you…-- Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 23:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC) Looks like a deliberate provocation so I'm moving up here.--Bob"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." 13:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC) --PsyGremlinSiarad! 13:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC) It's only desysoping, which means he won't be able to fuck up pages anymore but can still talk shit, so go for it. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 13:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC) What Mikal said. Peter tanquam ex ungue leonem 00:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC) No Rob for crat. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC) If you don't like him ignore him. Changed my mind.--Bob"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." 20:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC) The poor guy may have nothing better to do / nowhere else to go. TheCheatI run on alcohol 20:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC) Heil, P-Foster! The endlösung is here! 85.182.145.82 (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC) Not a qualified voter. Blue (is useful) 20:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC) I knew it! If I changed my vote somebody would notice! 85.182.145.82 (talk) 20:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC) Rob is one of the stupidest people I have ever dealt with on the internet. Stupidity alone is not grounds fordesysopping. His other crime seems minor to me. --DamoHi 20:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC) It is not customary to remove rights over the unauthorized deletion of a page unless it is done repeatedly as part of a wheel war. For example, just recently we experienced an unauthorized page deletion, but the editor who deleted it was not taken to the Coop, despite his inviting us to do so. ListenerXTalkerX 21:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC) I'd vote yes, except for the fact that the inevitable "joke" three-month blocks that will be levied on Rob are going to be a pain in the ass to sort through if he can't unblock himself. I know it's going to happen, often and vindictively, because he often says dumb and provocative shit.--talk 21:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC) Rob gets picked on, he makes a dumb mistake- not worth desysopping him, see AD's above post--"Shut up, Brx." 21:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC) No. --The Emperor 22:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC) Nein. The Aspies neeed to relax. C®ackeЯ People need to learn to ignore the morons. ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 01:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC) yawn :" Secret Squirrel (talk) 01:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC) Give Rob Asperers and promote him to moderator. 13:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC) Other users have engaged in far worse misbehaviour, and retained their sysopship. (((Zack Martin)))™ 21:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC) Why get so butthurt? You tried to troll him and he trolled you back; but better. Tielec01 (talk) 23:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC) ^. 03:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC) Rutty Noux Goat A note: We will have to interpret the penalty as being indefinite and including sysoprevoke, for lack of clarity in the original proposal. Blue (is useful) 20:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC) I have a script that lets me ignore him. Who wants it.Тyrannis 20:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC) Meh, Rob is completely and utterly ill-equipped to engage his brain, stay on topic or to show any understanding of the world beyond a 10 year old level. Therefore he is hilarious and our own personal clown. hell, even Ken bested him. He is funnier the Brx and far more interesting than Maratrean. If we want to get rid of people I suggest we start with those two before even considering Rob Smith. AceModerator 21:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC) Thanks, Ace. You're neutrality is heartwarming. I'm still praying for your liver and that God won't send anymore earthquakes to NZ. God bless. nobsCorporations are people, too. 21:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC) Fuck off Rob, you are still a simpleton and there is no "neutrality" in what I say. I want to keep you around as my personal plaything. AceModerator 22:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC) P.S. There is nothing wrong with my liver and there is no god so quit wasting your time. AceModerator 22:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC) I don't find him hilarious, & usually stop reading threads when I see them soured by one of his off-topic comments & the inevitable replies. But editors who are prepared to just go with it when he derails a previously interesting discussion & then edit-war over a page title are just as culpable as he is. WėąṣėḷőįďMethinks it is a Weasel 22:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC) We seem to do a fine enough job of marginalizing him. He's way more ignorable than Brx, certainly. Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 01:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC) Meh. On one hand, the general consensus here seems to be that if it can be easily reversed it's no big deal (that covers about 98% of wiki activity, but I don't make the rules...), on the other hand, loss of admin privilieges for continuously bring an insufferable prick is hardly the paragon od fascism. As long as the moron is still allowed to edit like your garden-variety peon I don't think it's a big deal either way. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 02:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC) I honestly just ignore him, although I do acknowledge that he harrassess people. sterileevolutionist story telling 14:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC) In which Rob... you get the idea Except for those 10 year blocks TheoryOfProphylactics is fond of handing out. nobsCorporations are people, too. 02:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC) Coop me, if you think I'm such a bad guy. Or stop whining like a little girl. Pick one. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 02:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC) What's the final tally here? 11-9. nobsCorporations are people, too. 02:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC) That's Ace. The vote not to ban me won out, moron. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 03:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC) So why don't you block his ass? Lemme guess, that's not your job. Trolling me is. nobsCorporations are people, too. 03:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC) Why don't YOU block his ass? You have the same buttons as everyone else. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 03:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC) ...You do know that that vote would have needed a 2/3 majority to pass, right? (While this only needs a majority, and is only one vote away from it.) Peter tanquam ex ungue leonem 03:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC) diffs? nobsCorporations are people, too. 03:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC) What do you mean? See RW:CS#Common guidelines if you don't believe me. Peter tanquam ex ungue leonem 03:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC) Impressive; once you pass your GED you may qualify for a Pell Grant to truck driving school. nobsCorporations are people, too. 04:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC) ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Rob can barely read, let alone keep that kind of a complicated idea in his head. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 03:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC) Discussion on vote parameters Two weeks is a bit much, I think. It's only a desysopping. Blue (pester) 20:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC) Since voting is already underway, I went with what seems to be the customary period of time. Limiting it to a week might prejudice the outcome.--talk 20:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC) That's a little hypocritical, I think, seeing as you recently closed two votes prematurely. Blue (pester) 20:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC) It didn't seem like it would make a difference in that case. But okay, Blue. I'll change the time. What would be better? One week?--talk 20:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC) :-/ 20:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC) (EC) Well, one week seems very appropriate for this relatively minor business. If you disagree, you don't have to change it. RW does tend to get more worked up about user rights than bans sometimes. Blue (is useful) 20:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC) I'll take you to the Coop! Nah really, it's not a big deal; changed.--talk 21:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC) The coop has become a pathetic and demoralizing waste of time. 22:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC) Was it ever otherwise? WēāŝēīōīďMethinks it is a Weasel 22:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC) There is nothing pathetic about headless chickens squawking in the coop. Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 00:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC) THIS CALLS FOR IMMEDIATE DISCUSSION! El TajDon't make me do stuff 22:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

SuspectedReplicant/Rpeh -- a proposal.

