RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive28

User:RobSmith

Rob has lately gotten under certain sysops' skins for comments made in the WIGO talk pages, surrounding the Aurora shootings. Some people want him to be banned. Others do not. Rather than wheel war and argue on talk pages, we should use this for what it's used for. Please try and stick to the topic at hand and not start trolling each other here. If you must let someone know that they are a cretinous backwoods cousin-fucker for something they said, take that to their talk page for the usual arguing.

Make your feelings known here, along with your justifications, instead of on various editors' talk pages. Please point to specific diffs whenever possible. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 10¹³ points 09:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Popping in to say that we're not actually voting right this instant. First, those in favor should say how long of a ban they would like. Indefinite? Three months?--^talk 10:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

If this goes to any vote for censure then I recommend that separate votes be made regarding sanction and duration. Генгис^evolving 11:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

For the record, when saying gotten under certain sysops' skins one should be aware that them being "sysops" carries no weight whatsoever to the case. Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 20:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The case FOR banning/promoting Rob

Rob repeatedly used the TWIGOCP to repeatedly and unapologetically promote his bullshit, hateful and totally unfounded theory that the theater massacres were based on unemployment and therefore Obama's fault. This at a time when RW was expressing horror at the comments being displayed by CP, CNAV and other right-wing sites. Knowing how Rob's mind works, he probably considers his posts an attempt to discredit RW and earn himself brownie points with Andy. When Rob was censured for this by being given a time-out, he repeatedly abused his ability to undo the block and continued to post his hateful drivel. Rob needs to be sent to the naughty step and he needs to stay there. Therefore he needs to have his mop taken away and to be blocked for a yet-to-be-determined time. The right to free speech does not mean you abrogate the responsibility for what you say. --Psygremlin (talk) 10:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Who decided to block Rob and give him a "time out?" Unless it was a community vote, it's not "abuse" to unblock yourself when someone blocks you.

Could you link to the diffs on the things he said that you dislike? We should know exactly what we're talking about. Although unless it was slander or something like that, I'm not sure having unpopular opinions is a good thing to ban someone over.

How long of a block do you want?--^talk 10:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Read Conservapedia_talk:What_is_going_on_at_CP?#CP_.3D_hate_site.3F and search for "nobs" anywhere on this archive page and probably the one preceding. The fact remains Rob went out of way to offend members of this site, despite being told so, and repeatedly unblocked himself when told he needed a time out. Unless of course, you agree that Obama is responsible for the shootings.

It's not about the duration of the block, it's about people being held responsible for what they say, without everybody engaging in hand-wringing over how badly he's being treated. It's time this wiki grew a fucking backbone. --Psygremlin (talk) 10:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

What's more - it's about common fucking decency. We have people on this wiki who are directly affected by the shooting. We have somebody who was worried he'd lost friends in it. And if one sanctimonious prick can't silence his hate for Obama for 5 minutes out of respect, then he needs to take a time out. And if he can't understand that, then he needs to be shown the door, and have his mop taken away. --Psygremlin (talk) 11:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I will find the diffs for you.--^talk 11:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Are these what you're talking about? [1][2][3][4]

It looks like it was a long conversation... am I missing the outrageous ones?--^talk 11:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, is this it?--^talk 22:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

There was also one with a Hitler reference in there somewhere. A few of the edits he made were reverted by other users, so they won't be on the page. Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 22:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Diffs or it didn't happen. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 22:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Right there, you bloody simpleton. Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 22:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, while an application of [Godwin's Law], this is not an unreasonable reference to Hitler. It is well accepted that unemployment, inflation, and general economic distress contributed to the election of Hitler. However, we are not anywhere near close the same levels of economic distress that Germany was experiencing, so perhaps it is a bit irrelevant... even if honest... --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 23:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

In the context of what Rob seems to be inferring--"Obama's policies re:employment are so bad that he has set us up for the ultimate disaster," yeah, it's a pretty unreasonable argument to make. What's missing from that analysis is the nature of Weimar politics and how those political structures allowed for the sort of instability that allowed the Nazis to seize power. Not al all applicable here. Anyway, none of that is the point. The point is I said Rob made a Hitler reference, he challenged me to find a diff, I found a diff, once again proving him wrong. Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 23:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

So, implying that high unemployment which led to election of Hitler could lead to the election of Romney is clearly out of bounds. <whew> Thank God for that. Now, where's the diffs that were so vile others reverted them, hmmm? nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 23:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, moron, I never said anything about the edits being vile. I thought you were being your usual stupid, obnoxious stuff, but I never said vile or anything similar. Diffs or it didn't happen. This is the edit that started a small edit-war, though. That's what I was referring to . Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 23:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. So the diff you just provided would directly contradict PsyGremlin's claim here he did not vandalize a public talk page or remove other users comments. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 00:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

That's between you and Psy. Take him to the Coop, if you think it's so bad. Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 00:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The case AGAINST banning/promoting Rob

Meh. I thought RW had no rules of conduct. Rob is just being singled out because he is unpopular. No sane person would consider a few comments by one idiot on a talk page that are followed up by several users expressing their disgust to be representative of RW, and if he's using this to get back in between Schlafly's ass cheeks, who cares. Fuck Schlafly and fuck CP, it's about time RW moved past that. Besides, a few people here really must like responding to Rob as much as they would deny it, otherwise they'd be ignoring his stupidity. -- Nx / talk 10:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Rob is part of the furniture, and, what's more, he's harmless. Sure, he'll drop his warped world view into many discussions but he's in no way a vandal and I, for one, find him far less annoying than some of the children who play around this place. It's all a bit slippery slope for my liking. Bad Faith (talk) 10:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing harmless about Rob spouting his Obama hate, when members of this site have been directly affected by the shooting. If he cannot even have the human decency to respect that, then he needs a time out. --Psygremlin (talk) 11:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

There's a case for removing Rob for a fortnight or so. Proxima Centauri (talk) 11:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

If there is, then please do present it. In the section above. -- Nx / talk 11:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

When we restrict speech, it hurts all of us, not just the trolls. I don't know why that exiled oprichnik comes here, but if he insists on hanging out, let him. If you want, promote him -the powers of Sysop are a privilege, not a right. TheLateGatsby (talk) 12:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

(ECx2) Rob's not Mr Popular, he sometimes trolls with outrageous comments that people don't like and he's a worthless piece of shit. None of which are grounds for permaban. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 12:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

(EC) So far, the only specific defense I've seen for Rob to keep sysop (other than "just leave him alone") is because without sysop, he's going to get blocked repeatedly by people and be unable to defend himself. Which might be part of why this is on the coop in the first place. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 10¹³ points 12:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Why would he need to provide a defense, when no one has bothered to provide an offense? No one can explain what rule he broke or why he should be punished for being rude and irreverent, when we have only ever blocked people for admitted trolling or spamming.--^talk 22:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Can he have the power to unblock himself without the sysop power to block others? TheLateGatsby (talk) 12:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

!Why? He rarely blocks anyone, so that would be pointless. Look, Rob is a profound idiot, and a troll. Worst of all, he's a bully who enjoys making people feel bad--that's why he loves the internet, it lets him re-live the experience of being a bully in adulthood without facing any real-kife consequences. I wish he wouldn't come here. But that's up to him. Unless you want to impose a lifetime ban and keep up with blocking future socks and ips and maybe even range blocking, if he wants to come here and bully and troll, he will. MC still shows up on a regular basis, so fat lot of good that did. Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 13:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

RW's being slow as treacle for me so I won't ctrl-V what I said on Proxima's talk page. I am against permabanning Rob. Half what he says is hilarious, the other half is vile, {{trolltop}} and {{trollbottom}} are there for a reason, nobody is obligated to respond to his crap, and "obviously vile trolling" can be deleted. I think the stuff he said about Aurora was vile because of the timing. (Coloradans may differ) reading it now days later, it's just typical Rob being the bottom half of the internet. However, he's either as thick as pigshit or doesn't care when he's crossed the line, so there has to be some temporary sanction against him. Sophie^Wilder 13:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The case FOR AND AGAINST banning/promoting Rob

As far as I was aware, the recent months, and indeed years, have seen moves afoot to make this place a more wide-ranging mature wiki. That means that somewhere within that process you have to create a set of principles that editors agree to abide by and then enforce them. These principles don't have to be numerous, and they don't have to be onerous, but they do need to be there. Now Rob was warned, repeatedly, that he was crossing a line with his comments. He wants to make them; fine, he can set up his own blog, fill it with whatever personally driven hate-filled screed he wants, and take whatever plaudits or shitstorms head his way as a result of it.

The fact that Rob repeatedly crossed a line, even when it was made apparent to him by blocks that he was doing so, should mean that he was violating the set or principles that should be guiding everybody else's posts at that time. It therefore follows that some form of official sanction should therefore then be made against Rob for his actions. If you've got lines and rules, not enforcing them means you might as well not bother with them, or act surprised when more and more people start to flout them.

The counter to that is this: we all know damn well that Rob is doing this to troll and feed his own persecution complex. Ban him for a fortnight, or for however long, and he'll just see it as vindication of his position, as does taking away his mop.

So ultimately it comes down to what sort of wiki we want to be. Do we say that we are the kind of community-based wiki that doesn't seek to allow trolls to 'win' by having them provoke us into action which allows the troll to justify themselves, or do you become the slightly more adult, business-style wiki, where the rules are laid down, if you break them you face sanctions, if you continuously break them the sanctions increase in severity, and if that means that the troll thinks that he/she is winning, then fuck 'em; they may think it, but what they think doesn't mean diddly to us, because we've got a project to get on with.

Personally, I'd go with the latter. But that's just my view.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 12:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

That is exactly what I wanted to say, but you've already said it better than I could. Do we at RW want the pages overrun with mindless, useless drivel? Or do we want to encourage sensible conversation between rational people? Free speech sure, but I know of several people, myself included who avoid RW these days because of Rob's offensive crap. Is it worth driving away sensible editors in the name of "tolerance"? He has never had a legitimate interst in contributing to RW, he is only here as a result of being banned at CP. Rob is malevolent, his only purpose is to spread hate and promote dissention. He's lied about me, Psy, and others intending to cause personal grief. Get rid of Rob, or at the very least, don't let him be a Sysop. (*note: sorry for sticking this comment in out of order, but it follows the above comments.) Refugee^{talk page} 19:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

What rule did he break? I agree he was stupid and insensitive, but I also saw Occasionaluse joke about how now would be a great time to go to a movie theater because it'd be empty. I agree that people who break rules should face consequences... I just don't know how that applies to Rob.--^talk 12:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Are you stupid, or just dense? It's not about breaking rules... for that matter WHAT FUCKING RULES? It's about common decency. Despite many protests by editors on this site, Rob continued to spout his anti-Obama crap, ignoring even those who might have had friends involved in the shooting. When editors decided Rob needed a time out, to rethink what he was saying, he merely unblocked himself and carried on. Now, if you're happy to side with somebody like that, or you don't think that the personal feelings of a member of this wiki take precedence over those of a troll, that's your problem. It's not about permablocking, it's about sending a sick troll to the naughty step. --Psygremlin (talk) 13:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Given how some (senior) editors have treated others on this site; this currently looks like a case of selectively taking offence. If we want to apply standards of respect then people need to be careful of what they wish for. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 12:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec:this is now going to get complicated, bear with me)"What rule did he break?" That really highlights one of the problems we have, in that we don't (yet) have a clearly designed set of rules, and we seem to be creating them on the fly as problems crop up, which is a really bad idea. Sit down, even if it is in committee, draft a set of rules, put it to the rest of the community and go from there, that's the best way to do it. This way is creating a lot of problems that could be headed off before they start. That's point the first.

Point the second. The difference between Occasionaluse and Rob is one of, to get legally technical, or possibly technical legal, actus reus and mens rea. In other words, there is a clear difference in both the fact of the act in both cases, and the intent of act in both cases. In Occasionaluse's case his comment was insensitive, and can be perceived as being distasteful, but it has long been held that nobody has the right not to be offended. In terms of intent, from an objective point of view it can be argued that Occasionaluse's comments were not intended to be an act of malice or spite. In Rob's case, the comments he made were solely to exploit a tragedy to push a personal aim. We can argue what that aim is, but there is a gulf of difference between insensitive comment on a tragedy and the willfiul exploitation of that tragedy. As for Rob's intent in this matter, we can take the objective view that, based on his previous public domain record, he was seeking to both exploit a tragedy to justify and try to win a political argument, and seek to troll users to get a response that feeds into his own paranoid fantasies and twisted, McCarthyistic, views of 'winning' against; and attempting to beat down anybody; who's political views differentiate evenly slightly from his own.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 13:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec:reply to Psy's comment)Within any community, standards of decency are, or at least should be, laid down and delineated within a set of rules. If you don't, then you don't have a common standard that allows you to determine what is decent or not because everybody has a different idea of what is considered decent or not decent in any given situation. It's why laws exist, it's why regulation exists, it's why rules exist. If there was no need for these things, then we wouldn't be here, having this conversation about Rob.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 13:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You'll forgive me if I don't understand: so he needs to be punished for breaking the rules, but there are no rules, but really it's a problem of Rob's intent?

I am uncomfortable with any unwritten principle that allows relatively minor insensitivity to be punished by whoever takes offense. Rob didn't even say something like, "Serves her right" or something else, he was just crude and stupid when he made a political point from a recent tragedy.

But okay: please codify this new rule (or the current unwritten one) in one or two sentences. As you say, if we're going to block him over "standards of decency," we need to write those standards down.--^talk 13:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

So screw common decency. Screw responsibility. Screw accountability. Anybody can say anything they fucking like here and nobody can do anything about it? What a useless fucking bunch of namby-pamby hand wringers you are. --Psygremlin (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, no. If you post someone real-life information, etc. We have clearly defined standards that aren't subject to the arbitrary "do I like this person?" test. But yes, I'm afraid that we can't simply block anyone you think is "indecent."--^talk 13:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Bad Faith (talk) 13:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

For some reason, you seem to have it in your mind that this a permaban of Rob. It's not. Maybe after he repeatedly unblocked himself it went up to 3 months, but that's besides the point. The fact remains that he crossed a line, was asked to stop, did not, and so was sent to take a breather.