Dude is three weeks shy of the end of his ban and obviously wants to edit again. While I was sentenced to a certain amount of years in prison after the bank job with Occasionaluse went bad, I was released early because I got parole. Is there any reason to keep the guy blocked for another 20 days, or can we show the same mercy that the state of Arkansas showed on O-use and I? Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 01:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this. Rpeh has an established history of being a lying rat. He did it again by using his Rpeh account to get around his block. I'd rather we didn't reward that sort of behavior. And he's not only a lying rat, he's a vicious one. Nudge him even slightly the wrong way and he just explodes into toxic ill will. I am not interested in giving that sort of person any leeway. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Duly noted. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 01:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Stuff that happened two & a half years ago at a completely unrelated website is admissible as part of the case against him at RW? Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree with ToP here. SR's original sentence should be commuted and any leftover hard feeling should be dropped. The dude served his time for being a douche and was blocked. He's not been a real pain since. Lord of Reckless Noise ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 07:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

There's less a month left on his sentence, and even if we started the vote now, there would only be about three weeks' difference. Blue (is useful) 21:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

So just let him go. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 21:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Requires a full vote as per the standards. Start one, by all means, but we'very been doing an awful lot of frivolous voting recently. Blue (is useful) 21:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

So skip the vote. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I will not reblock SR or anyone I think are his socks, though I maintain that they should be blocked. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 22:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Copied from rpeh's talk page

I've seen the discussion. Leave the block. I posted because I felt I had to make a point in one particular debate. I made a couple of other posts because I thought people were prepared to move on. They aren't, so fair's fair - I'm blocked for a reason so leave it intact.

All I ask is that if people are going to re-block me they do it in the light of day. RA blocking me which in Ninja mode was a dick-mode act that should be condemned regardless of any sentence. Blocks shouldn't be hidden. Ditto Nx's unblock. It might have been well-meant but justice must be seen to be done. rpeh •T•C•E• 22:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Nutty Roux

So, this is really tedious, but Nutty Roux has twice now blocked Brxbrx for infinite time and removed his user rights. Yes, Brx is annoying, but we have votes for things like this. I didn't do anything but undo it, last time, but since Nutty does not seem motivated to stop, I'm requesting that he be promoted from sysop for a period of a week.

• Block log
• User rights log.

I'll just open this up for a brief discussion and predictable histrionics before setting up the actual vote. Be aware that this is very annoying and I take no pleasure in this bullshit.--^talk 10:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

You are a fucking time wasting cunt. ħuman 04:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

So he did. Well done, Nutty! Keep up the good work. rpeh •T•C•E• 14:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

There was a time that Nutty was an advocate for the disenfranchised - it's discouraging to see now that he only defends the disenfranchised that he likes. When I pointed this out to him earlier he responded that I missed the point between bullying and abuse of process. He said that he had every right to bully BrxBrx but no right to abuse the process of banning BrxBrx. Now he strips BrxBrx of his rights and bans him. I like Nutty but there is no clearer abuse of moderator powers; it's sad to see him sink so low. He should not be a moderator. Tielec01 (talk) 14:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

He isn't. DickTurpis (talk) 14:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Well that takes all the wind out of my sails then. Tielec01 (talk) 14:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

(EC)I would say that I dislike Nutty and Brx equally, so I think I can be relatively impartial here. This case is a study in character. It seems unlikely that Brx has broken any specific rules; however, he may be seen to be in violation of this clause in the Conduct section of the standards:

“”In particular, attacks incorporating racist, sexist and homophobic language and insults are not tolerated.

Whereas Nutty is in violation of this clause of the Blocking section:

“”Blocking should only be used on spambots and vandals. Sysops should limit most blocks to an hour or two in case of vandalism. Blocks longer than this should be discussed first before implementing.

And of course, these two clauses in the Demoting and Promoting Users section in the standards:

“”Complaints of this kind should be raised at the chicken coop page, and the decision to "promote" the sysop should only be reached after a full discussion. In some extreme cases, where a sysop is being particularly disruptive, another sysop may need to "promote" them as soon as possible to prevent further vandalism or abuse, but they must then discuss their decision with others at the Chicken Coop page or All Things in Moderation, to determine whether the user should remain de-sysoped.

Despite all of this, I believe the metric by which to evaluate Nutty's actions is whether or not they served a legitimate community interest. The character evidence against Brx is substantial, and contains many instances of "racist, sexist and homophobic language":

“”[After getting a pure white virgin drunk] hambeast[, a negro moves in for the kill]

—ED's own Brxbrx

“”I can't stop thinking that she might be a tranny. I think it's because of the wig. She's either a tranny or a cancer survivor.

—Brxbrx on Orly Taitz

“”She looks rather mannish. Big hands, and I think I see a rather pronounced adam's apple. Does she wear lots of black layers to hide her copious body fat?

—Brxbrx on Ace's wife

“”that bloated, deluded hag

—Brxbrx on WaitingforGodot

“”You're a [sic] Klansmen disappointed to see the passing of the Civil Rights Act.

—Brxbrx on Nutty, Ace, Human, etc.

I don't usually condone violations of the due process that we have so carefully laid out over the years. In this case, however, Nutty has actually been vindicated. As much as I hate to admit it, he has the best interest of the site in mind and indirectly helped defend the standards. I may or may not proffer an opinion on sentencing for Brx, but suffice it to say that Nutty should not be subject to penalties. Blue (is useful) 14:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

First quote is off of ED a parody/satire site - even putting that aside, as far as I was aware, we don't ban people for off-site comments. The second quote leaves off the second sentence of Brx's statement which shows that he was being facetious; was that an accident Blue?

Last three quotes are simply him being offensive. So what? Do we ban people for being racist? Brx being bullied for his stupid statements makes the world of sense. Brx being banned because of his stupid statements is absurd. Are your beliefs so fragile that they can't handle arguments from the village simpleton, or maybe he makes your virgin eyes bleed?Tielec01 (talk) 14:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

We don't ban for offsite comments, but since this is a case principally of character, character evidence from off-site is admissible, particularly because Brx has openly discussed the comment on-site and wrote an entire essay on why the comment should be excused. The second quote is perfectly fine. He was not being facetious, and the fact that he knew he was being a misogynist but went ahead and posted anyway is telling in itself. The same is true of his misogynistic insults of Ace's wife. Deep-seated misogyny is also demonstrated by the "hambeast" edit and the "bloated hag" direct insult of WaitingforGodot. The quotes speak for themselves. Blue (is useful) 14:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Let's say that these quotes did prove that he was a misogynist, racist and directly insulted members here. Should we ban racists? Should we ban misogynists? Should we ban people for insulting us? Furthermore; should we ban people without due process for all of the above? Tielec01 (talk) 14:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

This case only pertains to Brxbrx, and it is only the fate of Brxbrx and/or Nutty Roux that the community will decide. Our standards don't need to be overhauled every time we have a big argument. Blue (is useful) 15:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

So by breaking the standards Nutty Roux defended the standards? Honsetly Blue, the thing that first pops into my mind after reading that are people justifying torture with very similiar arguments. And how the hell did this go from "Nutty Roux did something wrong" to "Let's ban brxbrx!"? --Raga Man (talk) 15:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

My understanding of your argument above Blue is that Nutty Rouxs abuses of process were ok because of Brx's character (or lack thereof). If you can't provide a good argument for why Brx's character is a valid reason to abuse process and ban him without a vote then your argument in defence of Nutty Roux fails. Is this a fair summary of the situation? Tielec01 (talk) 15:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

@Raga Man - (EC) People break the standards all the time, and we turn a blind eye. I think I made it clear that both Nutty and Brx broke the standards. The standards are only as strong as the community enforces them - in other words, they're pretty damn weak. And once again, I'll reiterate that I am not saying "Let's ban Brxbrx," I am only saying we should not penalize Nutty Roux.