Yet some people would rather have him insult the victims of a tragedy, than not. All because they're scared of offending a troll. Nice! Which makes us no better than CP, WND, or any of the other fuckheads we've all been pointing our fingers at. Well done. You are contributing to RW being part of the bottom half of the internet. --Psygremlin (talk) 13:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You don't get to just decide when someone needs to "take a breather," I'm afraid. We have votes for that.--^talk 14:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Which would take 2 months to set up and 3 months to hold. Myself - and other members of this site - took action to make sure Rob took a breather. We had to, because the moderators are too fucking useless to step in and do anything, and would rather protect a troll than the site's integrity. As we see here. Show me one situation that the mods have actually resolved - there isn't one. But they run around wailing when members try and sort things out themselves. --Psygremlin (talk) 14:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The other day I saw that some people were blocking another user for being insensitive, without a vote. I brought it up and got them to have a vote on it. You're commenting on it right now.--^talk 14:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I brought this issue to the Coop. However, as I do not have franchise (too new an account), I could not start a vote. I started the discussion that quickly turned into a proper vote. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 10¹³ points 15:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah... how many days after the event?? Do you see my point? It's been nearly a week already. If that's acting fast, then you're using a strange dictionary. --Psygremlin (talk) 15:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I saw a problem. I think that mods should use the least power possible, so first I undid your abuse as quietly as I could, explaining why in the block reason. Then I went to speak to you on your talk page, as reasonably as I might, to see if you'd be willing to stop. While we were speaking, a new user, Ochtona, saw me pointing out that you'd need a cooping to get Rob blocked, and this new user started one. But because you're an adult, you shouldn't be complaining that I didn't stop you fast enough. You should have had the self-control to ignore some mild trolling.--^talk 22:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

None of those discussion threads were created to express sympathy for victims. All were created to exploit political points using a recent tragedy. This relates more to the current discussion at the Saloon Bar about what kind of a wiki RW wants to be, rather than scapegoating someone Psy and a few others don't like or disagree with. Those threads were created solely as an attack on Andy, Ken & TerryH -- people I am hardly sympathetic to. The only instance of introducing Mr. Obama's name into those threads was a comment by me that CP editors actions seemed to work for Mr. Obama's re-election. Psy's imagination is just delusional. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 14:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

There's no freedom without the freedom to offend, Psygremlin. And PLEASE don't pretend anyone here is worried about offending RobSmith. He has no friends here... and probably has none in the real world. TheLateGatsby (talk) 14:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You don't like them, RobS? Why not, you were one of them until the system turned on you. TheLateGatsby (talk) 14:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

(to many ec's too count)@AD: It's why the heading to this segment says, arguments FOR and AGAINST. It's hard to argue that Rob should face sanction for violating rules that don't exist. On the other hand, it's hard to argue that Rob shouldn't face sanction if a majority of users of this site consider his behaviour in this matter to be unsuitable and worthy of sanction. As for it being a problem of Rob's intent, I believe you have missed the gist of that part of my argument. Most law is written to take so as to determine somebody's guilt based not only on their actions, but also their intent regarding those actions. It's why the law in England & Wales differentiates between murder and manslaughter. Somebody guilty of murder must not only have killed somebody, but must also have intended to kill somebody. Somebody who is guilty of involuntary manslaughter must have killed somebody but must not have intended to do so. Somebody who is guilty of voluntary manslaughter must have killed somebody, must have intended to kill somebody, but made that choice to kill somebody when the balance of their mind was so disturbed that they made a decision that they would not have done if they acted rationally. In all three examples, somebody gets killed, it's the intent that matters as to how somebody is eventually prosecuted and what they are found guilty of. Act and intent. It is this concept that also drives the creation of many rules. The best sets of rules recognise the difference between when somebody intends to break the rules and when somebody does not, and sanctions then vary depending on this. I merely brought this up to highlight the difference between Occasionuse's actions and Rob's actions.

As for me writing rules of decency. No. We have a board of trustees, we have elected moderators. This is part of their duty, whether they like it or not. It should also be something that they are working on, right now. (And as a clue for them, maybe one of the rules should run along the lines of - "No exploiting events that are commonly held to be a tragedy to promote a belief or viewpoint that is only tangentially related to that tragedy". Let's face it, a discussion about gun control, on either side of the argument, would have been appropriate, if not best timed around this particular tragedy, using it to try an promote an anti-whoever-it-is message is not, unless whoever-it-is has said something that ties them directly to the tragedy.)-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 14:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Whoa, it's news to me that it's part of my job to decide when people are being properly respectful! I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that, and I'm absolutely positive a lot of other people aren't going to like it.--^talk 14:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow... did you just say that you wouldn't do a part of your job as a moderator because it makes you uncomfortable? Are you seriously thinking that you could do this job without taking a side, without upsetting people, without having to make a call? Sheesh. No wonder you're hiding behind non-existent rules. God forbid you have to make a decision. --Psygremlin (talk) 14:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't be silly. If I was a coward or lazy, I'd just have quietly ignore the whole thing and let you block Rob without a vote. I just didn't think it was right. Nor do I think it would be right for me to be a judge and decide what is an acceptable opinion.--^talk 14:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Rob is the only person who could do his cause more harm by defending himself. Nowhere were we trying to exploit political points - show me where, outside of everybody going WTF? And if you deny that your repeated references to unemployment weren't a dig at Obama, then you are a fucking liar. You were asked to stop, people expressed their disgust and still you carried on - even after you knew SirChuck might have had friends caught up in it. The only person using this for political gain (in however your mind works) was you. The fact that you are unapologetic of your actions further highlights this. You are disgusting and I don't see why the good people of this wiki should be tainted by your presence. --Psygremlin (talk) 14:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Fuck that - if you offend, you are held accountable for offending. It's fucking simple people. --Psygremlin (talk) 14:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

So do not pretend those discussion threads were an expression of sympathy for victims. They were not. They were efforts to extract political points against Andy Schlafly, Ken DeMeyer, and Terry Hurlbutt in the wake of a tragedy. This question relates to what kind of wiki RW wants to be, and efforts to use Rationalwiki in the manner you have promoted for years other users and potential donors may find offensive. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 14:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec)@AD. Ah, miscommunication. No, as far as I'm aware, when trustee's or a board are formed for, well, anything, they have the responsibility to create, review and, where necessary, modify, the standards (and from that the rules) that govern the organisation that they are the trustee's and board/moderator's for. Even as a non-profit I'm fairly certain we have to some form of corporate responsibility in place.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 14:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the Board are responsible for maintaining the site. They were never presented as being responsible for policing it and deciding what is acceptable speech. Please show me if I am wrong.

Similarly, mods are not responsible for deciding what is "decent" and should be allowed. Please show me if I am wrong. If it is the case that mods should be reviewing talk page posts and blocking people who are offensive, I will cheerfully admit as much and cheerfully resign.--^talk 14:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

No, the Trustees are only responsible to the Foundation and have no role in running the wiki. Likewise, if a Trustee acts like a douche on the wiki, it doesn't affect his standing as a Trustee. --Psygremlin (talk) 14:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I remember you having a different tune before. Something like, people on the Board of Trustees should show better behavior than any normal user... now you're on the side of "the Trustees can do whatever they want as a normal user"? amazing how much difference a year makes. (Back from the grave, because the hypocrisy is so ripe.) --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 22:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, step outside the grounds of deciding what is acceptable speech for the moment. As far as I am aware, the trustees are responsible for ensuring that the Foundation complies with the law of the appropriate jurisdictions. Or at least, if somebody takes the Foundation to court over libel, or criminal charges relating to material found on the Rationalwiki site, it's the trustees' arses on the seat giving testimony. Therefore it's up to the trustees' to put into place structures that ensure that the area of care that they are responsible for remains legal. Now, whilst they are there, there's no real reason why they can't start thinking about putting into place the structures and organisations that allow for the creation, governance and enforcement of the rules of behaviour on-wiki (assuming that the community wants a set of codified rules, and given the incidence rate of HCM, I reckon it's probably a good idea that we do put such things into place). Now the trustees don't have to do this themselves, but they can certainly ask a committee of, say, mods to get to together to start this process. Of course, individual mods can say that they aren't interested in doing this, but at least it's a step in the right direction. Right now, it seems that we have a disconnect between what is the board of the Foundation and the management level of the wiki, which is essentially the mods. From what I've seen of the operation of this wike you have the appearance of an awful lot of managers acting in an individual manner, each with individual mandate, very little apparent consistency, and no codified guidelines and rules to refer to. End result - HCM. As I said, if it's the interested mods that get together, rather than the trustees, and they codify a set of guidelines (which is approved by the sysops) that everyone can refer too and use, at least that would be something, even if it all creates is rough consistency. Of course, there's no reason why mod's can't get together without being prompted too by the trustees, but that hasn't happened yet, and in my experience, it probably won't unless some preexisting organised group (i.e. the trustees) gets the ball rolling)-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 15:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

This is correct, the Trustees have a legal obligation to ensure that RW does not violate the law. However, posting offensive material is not illegal. Not only is it not criminal, it's not even tortuous. So, while the Trustees have an obligation to ensure that RW follows the law at all times, their position is explicitly that they take no editorial control in any way shape or form over the wiki. In fact, it's kind of either in the By Laws (which would warrant any member of RW suing the board for seeking to exert editorial control as a breach of contract/duty), or in the "this is what Trustees do." which is not legally binding, and thus not enforceable in any court, but which the Trustees take to heart. They ensure that the site runs, and that nothing illegal is going down. Beyond that, they don't care if RW turns into ponies and lolcats... --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 22:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I have some problems, SD.

• Anyone can propose new guidelines and codify acceptable levels of respectful discourse. I will argue and vote against them, but anyone can do it on the standards page.
• I am not going to do this, nor will I encourage other mods to do so. Regulation of speech is neither reasonable (subjective measurements for acceptable speech drastically increase groupthink) nor practical (I am not interested in trying to read every talk page to be the Speech Police).
• As I pointed out a moment ago, unanswered, mods do not have a mandate to get together to try to write rules over acceptable speech on the wiki. Indeed, it is emphatically the opposite case - I and other mods have emphasized often that we are not superusers.

If you really want a code of conduct enforced by the mods, then you need to propose that at the standards. You will, I think, be staggered at the level of negative response.--^talk 22:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I think you've kinda missed something there. We already have patrolling of what is considered acceptable or non-acceptable speech. We all know damn well that if somebody tries to open up a new front for Stormfront here, they'd get shut down pretty damn quick. But what we don't have is anything codified. For some strange reason you seem obsessed with the idea that I'm telling you to go out and patrol dem talk pages. I'm not. I'm saying that somewhere along the line a codified idea of what behaviour is acceptable and not acceptable on this wiki has to be made clear and available for everyone to see. It doesn't have to be detailed, it can deal in broadstrokes, and it sure as hell isn't going to define the words that people can use. What it is going to do is set a bloody baseline that people can look at and a make friggin' basic comparison too. Look at us. Unless you're a friggin' moron it isn't possible to say that Rob's behaviour, at times, isn't appropriate, and his actions aren't deliberate. But as we have absolutely no fucking baseline to compare it too, here we are again, HCM, spinning our wheels and wasting our fucking time. Because here's what's going to happen. Nothing. No decision is going to be made, either way. Is Rob's behaviour enough to get him blocked? Who the fuck knows, there's no baseline to compare it with. Is Rob's behaviour enough to get him desysoped? No fucking idea, 'cause there's no fucking baseline. You might think it's free speech. It isn't, It's fucking shambolic, and worse, deeply irrational. Seriously, we are meant to be Rationalwiki and yet Wookiepedia has a more rational policy when it comes down to dealing with inappropriate posts. A site that doesn't claim to deal with anything close to rational shames us when it comes down to codified user policy. Stop and marvel at that for a second. Seriously, just marvel at that and then ask yourself if this site's current lack of professionalism in dealing with conflicts is something you are proud to be associated with?-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 01:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, If you do not like wasting your time, please be advised that you are at the wrong wiki.

I, for one, kind of like these little dust-ups get-togethers. It brings into sharp relief just who is here to have a serious wiki and get things done and who wants a place to wank all over the internet's face. C®ackeЯ 01:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I understood you perfectly, SD. I just don't want to participate in developing any code of conduct or acceptable speech. If you want to start such a discussion and draft some rules, fine. But we don't have one now, so I assume you will be voting not to block or promote Rob.--^talk 21:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Question for the moderators

Where were they during all of this? Did any mod, apart from unblocking and reinstating Rob, actually say "Look, it's clear you're pissing people off, maybe you should back down?" or did they just sit around and do fuck all? Did any of them actually do their job,instead of hand-wringing now? --Psygremlin (talk) 14:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You're right. Ideally, someone (including a mod) should have said as much to Rob, or put his nonsense on the Robrail, or whatever. But some mods don't believe in acting as mods, ever, and others are only mortal and can't always read the whole site all the time. I apologize that things got to this point.--^talk 15:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

This simply isn't true. The discussion was not about sympathy for victims. It was an attack on CP senior sysops. My two cents was only that CP senior sysops were not pursuing a line that would be the most logical. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 15:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Rob, if you're so innocent, care to explain what you were trying to insert into my entry on RWW? --Psygremlin (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

What's that have to do with the price of fish? Why RWW has a Template is a matter for them to debate and decide. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 17:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You missed the "it's a joke" part of that. Now answer psy's question, you coward. Sophie^Wilder 18:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

My response is: a) Would a moderator giving Rob a "talking to" have accomplished much for such a persistent person? b) Since most of Rob's antics happen in TWIGO:CP, and since I rarely if ever visit that page, I for one never saw whatever it was that people were getting so angry about. Like it or not, my official view is that "I don't care what happens at WIGO:CP." I'm writing this before reading the case brought against him. Blue (pester) 17:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

If it's something on TWIGO:CP I would have missed it. ^bomination 18:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's have a poll option as, "Mothball WIGO:CP and associated drivel," why not. As it stands I'm having a very difficult time caring about any of this. Blue (pester) 18:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

(ECX3)Please. Тy^{passive-aggressive sigs are the best sigs} 19:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

(EC) Oh, well, there. It's solved. As long as Blue doesn't care about it, it doesn't matter. Refugee^{talk page} 19:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

What offense did Rob commit, other than unblocking himself? If Rob had been given a time out by a Moderator, there may have been a case warranting action and possible de-sysoping. But no evidence has been presented alleging abuse of user rights. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 19:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Rob you have no legitimate reason for being here. Refugee^{talk page} 19:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Bull. I talked the powers that be out of the idea of forming an LLC and advocated the creation of a non-profit foundation. I didn't see anybody else looking out for the site's interests at that time. And there's other major contributions on site and off, I've made. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 19:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Saying we don't have a rule, so we can't do anything is like saying we can't charge somebody with murder, because his victims didn't lock their door. A fuckup on our part should not give trolls free rein. Psygremlin (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

So I've never been a moderating influence when over the top discussions, exactly as talked about here, have spun out of control? User:MDB started several threads on TWIGO to capitalize on CP's inept handling of the Aurora shooting, criticized CP sysops using a tragedy to score political points and promote itself, then started this thread, Let's Show We Have More Class Than CP. Who was the moderating influence when users lost perspective and made postings that made RW look foolish? Were you, in South Africa, gonna run down to the nearest blood blank to donate blood for the Aurora Colorado victims? Hardly. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 20:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

See, this is your problem, Rob. Your brain is in gear for the first part of that because yes, I think sometimes people will slip and capitalise on this sort of thing for their own political ends - though I don't think it's anywhere near as disgraceful as some examples we've seen. And yes, you'd be right to point it out when it happens so people can critically reflect - and yes, someone from the opposite end of the political spectrum can help show that when it occurs. But then those gears clearly become dislodged as you take it upon yourself to make a complete non-sequitur and unrealistic demand in the form of an insult at the end. One or the other, please. None of these Asshole-Rob-Reasonable-Rob games. It would make whether or not to boot your ass off the site permanently a far easier decision. ^moral 20:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Your points well taken, and I thought long and hard before that personal comment to Psy. It was a mistake, but I'm not gonna de-sysop and block Armondikov cause he said something I didn't like. The complaints are virtually non-existent about any personal comments I make about other users, they are about contributing to discussions.