@Tielec01 - As I said, the case pertains to character, but only because Brx can be seen to have violated the standards himself. The debate then becomes whether or not Nutty's violations appropriately defend against Brx's violations. My argument is that while Nutty did not deal with the situation in the best way, he did not go against the community interest and therefore should not be penalized. Blue (pester) 15:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

If people want to ban Brx then start a separate discussion in which a ban of Brx is proposed, with evidence against him and whatnot. The evidence better be better than what Blue dug up though, because, other than the comment on Ace's wife (which I thought he apologized for) there's not a lot there. Is calling someone a "hag" misogynist? How is that worse than calling a guy a "dick"? Is calling someone a racist supposed to be an example of racism? We're really though the looking glass if that's the case. Anyway, Nutty ought to stop his puerile war against Brx. As of now he's banned him once today, and a few times a few weeks ago. I don't think that's enough right now to warrant starting out tiresome, convoluted process of dealing with shit like this. DickTurpis (talk) 15:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

And how do you know that Nutty Roux's actions were in the best interest of the community? You are begging the question. Would it be a convincing argument to you if I said that it is in the best interest of the community that Brx does what he does? This is why we have process so that people with inflated senses of their ability to know what's best are reigned in. I remain unconvinced that 1) Brx is of low character and 2) that being of low character (ie. racist, mysognistic etc...) is a valid reason to be banned. Time for my bed time. Tielec01 (talk) 15:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Dick, I have only offered my own opinion - which is that Nutty should not be penalized. Justifications aside, we agree on that much. Tielec, I think the community should speak for itself about its own interest, in deciding whether Nutty should be censured, promoted, or banned for his "puerile war" with Brx. Blue (is useful) 15:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Blue, you are not being fair to me.

1. The first quote I already explained was in the context of a satirical site and presented in such a fashion as to mock racists and white supremacists. I have gone to great lengths to explain myself and I think I have established that I am not a racist.
2. First of all, the second and third quotes I apologized for profusely and thoroughly.[2] I even made it a point to apologize to you, Blue, as can be seen here.
3. The second to last quote, I admit, was poor judgement on my part and to this date I have not issued any apology or expressed any regret for having said it. Thus, I am doing so now. I may dislike WaitingforGodot, but her weight is none of my concern, as with the rest of her appearance, and it's best to express one's disapproval in a calm, rational fashion so as to foster growth and reconciliation, and not more conflict.
4. That you presented the last quote is quite disingenuous, seeing as how I was making an unfavorable comparison between Ace McWicked and a Klansman. From that quote, it can be surmised that I disapprove of racism.

Finally I would like to say that my personal feelings on the matter of bigotry are that it is wrong to judge someone before you've met them, and it is worse to define someone according to their birth. --"Shut up, Brx." 15:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

This whole thing is pretty ridiculous, in a humorous way. Nihilist 15:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, Nutty Roux is testing us, seeing what he can get away with. We must not let him think that he can break the rules with impunity. Lord knows he's already violating the standards (which he gleefully says are just standards)--"Shut up, Brx." 15:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

What the HELL are you smoking? Do you look for Nutty under you bed before you go to sleep too? ArchieGoodwin (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

(EC) And as always, I appreciate this civil dialogue happening. I find it quite "through the looking glass" that the person coming to Nutty's defense is me of all people. I think you have done some valid evolving, Brx, and apologies for your past words are always welcome (including whatever was meant by the hambeast edit). I do not want to ban you and do not want to see you unjustly banned. Blue (is useful) 15:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Well fuck it, I see your point, Brx. It is true that Nutty's purpose is more insidious than what I've made it out to be. It seems fairly ridiculous to say that Nutty was defending the standards in any real way. Blue (pester) 15:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Declare martial law. Curfew is 9pm people. We will be watching. Ace^Moderator 15:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah, what's wrong with the term tranny? Doesn't seem particularly pejorative to me...like calling a dude called James "jimmy". Ace^Moderator 16:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

This line of discussion isn't particularly relevant but yes, "tranny" is a slur and about as bad as "faggot." Blue (is useful) 17:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Or 'negro'. It doesn't have to be used offensively, but most people see it as such, so it's better off not to use it unless you're doing a standup comedy routine. Nihilist 17:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Really? I would say especially if you're doing a standup comedy routine. Blue (pester) 17:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

So you're ignorant of the history of bigotry against transsexuals. And can't be bothered to google it. Not something to be proud of, really. --24.212.154.38 (talk) 16:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I never actually use the term "tranny" but if I said I wouldn't mean it in the pejorative. But then again, I am pretty heartless and where my emotion is seated there is some weird lamprey like creature. It tells me what to do and sometimes I can hear the radio through it. Ace^Moderator 16:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure that it isn't a Babel Fish? Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 16:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Got you covered. --24.212.154.38 (talk) 16:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

They made that fucking atrocious Puppet Masters movie. Though, Donald Sutherland is always awesome. Ace^Moderator 16:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Vote

This vote has been closed. Please do not add, remove or change votes. The result of this vote was: Nutty Roux shall lose sysop status for a period of a week