What you say here, his "way of sidling into a new train of thought during arguments" is in most all cases done to give a counter illustration how (often absurd) the ongoing discussion appears to an independent, neutral observer who is not part of the same mindset. A safeguard against groupthink. And I've never been accused of using hostility to disrupt a discussion, to my knowledge.

I'm aware of the complaints over the years, and have in recent months worked to be accommodating and less intrusive. It's not surprising this arose in a moment of chaos, but Psy's complaint, and few others, seems more motivated as a Gotcha, cause I just refuse to tow the party line in all things anti-conservative, etc. So they just have no use for me. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 20:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Should Rob be blocked

Note: original version of this vote, started by Psy, used the voting widget, and already had ten votes. I'm afraid I had to replace it, since there would otherwise be no way to exclude people without franchise (such as socks and new users). I apologize for the inconvenience and the fact that you may have to vote again, but it would be obviously and flagrantly unfair. Sorry.

Standard franchise and whatnot, per standards.--^talk 13:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

As per voting standards, a motion to block/ban a user needs a two-thirds majority. An alternative proposal (e.g. vandal binning) would only require a simple majority. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Is this going to go on for much longer as it's clear this vote is a "no". ^sshole 11:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

And using your logic, it's clear that the vote to have Rob defrocked is a "yes." --Psygremlin (talk) 11:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Fine by me. ^moral 11:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: voting began on 24 Jul, so it will end on 7 Aug. No reason to end them earlier, especially as results are increasingly close.--^talk 10:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Way too long! Really the duration of the vote should have been stated in advance, but the guidelines are between seven & fourteen days. Recent cases have involved no more than a one-week vote, so I see no reason for this one to be given the maximum duration, especially as all votes date from 24th-26th July, with no new votes cast within the past three days. Let's close the votes tomorrow, when they will have run for a week. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes

1. --Psygremlin (talk) 13:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
2. I maintain that Rob is harmless and misunderstood, but a 1-2 week block may be a good idea to incite him to share his more controversial opinions at better times and more diplomatically--"Shut up, Brx." 14:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
3. --Kels (talk) 15:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
4. Because liberals. -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
5. -- Refugee^{talk page} 19:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
6. I may be a bleeding heart, but clear trolling is where I draw the line. Vulpius (talk) 01:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
7. I support sanctions against over-the-top douchebaggery. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 04:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

No

1. Blocks don't work. MC still trolls us. Unless you want to go all TK and range-block New Mexico, if Rob wants to come and troll and bully, he will. The onus is on Rob to grow up, not on us to deal with his failure to do so.^{— Unsigned, by: TheoryOfPractice / talk / contribs} .
2. Meh. Blaming unemployment for the Colorado massacre doesn't even crack the top 10 of stupidest things Rob has said. Being a colossal idiot isn't a crime, and Rob can be comedic gold at times. Rob is as stupid as a retard, but unlike someone with actual mental disability, we can make fun of him guilt-free. It's hard to put a price on that. DickTurpis (talk) 17:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

   It may be "so bad it's good" to some, but I'm sure the majority would say it's causing significant disruption. Osaka Sun (talk) 17:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

   Yeah, he's really good at derailing conversations to make them about him or whatever nonsense he's cooked up this week. And, of course, not a shred of good faith. --Kels (talk) 18:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

3. What? Blue (pester) 19:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
4. C®ackeЯ 20:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
5. Not even that offensive. Wild overreaction.--^talk 22:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
6. It seems to me the primary reason people want to ban him is for his opinions. My opinions are very different from his, but I don't think that is a good reason to ban anybody. Zack Martin  22:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
7. "He said something I find offensive"... too damn bad. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 22:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
8. So apparently we ban people for what they say. Why is Rob here and all the people who have been wheel warring his rights and blocking him aren't? 03:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
9. I don't think Rob should be blocked. He is an irritant but hasn't said anything that outlandish. Yet. Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 03:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

   Yet. Osaka Sun (talk) 04:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

10. What Ace said. Sam ^Tally-ho! 05:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
11. Why aren't we bringing up the people who banned Rob for saying offensive things here? Psy, you are a great blog writer, and the best CP stalker in the biz but this obsession you have with ideological hegemony and authoritarianism is dumb as fuck. Tielec01 (talk) 05:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
12. Rob has been around a long time. He is clearly not the sharpest tool in the shed, but it can be a lot of fun reading his screeds if you are that way inclined. If you aren't that way inclined you can always ignore him. Damo^Hi 08:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
13. Wild overreaction. sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 21:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
14. If we blocked for any incidence of idiocy, only the bots would be left. rpeh •T•C•E• 18:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Other

1. For his remarks on the page - at the moment, NO, as we have no clearly defined rules setting out that this kind of behaviour is not acceptable on this wiki. For continuing to act in exactly the same manner after being blocked, instead of trying to resolve the problem that got him blocked- YES. For this single incidence - UNDECIDED. For his overall standard and, far more importantly, pattern of behaviour - YES.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 14:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment: This is progress to a certain extent; in the wake of the shooting of Congresswoman Giffords I was blocked moments afterwards, as if I had something to do with it. I was not even active in the discussion at that time. Yes, there should be standards developed to apply to all users, especially at moments of chaos and crisis. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 18:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Duration of Block

0 x π

1. A mathematically-pleasing ban length — two of the most fundamental constants of mathematics (0 and π) brought together as one in the glory of multiplication. Zack Martin  22:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
2. 03:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

1 Hour

1. Even though I voted no to blocking. Sam ^Tally-ho! 05:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

1 week

1. --Psygremlin (talk) 13:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
2. --Kels (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
3. -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
4. --Refugee^{talk page} 19:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

2 weeks

1. -- ^{Jabba de Chops} 14:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments

I haven't checked the page history but the fact that the penalty is being weighed before the "trial" is completed speaks volumes. (Oh, SURE, it might just be something we could chalk up to "efficiency", a sort of template, if you will. But I don't think so, I think it was set-up to have a fair trial followed by a hanging.) C®ackeЯ 20:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Should Rob be defrocked (promoted)

Yes

1. --Psygremlin (talk) 13:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
2. -- ^{Jabba de Chops} 14:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
3. Demoting him in the first place was pointless and stupid. --Kels (talk) 15:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

   Comment: The real question has to do with a good faith user with a single use account and no socks to unblock himself. Should this sort of abuse be inbuilt for old guard editors to maintain control outside of written standards and policies? nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 16:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

   Who is this good faith user of whom you speak? We were talking about you. Sophie^Wilder 20:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

4. He's a troll and a bully. While blocking him would be futile, there's no reason he should have the keys to the store. Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 16:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
5. What they've all said--il'Dictator Mikal 17:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

   Sure, even with our absurdly lax sysop criteria, it is still a privilege, and one we can certainly argue Rob hasn't earned. Though this means keeping in mind we have a guy who can't unblock himself, so those "fuck off, Rob" 6 month blocks are real, not symbolic, and can't be taken lightly anymore. DickTurpis (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

6. At least. Osaka Sun (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
7. -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
8. -- Yes. Refugee^{talk page} 19:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
9. Per DickTurpis: sysopery is a privilege Rob hasn't earned. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 04:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
10. Sam ^Tally-ho! 05:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