Voting will be open for a week, and requires a simple majority to pass, per Standards. Any eligible voter (75 edits, no socks) can vote. The question under consideration is: Nutty Roux shall lose sysop status for a period of a week. The vote will run from 11:00am June 2nd NZT to 11:00am June 9th NZT.--talk 23:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC) Yea ListenerXTalkerX 23:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC) A week? Burn him at the stake! I want to see blood spilled over this injustice. Tmtoulouse (talk) 01:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Like! ħuman 02:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Based solely on a point raised here. But I'm not voting for these automatic blocks and stuff, btw. Peter with added ‼Science‼ 02:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC) If the only other choice is de facto condoning of abusive blocks I'll take this option. DickTurpis (talk) 02:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC) I have to agree with Dick. That "it can all be undone with a click" is simply wrong: Brx was being desysopped as well as blocked. I am loathe to condone this abuse. Blue (is useful) 03:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Anyone who disagreed could undo with a click. Which is what happened. Lol "abuse". You people make me laugh. Do you know what "abuse" means? ħuman 03:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC) What Peter and dick said. --il'Dictator Mikal 03:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC) If you want Brx gone because he's whatever, then vote to have him gone.--talk 05:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC) ListenerXTalkerX 05:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC) --Bob"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." 06:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Some of the things that Brxbrx has said are reprehensible, but that does not justify abuse of process (((Zack Martin)))™ 07:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC) I actually agree with Maratrean as well. - π 08:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC) +1 Dick's comment. - π 07:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Am I even allowed to vote here? And where are my glasses? Where am I? --Raga Man (talk) 10:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC) As much as it pains me to do this, I have to strike your vote because you do not meet the three-month voter eligibility requirement. Blue (is useful) 15:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC) --"Shut up, Brx." 17:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Generally it's poor taste it vote in a dispute which you are involved in. sterileevolutionist story telling 17:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC) Poor taste defines brx.--il'Dictator Mikal 17:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC) Not a single good argument for Nutty's actions; just because someone says unpopular things doesn't mean they should be banned. A symbolic slap on the wrist is more than fair.Tielec01 (talk) 08:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Rampant hypocrisy. I read some of Nutty's statement (he was right about TL:DR), but gave up at the point where he was saying that this kind of thing is okay as long as it has no official community sanction. LowKey (talk) 00:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Then you didn't read far enough. How is it hypocritical to block someone for being a nauseating turd while opposing official bans, as I always have? You're being weird. I'm not saying this kind of thing is ok at all. I'm saying I did it and it's whatever the community says it is. I'm fine with it and I'm prepared to accept whatever sanction. There's a difference. 00:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC) What's hypocritical is opposing official sanctions while abusing one's office to sanction. The two are related abuses of authority. Great that you are prepared to cop it sweet, but doing it at all is still hypocritical. — Unsigned, by: LowKey / talk / contribs 01:19, 06 June 2012 (UTC) Opposing official sanctions while abusing one's office to sanction isn't the abuse of authority. Abusing one's office all on its own is, tautological as that reads if I'm understanding you correctly. I get that you want your charge of hypocrisy to be true, but it's not unless you conflate unilateral abuse that Brxbrx or anyone else could undo with a sanction that bears the "community's" official imprimatur and which nobody has the right to touch. In a vacuum, it's different from an edit or wheel war only in degree. The stretch for my position is when I removed his rights so he couldn't unblock himself, but I still don't view that as a "sanction" for essentially the same reason as above. But yeah. If I'm that wrong in making this distinction, then I'd be a hypocrite. 02:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC) For sysop violations, yes. Once brx spouts his shit again, I'll Coop him myself. Osaka Sun (talk) 01:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Nay -- 01:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC) No. brxbrx is f*ing annoying and had it coming. "offenses" can be undone with one click of the rodent. ħuman 02:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Don't you fucking pricks have anything better to do? Why don't you go fist some ham-beasts and let the adults talk awhile. AceModerator 02:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC) No. I have no idea what the big deal about blocking is. or why "some people' care they are blocked for whatever reason.GodotWhen I graduated, Cognative Science of Religion didn't even exist! now it's everywhere 02:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Nutty also promoted him into the bargain: he could not unblock himself. Peter with added ‼Science‼ 03:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC) I shed a tear for the hundreds of people who could undo this. Also, Peter, have you considered, at all, that Nutty might have been right to do this? Brx isn't just irritating, Brx is a nasty namecalling hateful cancer upon this wiki, which I believe Blue tried (clumsily, but she is clumsy after all) to show above. ħuman 03:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC) I saw that Brx had been blocked some time before AD did, and did nothing. I saw Ace do the same not long ago, and did nothing. You are entirely missing why I voted above. Peter with added ‼Science‼ 03:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC) That's because you didn't explain yourself, you just posted a link. If you do not clearly explain yourself, your "point" is embarrassingly empty. ħuman 03:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Brx might have the right to edit, but I have the right to be enigmatic. Peter with added ‼Science‼ 04:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC) So you have nothing to say or contribute. Your "vote" is abnegated. ħuman 04:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Come again? I do not have to give a reason for a vote, and it is not invalid if you can't be bothered to work out (or perhaps ask) what it is. It was but a token vote in favour of a token measure, so I don't know what you're all worried about anyway. Have a drink. Peter with added ‼Science‼ 04:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC) I thought I "asked" when I said "you didn't explain yourself". Not that any of this silliness matters. "...and did nothing" tells the whole story. No one gave a shit that brx was stuck "outside the wiki". That speaks volumes. ħuman 02:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC) Indeed it does. So hurry up and coop the bugger and lets be done with this. Peter Blessed are the cheesemakers 02:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC) I'd far rather have someone doing something about intolerenace than not. sterileevolutionist story telling 03:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Here we have this nasty little fuck, this ex-ED troll, who when criticized or cooped ignores all admonishments, laughs it off, "amusingly enough" de-syspops himself in the middle of his own cooping, and is a basically useless person on this site. So Nutty Roux is sick of this asshole's shit for the umpteenth time and blocks him. Blue, ever the sanctimonious piece of trash, gently defends Nutty by calling him "less worse" than the useless Brx, then votes to sanction Nutty for something she fucking undid herself anyway. You people are nuts. This place was so much better before May 2011, and you know it. ħuman 04:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC) What Human said. AceModerator 04:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC) So start a vote to ban him! Assemble all this terrible evidence! I just want this petty shit to stop, because it is annoying. I have forty-four fucking exams to grade and don't want goddamn endless emails from Brx.--talk 05:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC) No need to ban anyone. We don't do that (Do you believe that?). OK, some assholes here did just that a while ago. To stop the petty shit, drop this silly Coop case! What do you mean, he emails you endlessly? Surely you have smart email filters? ħuman 02:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC) No need to ban anyone. I agree. Unfortunately, it appears that Nutty Roux does not, hence this Coop action. ListenerXTalkerX 02:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC) Nutty should be given some special title for dealing with this noxious idiot appropriately. rpeh •T•C•E• 07:53, 2 June 2012 (UTC) It looks like this guy had it coming. Racism and misogyny have no place on this site or anywhere else on the internet. Prodigal (talk) 08:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Vote stricken as the user meets niether the 75 edit requirement nor the 3 month requirement. Blue (is useful) 15:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC) ROFLCOPTER "Racism and misogyny have no place on the internet" Tielec01 (talk) 09:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Well they don't. The fact that they exist doesn't make it okay. rpeh •T•C•E• 13:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC) You seem to have a warped view of what the internet is or should be. WéáśéĺóíďMethinks it is a Weasel 13:41, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Alright, Mr. Roux, I've held up my end of the deal. Could I please have my insulin back? Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 13:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC) No way. Silver Sloth (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Fuck no. Aboriginal Noise What the ... 01:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC) Quoting from above (to make sure I'm in the correct area :p) "The question under consideration is: Nutty Roux shall lose sysop status for a period of a week?" I vote no. Refugeetalk page 03:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

My statement (warning TL:DR)

I apologize for the length of this. It might as well be an essay.

I blocked and desysopped Brxbrx in a flagrant abuse of my sysop rights. Contrary to the claims of a few, I did not do it to unilaterally ban him in contravention of "community consensus," but rather to exercise my right of conscience to loudly proclaim I don't want a person of such awfully low character in my presence(more on this below). I'm obviously not alone. It's been a sort of wp:efficient breach in which I staked being officially sanctioned on serving what I view as a greater good, at least as far as I'm concerned.

We have no business officially banning users for speech using processes that would have been inconceivable prior to last year. I believe we do have the prerogative to collectively run them off by expressing our revulsion at their persistently shitty conduct. In turn, those concerned with enforcing rules (in some cases after themselves doing nothing to unblock or resysop Brxbrx for those several days) have the right to initiate coops and seek to enforce rules as they see fit. And ultimately it's obviously simple a matter of what this community is collectively going to do about it now that we vote on everything under the sun. In most instances it's been nothing. We'll see with this coop. Perhaps I'll be the one who's run off.

Regardless of the outcome, I welcome this coop for giving the community an opportunity to at least give lip service to its commitment to due process. As I've said, I never intended to unilaterally ban Brxbrx and will continue to oppose any official attempt to do so. I can certainly understand if people nonetheless think I was trying to unilaterally foist my decision on all of us notwithstanding everything I've said and done to stand up for due process. It appears to smack of hypocrisy without a good explanation.

Instead, I've been relying on a state of affairs in which the coop has been used for little more than advancing grudges since last May (there have been a few legitimate cases) and in which there's been a pretty clear lack of interest in doing anything about it. In so relying, it was always my expectation, for the most part borne out, that others could click a few buttons and undo anything I'd done to Brxbrx if that's what they wanted to do; it was within anyone's power.

While I've been rightly cooped for what I've done and would accept any sanction, it bears repeating that nobody unblocked and resysopped Brxbrx for several days. How many dozens of you people, particularly you very active editors who live your RW lives in block comments, nodded your heads and did nothing when you saw the logs?

I'd like to say a word on claims that we oughtn't punish people for things they do on other sites. I think the distinction between official sanctions and individuals staking the possibility of being officially sanctioned themselves for expressing their consciences in ways that contravene the rules is important. It literally makes no sense at all to take an official position on a person's speech elsewhere. After all, we welcome people with differing views to come discuss them with us. That would include a member of Stormfront or any other morally repugnant group.

As for Brxbrx, people who do and don't accept that he's of low character are both in a quandary that looks to me like both sides of Poe's Law. Poe's Law relates to a situation in which you know nothing of someone on the internet except what you see him say - parody becomes indistinguishable from fundamentalism. In this instance, "joking around" may or may not become indistinguishable from hate.

You either do or don't accept that Brxbrx's general pattern here has been to gravitate toward thrusting himself into controversy, saying horrible things to anyone who doesn't say or do what he wants, being blithely dishonest, etc.

• If you know nothing of this, you obviously don't have enough information to be anything but agnostic on his claim that he was just casually editing the "nigger" article at ED as he did because that's what you do there.
• If you accept that he behaves as I described, you do have enough information to be entitled to reject the possibility that Brxbrx was just innocently participating in a shock site. His behavior comes together as of a kind.
• If you don't accept that he behaves as I described, you're nonetheless left with a proposition that begs the question. Why does someone go to ED to say those things? Why does he say some of them here? Can someone also go to Stormfront and casually pop off about Jews because that's what they do there? I don't think so but I think you'd agree that there's room for legitimate differences of opinion.

Do what you will. I look forward to seeing the result. 18:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't thrust myself into controversy. In fact, I usually duck out for a day or a few every time I get in a spat. I do not look for controversy for its own sake. And if I'm getting pretty sick of you saying that I'm a racist. I am not a racist. At worst, I am insensitive. At best I'm clever. If I'm a racist then so is South Park and Sarah Silverman. But you don't care about that. You're all about malice. You'll look for any excuse to poke someone in the eye.

And may I remind everybody of this post Nutty Roux made to my talk page, where he brazenly declared he was just doing it to see what he could get away with.--"Shut up, Brx." 00:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

You're sick of being called out for your bigotry. I'm sick of your presence. If you don't see the difference between you and South Park or Sarah Silverman, there's something wrong with you. As I explained, given that we don't have a view into your head to know whether you're actually telling the truth that you're not a bigot, all we can do is rely on your behavior and the circumstances. Since you're a liar, stir trouble at every turn, etc., I'm pretty comfortable believing the worst about you. South Park and Sarah Silverman make hyperbolic observations about race to comedic effect to show how silly racism is. You say terrible bigoted things without the least hint that you're joking. There's no planet on which it's actually funny to joke about a black man getting an overweight white woman drunk and raping her. And that's just one of the many horrible things that flow out of your brain like water. You're damn right I bear you ill will. Showing up from ED to lie about and attack whoever you disagreed with for a year was never going to win you any friends here. And you literally have none. 00:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

South Park and Sarah Silverman make hyperbolic observations about race to comedic effect to show how silly racism is Pretty much ED in a nutshell, at least the parts I like.--"Shut up, Brx." 00:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC) ^{— Unsigned, by: Brxbrx / talk / contribs} 00:57, 06 June 2012 (UTC)

You completely missed the point. There's been nothing funny about any of the horrible stuff you've said that people objected to. You've been called out again and again for attempting to revise history by claiming you were kidding when every indication is that you were instead expressing your bigotry hatefully. I can understand you hating me and others. But beyond you acting like a sociopath in the first place, there's no excuse for you lying about your intentions rather than just coming clean, throwing yourself on your sword, and making a real effort to act like a human being. 01:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

In any event, get your last word in. I've already said everything I wish to say. If anyone wants clarification come ask me on my talk page. This one's already ridiculously long for such a simple simple issue. 01:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I appreciate that you admit that you were abusing your power in a sort of civic disobedient sort of way against someone who is extremely obnoxious, and who has very few real defenders. What you have written, above, is an excellent explanation of your position and you deserve to be commended for it. Too many people in your situation would and have gone into a petulant tizzy and become radicalized.

I hope you appreciate, in your turn, that as far as I can see, while your motivation may not have been a unilateral ban, the effect was a unilateral ban. You, and Human (who has defended your actions in the most fervent and vitriolic manner), have emphasized that anyone who wished to undo your bans could have done so. But naturally, that presumes that someone likes Brx enough, or feels beholden to the rules enough, to proactively take action on his behalf. But this implicitly presumes that he edits only by virtue of a minimum level of popularity. One of my biggest fears is that this will continue to be our ethic. I think that such an attitude leads to groupthink and sloppy critical skills, and it's what gets you a community like LessWrong: rational on the surface, but where deviation from the lockstep is dangerous. So my goal in Cooping you was not to defend Brx per se, or even to stop people from banning others, but rather to try to ensure that the hated suffer no systemic disadvantage of blockings, bannings, and so on. We can and should and do ostracize people for despicable opinions, but a high level of tolerance is also demanded to permit them to continue to utter them. We must remain open to intelligent dissent, and that means remaining open to self-martyring troublemakers who eat off the ground.