No

1. I still can't parse the reasoning behind promoting him. If "lack of common decency" gets you promoted, I can think of about thirty of us who don't deserve any rights. Blue (pester) 19:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
2. C®ackeЯ 19:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
3. Why?--^talk 22:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
4. I don't see why. He rarely if ever does anything to abuse admin powers. The only claimed instance is unblocking himself when someone blocks him, but unblocking yourself is generally not abuse of admin powers (unless the block was imposed as a result of a community decision, of course; but it was not in this case). Zack Martin  22:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
5. Hang him too I guess. It's a kangaroo court if some asshole can just add a section calling for Rob's rights to be removed yet those who actually have been abusing them go without so much as a slap on the wrist. Hey AD, hope you like what's happening here. 03:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
6. See above. Rob does not abuse his sysop rights - unlike many of those who voted to promote him. Tielec01 (talk) 05:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

   Examples? Or you're PIDOOMA. Osaka Sun (talk) 06:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

   I should provide links to Rob NOT abusing sysopPOWERZ!? Okay....how? C®ackeЯ 06:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

   It appears you have misunderstood. I meant the voters. Osaka Sun (talk) 08:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

   I'm acutely aware that whatever I produce it's likely to be dismissed as "not abuse". Would you consider blocking a user who had made no contributions an abuse of sysop rights? [5] Tielec01 (talk) 08:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

   What the fuck? You claimed that those who want him to lose his sysop status abuse it as well. I asked for examples of us doing so. So do it.

   Whether Rob didn't violate his powers is irrelevant. He has been responsible for inflammatory statements beyond reason, and this is not the first time he's been taken to the coop. Osaka Sun (talk) 08:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

   ? See above. Whether Rob violated his powers is very relevant to whether he should be stripped of them. Who cares about inflammatory statements - your statement above is inflammatory, as was my original statement. What relevance is it that he's been cooped before; are you suggesting that where there is smoke there is fire?Tielec01 (talk) 09:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

   The reason we are here is because Rob was willing, among other things, to include the Aurora shootings, Obama and Hitler in the same sentence. Obviously Rob didn't misuse technical responsibilities, but you don't think pure dickery is worthy of cooping, then that's your opinion. Don't you dare, however, accuse those (ie. Sam, Dick, Sophie, yours truly, etc.) who have never once abused sysop tools of doing so. Osaka Sun (talk) 09:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

   If you're bringing up rights abuses here, Tielec, you can do better than Mikal blocking some probable spammer several months ago - take, for example, all the people who blocked and promoted rob at the start of this case. Peter ^{This is not my first temporal anomaly} 09:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

   You might be right Peter; however I thought that 1) it's likely that OS thinks that the unilateral de-sysopping of Rob outside of process was not abuse since he voted in favour of de-sysopping Rob (this may not be true); 2) It's a little close to begging the question of this very argument to claim that de-sysopping Rob was abuse; and 3) Mikal's action seemed particularly agregious to me (although I may be alone in this respect) so I thought no-one could disagree that it was abuse. OS has a point I was being hyperbolic by claiming MANY people had abused their rights - and I have never seen OS use their rights so I am not claiming they abuse them. Tielec01 (talk) 10:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

   I am not condoning any de-sysopping or blocking outside process. That's why we're voting on this right now. Judging from the content in the Robrail (and previous situations) it is not shocking that his behaviour is being once again addressed. Osaka Sun (talk) 10:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

7. Although he is basically a Conservapedian at heart, he has not abused his sysop tools, to my knowledge. A while back he made some threats towards us for which he lost his status, but that was a long time ago. Besides, him not being able to unblock himself will cause a whole lot of trouble when someone blocks him. ITs not worth the hassle. Damo^Hi 08:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
8. The only reason for this seems to be to stop him unblocking himself. Since the block measure isn't passing, there's no need for this. rpeh •T•C•E• 18:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
9. There was no abuse of rights. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 05:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
10. Changing my vote. To me this issue isn't about abuse of rights as much as syshopship here being a general mark of acceptance. While Rob's trolling makes me think he doesn't deserve this privilege, it's true that he hasn't abused his powers, and, more importantly, I don't want to have to be constantly unblocking him every time he irritates someone (nor should anyone else). Let him do that himself. DickTurpis (talk) 15:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
11. Really? This is making a mountain out of a molehill.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 16:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Duration of defrocking

Up to a day

1. Just to take the heat out of things, but he still needs to defend himself against people who lose their temper with him and block for three months. Sophie^Wilder 13:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
2. No penalty is due at all, hence of course I will argue that if one is to be imposed it ought to be de minimis. Zack Martin  22:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
3. In case the measure passes, I'd prefer the shortest duration. rpeh •T•C•E• 18:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Longer

1. Permanently. Why give a mop to somebody who does not support the mission of this site, does not contribute to it, and only uses it to spoiut his crap - most of which makes Hurlbut look sane. --Psygremlin (talk) 14:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Length of last promotion plus 1 year.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 14:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
3. I'm with Psy, why bother giving it back when it's a waste? But if the community says nothing permanent, I'll go with the "last promotion + 1 year" instead. --Kels (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
4. Until he demonstrates that he can be a productive editor who doesn't derail conversations with inanities or say things just to hurt people. Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 20:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
5. Again what they all said, specefically if not perm then the year thingil'Dictator Mikal 17:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
6. He's never apologized for any of the bullshit he spews and he never contributes to anything other than conversations. He's not an asset by any means to RW. -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
7. Permanently. No reason for him to have it, he has no good intentions for RW. Refugee^{talk page} 19:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
8. Indefinitely, barring his complete transformation into a decent human being. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 04:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
9. What ToP said. Sam ^Tally-ho! 05:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
10. What Sam said. Osaka Sun (talk) 05:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Until he apologises

1. This should be the standard duration for all punishments here. Although, an important reason he has sysop powers is so he can protect himself from the depredations of other users here--"Shut up, Brx." 14:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Other

1. No set time. Re-evaluate in a while. DickTurpis (talk) 04:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments

As above.

I haven't checked the page history but the fact that the penalty is being weighed before the "trial" is completed speaks volumes. (Oh, SURE, it might just be something we could chalk up to "efficiency", a sort of template, if you will. But I don't think so, I think it was set-up to have a fair trial followed by a hanging.) C®ackeЯ 20:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm assuming the duration sections are incumbent on the initial votes ending in a positive result, and will be void if it is decided not to block or promote him. It makes sense to me. Having two weeks of voting over this crap seems excessive. DickTurpis (talk) 20:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You already have a rough idea of what the sentence may be before going into any trial. Since we don't have those sorts of things codified, it makes sense to negotiate them at the same time. Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 22:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I note that as the time of this post, 23:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC), the votes against blocking look like they will carry the day. If he hasn't been conwicted for a simple block how do defrockers justify this more serious sanction? C®ackeЯ

Hypocrisy and "community" sanctioned abuse. 19:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not a more serious sanction. Blocking involves exclusion from the site (for some period of time). Desysoping doesn't. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Cracker, it is something that has also been on my mind during the day. We should have a process of charge, verdict, then type and duration of any sanction. It's a bit like a lynch mob going straight for the punishment. If we are to be rational then we need to take this stuff one step at a time. Генгис^{Gum disease} 19:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I have to disagree. Having a week long vote on a block, then (assuming the ayes have it) another week long vote on duration introduces another damn level of bureaucracy, especially of 2 weeks of voting yields a 24 hour ban. That just borders on ridiculous. DickTurpis (talk) 22:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Ultragoat

It appears yet again that we don't have any cohesive policy for members that cross the line. One glance at WIGO:CP Talk and you can find something worthy of the Robrail. A massive HCM is in the waiting.