In other words, there's a good reason why I Cooped you, but there's also a good reason the proposal's was only for a week.--^talk 03:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments. I can only chalk up to some attempt at ideological purity why you and others continue repeating that there was a unilateral ban when, despite Brxbrx's unpopularity, he could have contacted anyone and had the block undone and his rights restored in minutes. That's not true of a real ban. When you get down to brass tacks, I'm the only one who's ever taken this risk and Brxbrx is the only one who's ever been this reviled without getting the picture and leaving on his own or getting banned (compare MC). I would be deeply ashamed if this really were the start of a slippery slope, but I don't see the stars aligning to lead to this groupthink and sloppy critical skills. We're plenty full on people who deviate from the lockstep and the only pattern that troubles me is that we're actually officially banning people. 05:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I, for one, did not see this block happen. Also, as I recall, Brxbrx did contact someone and did have his rights restored fairly quickly. Not that that is actually relevant. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be far more relaxed after your fishing holiday Nutty. Not much to add to what has been said above except to point out that 1) it's precisely because Brx is so unpopular that I personally get worried about making sure he is treated fairly. Popular editors don't need this protection. 2) It's probably not the case that occasionally silencing dissent through bans and censorship will destroy this wiki. It could, however, reduce it's vibrancy and effectiveness; I think we might have fallen into the trap of thinking this is an all or none situation. 3) I'm going to get hate for this, but I think that this coop case bears some resemblance to the banning of MC. If anyone with more weight than me is considering revisiting the decision to ban MC with the community they would definitely have my support.Tielec01 (talk) 10:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Further comment

Voting on this for a week seems like prolonging what would otherwise be a very minor forgettable drama into something much longer & more tedious than necessary. I suggest waiting for Nutty to comment. If he agrees not to do this again, we might as well drop it. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

We have moved past that, I think; this issue has been discussed before, and on a number of occasions Nutty Roux has openly acknowledged that he is abusing his block rights when blocking Brxbrx. ListenerX^TalkerX 23:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, so why is he only up for being de-sysoped for a week? It seems like a petty slap-on-the-wrist sentence if there's genuine abuse, and a pointless charade if there isn't. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

We can always escalate the penalty later if he does not stop. Personally, I am hoping that a week's suspension would be enough to deter him — he has said that he is performing these blocks partially in order to demonstrate that he will not incur any punishment for them, so if we do punish him he might change his mind of his own accord. ListenerX^TalkerX 00:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I suggest the following remedy: Nutty Roux be desysopped for one week following the vote. Each time he unreasonably blocks Brxbrx (anything longer than 30 minutes, let's say, without provocation), he will be desysopped again for increasing weeks - e.g. two weeks for the first repeat offense, three for the second, etc. Blue (pester) 00:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable, except for the provocation bit — as has been demonstrated above, we could quibble endlessly over what constitutes "provocation." ListenerX^TalkerX 00:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Good point. The "without provocation" bit should not be included. Blue (is useful) 00:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I want to point to this cooping of brxbrx by Nutty Roux and quote Nutty Roux's own words: "I've written a long discussion going through Brxbrx's 3 month pattern of misconduct because a sysop who so flagrantly misuses his powers and then laughs when corrected has no business with them in the first place. I'm sick of his shit. Enough is enough." As most of us know, brxbrx let go of his rights for 2 months (I think) and promised not to misbehave so carelessly again. As ListenerX said Nutty Roux is actually promising to continue the abuse of his rights and is not even apologetic. The abuse has been going on for over a year (I'm sorry I misread the logs) 2 months. Not considering who this is about, neither Nutty Roux nor brxbrx, Nutty Roux should loose his rights for several months, if not a year. --Raga Man (talk) 00:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I like Blues idea, with Listeners problems with it. I dislike brx a lot; but I also dislike abuse of power no matter how justified, and nutty should be punished for abuse of power. --il'Dictator Mikal 00:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a punishment, it's a countdown. Also, there's nothing here that prevents it from happening again. We'll be back here in two weeks from now with the same wall of text, the only difference will be the timestamps will have changed. Why don't we put something applicable to the future in this supposed punishment? Nutty has no reason whatsoever to be banning Brxbrx, mainly because the next non-joking ban that Brxbrx receives is going to come from a mod case and he'll be going the way of MC. So let's apply the punishment to the future, Nutty has found abusing the block and promotion privileges and will now lose rights (and voting privileges) for a period of one week for every ban or promotion he (or a sock) makes on Brxbrx in future. Otherwise there's no point voting on this as we'll just be back quicker than the football. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 01:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Well I'd like to think that my idea to automatically increase the penalty with each successive reoffense would be helpful there. Blue (pester) 01:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Your suggestion leaves so much wiggle room that you could sail an oil tanker through it whilst drunk. As has been pointed out, "provocation" will mean a fresh round of wall of text every single time, as well as unreasonable length. For instance is it unreasonable to block someone twice in one hour for 29 minutes each time? Of course it is, but we'll be back here doing it all over again. Blocks are used for two reasons on this site, jokes and administrative punishment. We have mods for the punishment part, and it's clear that they can't play nice together so he has no reason to be blocking him for a joke. Also, your punishment makes no concession for the fact that Nutty was actively promoting Brxbrx as part of method of this abuse. And let's have an actual punishment in place, removing the franchise does that. No-one here needs the extra buttons to be a constructive contributor, but removing their ability to vote for mods, the board, policy changes etc. is going to be an actual punishment for anyone who's actually interested in the growth and well being of this project. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 02:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

So "glad" the misogynistic and racist shit-head is being defended against the person trying to do something about it. I don't want to be part of a community that can't figure this out. My how far down we have gone. sterile^{evolutionist story telling} 01:53, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Funny you should mention "going down;" why, I can recall a time when unilateral and capricious blocks were universally condemned around here, as something that only Mr. Schlafly and his goons would ever do. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Fuck no i'm not defending brx, He deserves what he gets; that doesn't change the fact nutty is abusively using block rights though; and thats what I want to see the punishment for. --il'Dictator Mikal 01:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

It's interesting how throughout all of this misogyny and racism, the community never brought bricks to bear. We never banned him, only desysopped him for a few months, and that was on charges totally unrelated to his being a "shithead." Maybe you should Coop him again if you feel so strongly, Sterile. Blue (is useful) 02:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to think I've been thorough and effective at debunking any claims of my alleged misogyny and racism.--"Shut up, Brx." 02:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

No, you've failed laughably. ArchieGoodwin (talk) 02:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

What troubles me about this is that Nutty is being singled out for what I think is part of a larger problem with many users' dealings with Brxbrx. Nutty isn't the only one to give him lengthy blocks or aggravate him in other ways. Brx has basically become the community whipping boy/punching bag, & while he's done a lot to earn that role, it's got tired & people seem to be provoking him just for the sake of it. I suggest a general moratorium (probably not strictly the correct word here, but whatever) on blocking, trolling, or unnecessarily interfering with Brx. I'm not suggesting special treatment for Brx, but lay off harassing him. If Nutty agrees to this, I don't think punishment should be necessary. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 02:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the problem is not so easily solved. Nutty's stated reasoning for his abuse of Brx is that he wants to demonstrate that the new user rights/moderation system has failed because it wouldn't do anything about it. This appears to be a test case for the efficacy of community management, and the failure to sanction Nutty Roux sends the wrong signal. Blue (pester) 02:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Re "Nutty's stated reasoning" - stated where? Claims like this should be backed up with a link. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 11:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Failure to do what??? This whole thing is utterly silly. To quote Frazier, "This can be undone with one click of a mouse". You people are so overreacting it's embarrassing. Can I say, "this place has no rules, only guidelines"? Those who want hard and fast rules are actually potential topics for the "authoritarianism" aspect of our mission. And don't tempt me to write about it. ħuman 02:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Rules are authoritarian when they're constructed or used to take away people's rights. Insofar as an editor on RationalWiki can be considered to have rights, Nutty Roux does not have a "right" to block or desysop Brxbrx—it's a privilege, albeit one we give freely. Brxbrx does have a right to edit. Restricting one person's privilege to protect another person's rights is the ideal purpose of rules. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

And yet this cesspit "voted" to permanently remove Marcus Cicero from the site, for far lesser, and far more interesting crimes. I agree, Brx shoudl have a right to edit. As should EVERYONE ELSE. A right to be a sysop, given his vile language as recorded by Blue above? Less so. But that is not what this is about. This is about Nutty doing something that could be and was undone by the click of a mouse by others. I call this a trivial lynching of the intelligent by the stupid and scared. ħuman 03:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Just because his abuse of power - mild though it might be - can be undone, doesn't make it irrelevant. It means that Brx has to wait until someone else shows mercy and decides to unban him and/or give him back his rights. If no one notices, as might happen during off hours, then he has to actively petition someone, who has to then go and find it and undo it. It's annoying and it's happened to me several times now, and I'm sick of being their mommy just because Nutty likes to indulge himself. I just want him to stop, because it's petty self-indulgence that he then forces other people to fix, and it seems almost certain to happen again.

It would also be fine with me if there was a vote to block Brx, because that would also end this fucking nannying that has to be done.--^talk 05:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I have said this above, but it bears repeating: how have we changed from a group of refugees from Mr. Schlafly's and TK's reign of terror to a group who call people "authoritarians" when they oppose capricious blocking? ListenerX^TalkerX 05:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Fuck that CP shit. ħuman 02:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Because it's alright to block people when they are saying the wrong things. Human, I'm interested in your position. You were opposed to the banning of MC, for reasons that I think we agree on. But in this case (which bears some analogous traits) you are against the slap on the wrist for Nutty. I can see two relevant distinctions 1) You liked MC, but don't like Brx; 2) Nutty circumvented process to unilaterally ban Brx. I think I can safely assume that you don't believe that people shouldn't be banned because you, Human, don't like them; so it is the fact that you don't like to have process behind decisions to ban people? If MC was constantly unilaterally banned by a couple of people would you have accepted this without protest?Tielec01 (talk) 05:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

MC was "banned" by the authoritarian right wing of this site. They were wrong. They were nasty and hateful. Did Nutty do something wrong? Perhaps, barely. It took two days for people to give a shit enough to unblock Brx. That speaks volumes. ħuman 02:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

MarcusCicero was banned because MarcusCicero was without question only here to troll. He did not contribute to anything except HCM. In contrast, I write articles and add to articles, as well as participate in civil discussions on WIGO:CP and the Saloon Bar. MarcusCicero was a plague on this website, whereas I am benign at worst. Any drama surrounding me can best be explained by the overreaction of other users, as Weaseloid has said.--"Shut up, Brx." 06:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Brx, shut the fuck up, you are wrong. MC was a genius who poked people in a brilliant way, and the morons he irritated responded in a most embarrassing way. If there was a vote to block you forever I would have a really hard time sticking to my principles. But I would. You only kiss ass and spew hate. ħuman 02:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

"MC was a genius who poked people in a brilliant way." I think we'll find that view is endorsed by Human, Marcus Cicero, and...um....hmmmmm...I think that might be about it. DickTurpis (talk) 03:11, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

So, Dick, you endorse site-banning of people who make others uncomfortable? Not found in the Community Standards, of course. !!!! ħuman 03:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

If you check the records I think you'll find I didn't vote to ban MC. In fact, during his first block vote I was about as much of an advocate as he had (which isn't saying much). That doesn't exactly make him a genius. He's still a dick. DickTurpis (talk) 03:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

If MC is the best Human has to offer as a defense, added with his own nasty namecalling hateful comments which he started making immediately after accusing Brx of the same, may I suggest that he shut the fuck up and crawl back to the grumpy old man corner. It seems as if the only time Human appears on RW these days is to wave his ongoing love for MC around. If he can't grasp that the wiki has grown to the point where it needs rules, maybe somebody can draw pictures for him. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 10:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

It was only a topic, you dumb racist and attacker. Psy, you are hot on my list of people to sue, if I ever get the money, due to your personal defamatioi on your blog. Shut the fuck up and get over it if you can't address the issue at hand. By the way, you complete asshole, "It seems as if the only time Human appears on RW these days is to wave his ongoing love for MC around." is an ignorant (typical for you) lie. I wrote two articles recently, and edit the saloon bar. You seriously should grow a pair of sanity hemispheres and fuck yourself with them. ħuman 03:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

A proposal

There seems to be a long underlying problem here. It is that brxbrx provocates (probably because he doesn't think before clicking) and is provocated (because some people seem to be annoyed just by the thought of brx being here). Here's my idea: Brxbrx will start to think before editing, he'll take a second and think whether the terms "hag" or "klansman" might just be slightly offensive, and all the others that seem to think he isn't worth the air he's breathing stop to provocate him by posting such things like "Shut up" or calling him a racist even though the post he just made was completely unrelated to anything about race. Can we get both sides to agree on this? --Raga Man (talk) 10:40, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Pretty much what I suggested further up the page. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 11:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Yep. You inspire(d) me. I just added that brxbrx should think before editing, so this mess won't repeat itself. --Raga Man (talk) 12:41, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Brx was censured months ago and sticks his thumb up his nose at any kind of advice to be a better person. Do not hang Nutty Roux for being angry at a complete asswipe. Also, do not siteban a complete asswipe. Just keep him out of the sysopric. ħuman 02:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

We are not hanging him for being angry; we are hanging him for abusing his banhammer. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