I'm not sure what exactly needs to be done, but something has to change. Osaka Sun (talk) 17:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

archive anything he says to robspace and let him jabber his idiocies to himself. Sophie^Wilder 18:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Does MediaWiki have any tool that can do that automatically? :P Osaka Sun (talk) 19:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You can easily drop {{trolltop}} on him. Or you can copy-paste the comments to his own fuss-box in his userspace. That would solve most of the problems by isolating it to the people who want to watch his fuss-box and duke it out there. ^theist 20:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. All this mess over a bunch of posts that should have just been troll tagged. Q0 (talk) 02:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The fact that Rob is a frequent editor and not just a one-time IP troll might make this a little more difficult. Osaka Sun (talk) 04:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

But not impossible. Sophie^Wilder 10:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Chilled Out Goat

This goat is quite happy sitting on a pile of rocks ignoring all the bullshit going on around it. Please be like this goat. rpeh •T•C•E• 11:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Very cool. :-) Exactly the reminder I needed. Hee.. whoever posted the pelican pic below, that's funny too, thanks for my laugh for the day. Refugee^{talk page} 18:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

(EC) Goat on a rock. We can all learn from this goat. Blue (pester) 18:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

At least be consistent

We've got rules for it so it must be a good idea, right?

It's appalling that you all are collectively cultivating a habit of blocking people for saying things that you don't like. Call it trolling as much as you want. It's not. Nobody can point to a single instance of Rob doing more than expressing himself honestly or just messing around. So you think he says terrible stuff. Compare it to what you all say to each other and about strangers every day of the week on this website. Wanna compare him to MC? Good luck with that. And of course you're also talking about removing his rights when nobody can point to a single instance of him abusing them. Blocking people for speech is so far beyond RW's original ethos that "I don't even."

Here, let me help you out. I willingly took my lumps for intentionally violating our rules by blocking that disgusting subhuman, racist, misogynist garbage as an expression of my contempt for him and sincere wish that he'll finally go. In fact I copped to all of it with an explanation that resonated with a lot of people. Even then some of you all brought up blocking the piece of shit indefinitely, which I opposed, just as I oppose blocking Rob.

So let's look at what got us here: Rob says some stuff that pisses a few people off and they go apeshit breaking the rules to punish him. Looks familiar. Diffs or it didn't happen, right? Some of you hypocrites clamor for law and order yet couldn't run a goddamn thing fairly if fairness came up and bit you in your asses. The coop existing for the purpose of diffusing "HCM?" Which clowns even use that term? When has the coop ever actually quieted things down? Some great community that it's run like more of a boy's club than the law and order types could ever show the crat system to have been. 19:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I basically agree with Nutty here. The only thing I'd say is that I don't have a big problem with blocking Rob for being a dick as long as he still has sysop rights to unblock himself. The guy is a dick, and he should be prepared to pay the price of having to unblock himself every few minutes as he gets tag-teamed if he wants to use RW to try to get back into Andy's good books. Taking away his sysop rights and blocking him, though, isn't cool.

The only other comment I'd make is that once again the moderator system has proved to be a farce. Some mods made a point of not giving a shit in their campaign, so fair enough to them. We've had two mods saying that they never read TWIGO:CP because it doesn't interest them, which seems a pretty pathetic excuse to me. The mod who took the biggest interest in the topic jumped on one particular editor to issue blame even though it was clear that the editor concerned was only the latest in a sequence. That's just bad operating practice - and yes, I know there was an apology later.

Let's treat Rob the RW way - post pictures of cocks on his talk page, block him so he has to unblock himself, mark his comments with trolltop and trollbottom. He'll get the message. rpeh •T•C•E• 19:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

On a note of personal defense: I spoke to everyone I saw blocking Rob. Psy was just the one who insisted he would continue to do it. I apologized that things escalated because no one intervened before, not for intervening with Psy; I maintain he does not have the right to just ban Rob as he pleases.--^talk 21:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Exactly right - how has the mod system been at all helpful in this instance? It hasn't. How have any of our various rules and voting system helped here? It hasn't. But I fucking guarantee that as soon as someone starts posting obscene images to Rob's page and blocks him over and over someone will call on the mods and a ban/block will eventuate. Shows just how fucked this system is. Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 19:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

"Let's treat Rob the RW way - post pictures of cocks on his talk page, block him so he has to unblock himself, mark his comments with trolltop and trollbottom." AKA "taking the high road". DickTurpis (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

AKA giving the attention whore the attention he craves & flooding RC with more Rob-related crap. What's so difficult about just ignoring his comments? Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

You're claiming that the "moderator system has proved to be a farce," yet want to resort to the ol' harassment techniques. But when has that ever worked? It only makes the situation worse. Peter ^{This is not my first temporal anomaly} 19:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

@Dick, I didn't claim to be taking any road, although I will claim to be taking one that's far less boring than this one. @Weasel, ideally, yes - and I have done until this because it shows no signs of ending. The trouble is that there's always a few people who rise to the bait. @Peter - it doesn't work and it doesn't make things worse. All it does is give a few laughs to people who don't give a fuck. rpeh •T•C•E• 20:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

"Boring"? Really? That's your indictment of this system? Honestly, that's the sort of analysis I'd expect from Homer Simpson. I hope you aren't even on the board of trustees. "Meeting is called to order at 17:56 UTC. Present are all remaining trustees, Tmtoulouse, Human,-" "BOOOOOOOOOORRRIIIIINNNNNG!!!!!!!" You know what's not boring? ARSON! Where's my gasoline? Shit's gonna burn. DickTurpis (talk) 20:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, boring. This is a system that achieves nothing, causes the same level of HCM and raises not one smile. The other achieves nothing, causes HCM but also raises giggles. It is therefore much preferable to this one. QED. rpeh •T•C•E• 20:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, sure. Dick pics raise giggles. If you're 13. I was under the impression most of us weren't, but I could be wrong. We have been trending younger of late, I've noticed. As for "settling", well, the Coop "settles" the question on whether or not we should block and/or desysop Rob for trolling, for what it's worth (little). If there are other matters to be settled that are not currently in the settling stage let us know and we can try to settle them, if you like. Or not. DickTurpis (talk) 20:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

If you no longer laugh a a well-timed fart joke, or the montage of cocks in the shape of the symbol of a made-up religion then I pity you. And this page is settling absolutely nothing. All that will happen is that people get bored and move on, and that's exactly what used to happen. rpeh •T•C•E• 21:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

How do you time a joke on a wiki? Anyway, if people get bored and move on this instant we'll still have a settlement: Rob is not blocked but is promoted for, erm..."longer". OK, not completely settled then, but that's a minor bug to be worked out. DickTurpis (talk) 21:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Nutty, if you want to bring TOP and Psy into another coop, do as you wish. However, how will moderators find means to solve the problem when the same "anti-authoritarians" want them to have as little power as possible? Osaka Sun (talk) 20:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm still curious as to how he managed to turn this into an attack on "law and order types." Everything is about creating conflict with this man. It's rather reminiscent of the Republican Party's politics of hostage taking and outright lying to get attention. Blue (pester) 20:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Hang on