And by "hanging" we mean "removing sysop privileges for a week". The sort of thing which could probably happen without even being noticed 95% of the time. DickTurpis (talk) 03:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

That is true. ħuman 03:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I haven't used any such offensive language for some time now. I have been behaving. There is this idea that I am as guilty as Nutty, but it is unfounded.--"Shut up, Brx." 03:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

And yet tonight, you were abusing your sysop privs to promote an edit war. You are simply useless. ħuman 03:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't be dense, Human. You were edit warring. I was policing. Policing ineffectively (and perhaps detrimentally), maybe, but you were the one originally in the wrong.--"Shut up, Brx." 04:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

You should listen to Blue, brx. Ace^Moderator 04:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

You are far more "guilty" than Nutty, you piece of racist misogynist shit. Nutty had grounds to abuse you. You have no grounds to even be here. ħuman 03:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Do not feed the bitter old man. --Raga Man (talk) 09:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

So do you promise to continue using your brain before editing? --Raga Man (talk) 09:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Certainly--"Shut up, Brx." 15:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Great. I guess it is now the turn of Nutty Roux, Ace Mc Wicked, Human (yeah like that's going to happen...), Theory of Practice and sterile. Or did I forget somebody? --Raga Man (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeesh, UHM. Like any of us could reasonably be accused of that. What happened to you? I never did anything to you. None of these others did either. Jesus especially Sterile. He's clean like fresh panties. Go take a nap and come sock up when you can speak truth. 08:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Rationalwiki

I am taking Rationalwiki to the Coop for farcical political posturing, in-fighting, supporting rule crazy nit-wits, telling me I can't use the word "tranny" and for generally being an complete disaster with no Good Times.

Yeah, ban RW from the internet

1. Ace^Moderator 05:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
2. ħuman 02:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
3. The current Chicken Coop case is now longer than the Saloon Bar. As a site, we seem to have some pretty weird priorities. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Na, merge RW with A Storehouse of Knowledge

1. Tielec01 (talk) 05:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC) I assumed this was going to happen anyway
2. An absolutely brilliant idea which I wholeheartedly endorse. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 07:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
3. Best idea this year. Sophie^{because liberals} 08:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
4. Finally, some sanity. ^gnostic 13:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Ban the person who posted the title above because it's M*A*S*H not M.A.S.H.

1. rpeh •T•C•E• 07:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Fucker. Ace^Moderator 07:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

FFS.

Oh great, the very best of RationalWiki here. Moderators calling each other cunts, a user rights deadlock, and the subsequent joke vote to try and lighten the mood. Did we learn anything from the past two months?

Nutty's actions are misguided in terms of the Community Standards, but understandable in the overall context. Brxbrx, listen to Trent. If you want to prove everyone wrong, start with a clean slate. You're incredibly lucky that the community has had this level of patience with you. Osaka Sun (talk) 00:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

This isn't about Brx; it never was. If people want to make it about Brx they can Coop him whenever they want. And the "clean slate" notion is a completely ridiculous one. Let's not pretend it's an actual viable option. DickTurpis (talk) 01:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Not about Brx? This Coop would have never happened otherwise. And one was already attempted against him back in April.

This cycle is going to continue until yet another sysop/mod breaks the rules. So who's going to give? Osaka Sun (talk) 01:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

This Coop would not have happened if certain editors had not seen fit to breach the Community Standards by making abusive blocks just because Brxbrx got up their nose. ListenerX^TalkerX 01:24, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it would be best if Brx would just start over and not be a dick. But he has refused to do this, despite many of us asking, and we can't make him.

So. What is there to do? Either we just accept that being unpopular means that a popular editor can just ban you from the site at will, or else we take some action. I didn't want to do this, and asked Nutty not to keep up his self-indulgent behavior. But I agree: the cycle will continue until something changes. Hopefully, the revelation that you have to obey the rules even if you're a popular and cool guy will be the thing that changes.--^talk 02:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

What "rules"? ħuman 03:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Banning someone from RW needs a vote. Removing someone's user rights needs a vote. No one gets to unilaterally just decide to do either thing.--^talk 03:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

What did I do to deserve being called a dick, anyways? I have been behaving quite well, and certainly better than some other users on this site.--"Shut up, Brx." 02:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, you're an asshole. If you can't figure out why, MAYBE YOU SHOULD JUST GO SOMEWHERE ELSE TO SPEW YOUR HATE. Asshole. ħuman 03:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that you should take a minute and consider the deep irony in your accusing someone of spewing hate--"Shut up, Brx." 03:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Gawd you are an idiot. And you know what? I don't call many people - if any - trolls. But you, bitch, are a troll. Please be elsewhere voluntarily. You add nothing here. ħuman 03:24, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

That you ask...--il'Dictator Mikal 02:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not merely asking, I am refuting. I have been slandered many times under false pretenses and I will not let this sort of bile ruin my reputation further--"Shut up, Brx." 02:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I will not let this sort of bile ruin my reputation further Unfortunately, being an ED editor who writes about black guys raping white woman kinda fucks your reputation right up. Ace^Moderator 02:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

@Brxbrx, Think some more about ED. Think some more about how disturbing ED is. Write essay on how disturbing ED is. Publish said essay here. Promise self never edit there again. Experience peace and calm that comes from cleansing yourself of the fucking wasteland that is ED. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I must admit that I've not been following this very closely, but why do we care what an RW editor does at another site? As long as he's not writing under the name of RW what does it matter? It may mean that people who go to other sites and see him writing there will form a particular opinion of him - but I would have thought that the only thing we should care about here is what does here.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 11:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Bob, maybe you are right. But the fact is, some people have seen his contributions there, and if he wants to better fit in here (lol, what funny advice coming from me!), renouncing contributing there would assist that. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Bob. Frankly I'm tired of hearing about what Brx does at ED (namely that one minor edit that keeps being cited). Who cares? I don't think it would affect his standing at RW if he "renounces" editing ED, & it would set a rather nasty (& very silly) precedent if he is pressured into doing so. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 16:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone else recall that one of RW's CHIEF criticisms of CP was that editors were punished for their acticities elsewhere? Say it with me, "Four legs good. Two legs better." LowKey (talk) 00:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey brad, get down off your high horse. Brx isn't being punished for his comments on ED rather his racist comments on ED are pertinent to this conversation considering the racist remarks Brx has brought here. Ace^Moderator 00:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Tune in Bradley. He's not being punished for anything. There's no official proceeding against him. You've got me violating our sysop rules to harass him because I feel he lacks all merit as a human being and I want him to leave. That's it. 00:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay. LowKey (talk) 01:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Tisane

This discussion has been archived, pursuant to a consensus of the mods that it was not productive and would probably continue degrading and making things worse. Tisane has been blocked for one year. If you feel there are larger discussions of policy, please bring them up at Standards - but not immediately. Wait a few days at least, or else it will just become a continuation of this mess.--^talk 11:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)