Feel free to merge this with the above. Nutty, I love you like my china from a different vagina, but given your run-ins with Brx and Mara, do you really feel you can point a finger at other people? Weren't yo t also repeatedly blocking Brx? Without the benefit of cooping him? Yes, we need to be consistent. I don't think you are being, in this case. And you are all missing the point - or a blinded by your own hate of Rob - the measure is to censure him for dancing on the graves of others. If we allow it here, then we have no right to point fingers at Andy and co. We are no better than him. Psygremlin (talk) 20:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Look, you guys are my bros from the same baby daddy but different end stage syphilitic whores. I can love you and not like the things you do, but ultimately this has nothing to do with you anyhow. It's about how all the process gets us frothed up more than it helps anything. We've had a few elections. Otherwise it's been a huge waste of time. Anyhow, you seem to have missed the part where I pointed out that I was very clear in my coop about copping to breaking the rules, just for a reason. Even if you can show that Rob's as disgusting a waste of space as Brxbrx, which would give you a moral justification for breaking the rules, you all both went well beyond what I got blocked for, and that's what this is about: the arbitrary and capricious nature of how these rules get applied and how they fail as a conflict avoidance mechanism. 22:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Block away (AFAIC) - just don't promote him at the same time. rpeh •T•C•E• 20:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

" If we allow it here, then we have no right to point fingers at Andy and co." I'm not sure I buy that. Am I responsible for everything Rob says, or every cock that Ace posts on Mara's page? Or does the onus for those fall on the individuals in question? Or, on the other hand, as an incorporated entity with a corporate identity, is there a sense with which we all share responsibility for the kind of discourse that gets associated with our brand? If so, where is the line? We all agree that blatant racism should be off limits, but one man's grave dancing is another man's political argument. Is Rob blaming it on Obama the same thing as Godot blaming it on gun availability? They both used the tragedy to advance a political agenda: the only real difference is that Rob did it in a way that revealed that he's not too bright. Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 20:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no opinion on where this goes. But I have to say to the "no different from andy. 1) let's make rules that work for US, for RW, based on our needs, not based on waht some fucking idiot on some all but irrelevant site says, thinks or does. 2) These kinds of things are not black and white and all or nothing. adding some rules, does not mean we are now authoritarian jackasses, and keeping some crazyness does not makes us lawless. There really are logical points in between extremes that we can work out for the site that suite our needs, and what we see ourselves as, and where we want to be/want to go.GodotWhat is your fucking defense of automatic guns, again? 20:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

ultimately yes, we are responsible. In the same way we attack Andy for allowing Ken's drivel, we can be attacked for allowing that sort of drivel here. The problem is we have no guidelines - you say racist - but what is racist? Do you draw the line at Frog? Or wog? Or Paki? Or nigger? What about sexist? Who decides. Certainly not the mods - we've had one say there's no rule for this, so throw him to the mob and another say she has no interest in the matter. So why even have mods? Psygremlin (talk) 20:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Why even have mods is outlined here among other places. Their role is explicitly not to make decisions on behalf of the community about who gets banned etc. It's not clear what you think mods have "failed" to do in this instance, other than to back up your personal decision to block someone you don't like for three months. Instead of that, it's up for community discussion at the Chicken Coop, because that's how the system works. Personally, I think this case looks like a mountain made of a molehill & a waste of everyone's time, but if the community are as interested in this issue as they apparently are, the Chicken Coop is the proper place to discuss it & decide on an outcome. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

There is a huge difference difference between Andy allowing and encouraging crap in CP mainspace and one editor posting crap on a RW talk page which is widely condemned. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 21:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

No there's not. It's the same as the editor of the now-defunct Nuke Lies having a fit when I called him anti-Semetic because of the crap he allowed Rerevisionist to post there. Nobody from outside sees those posts and goes "Oh, it's Rob being a dick." They go "Wow, RW is linking the shooting to Obama." If we allow that sort of crap on this site, then we cannot go around pointing fingers at other people - that makes us hypocrites of the worst kind. --Psygremlin (talk) 11:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

No. They might say "someone on RW is linking the shootings to Obama, and is being universally attacked for it." Either that or they're illiterate, and we can't be held responsible for what illiterates think. Do you think anyone looks at Wikipedia talk pages, and when they see a stupid comment they attribute it to Wikipedia? I've never seen that. DickTurpis (talk) 12:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

So people can post anything they like then - racist rants, a love of child porn, anti-Semetic tripe, bestiality stories, etc and we must sit back and take it, because who are we to dictate what gets published on this wiki? --Psygremlin (talk) 12:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, there is something to be said for taking the "let the ass bray" approach, though I can also see why people are against it. In any case, no one's linked to anything Rob's said that come remotely close to those scenarios. Blaming the shootings on unemployment (and, therefore, indirectly, Obama) is a very stupid thing to say, but stupid is Rob's bread and butter, and if we wanted to ban stupid, well, to be honest we'd be banning a hell of a lot more people than Rob. DickTurpis (talk) 13:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Back when I was upset that RW was giving a speaking podium to wackos supporting woo, I objected to giving them essay or debate space even. I was shouted down. RW remains as always a "mainspace will say what an idiot you are for thinking this way, but anywhere else? You can say anything you like." ... it's call freedom of speech, but not freedom from fact. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 06:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

RW never gets it.

The best way to get attention whores to go away is to ignore them then do a slow revert. That we have a whole page is the attention he wants. That the heavy-handed can't figure this out continues to me utter befuddling to me. And it's already too late. sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 21:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Like he wasn't getting attention before. Osaka Sun (talk) 21:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

But RW's response to attention whores has always been to feed the beast - and those that complain the loudest feed the most. Moreover, with the Neu Kulture any such event calls for a whole new motion complete with votes. Beats the crap out of running a rational wiki. Bad Faith (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Not sure who the "Neu Kulture" is that you're referring to, what with it being members of the Old Guard leading the ban charge. Blue (is useful) 21:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh,really? Who would that be? I love how we stereotype these days! sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 21:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Whew, glad I'm not heavy-handed, then. Blue (is useful) 21:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I searched for Old Guard on RWW and didn't get anywhere. Maybe someone should fix that? RWW is about as canon as we get on these matters. I assume it is more than just the Freshman class of early '07. DickTurpis (talk) 21:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Terms like Sterile's "the heavy-handed", my "Old Guard", Bad Faith's "Neu Kulture", and Nutty Roux's "law and order types"/"side of the aisle" are all generalizing identifiers without much set meaning, as most stereotypes tend to be. Useful in rhetoric, though. Blue (pester) 21:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Not forgetting Hans Johnson's "RationalWiki Tea Party". Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

One interesting point. All of the groups above are groups of people. My Neu Kulture (sic) crack was a comment on the way the site has changed and not an arbitary group of people. But Blue, of course, is as quick as can be to take offence. Bad Faith (talk) 22:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It would be called "Neue Kultur" by the wayTh. Bernhard (talk) 21:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Psygremlin, TheoryofPractice et al.

Evidence has come to light above to place both under the coop for sysop removal and subsequent lengthy block of RobSmith. Motives similar to the Nutty Roux/Brx altercation of late May. If come to a vote, it will be separate to the outcome of the ban or promotion of Rob.

FIGHT Discuss. Osaka Sun (talk) 00:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Stop fucking blocking and promoting people! Is that too hard to understand? Peter ^{This is not my first temporal anomaly} 00:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

[EC] You know, your point is not without some merit, though the logs are so muddied seeing who did what when is complicated. In general it seems we tend to favor a warning for such cases, unless it has become a consistent issue (well, that's my MO anyway; I won't pretend to speak for everyone). I'm guessing most people don't want to wade further into any quagmire right now, and whatever is decided here should settle the matter for the time being. If this continues that's another matter altogether. Until then, expanding the scope of this brouhaha would probably not benefit anyone. Rob's promotions and blocks were quickly reversed, it seems. If someone wants to contradict me on this and make a case out of it, well, a temporary promotion for Psygremlin wouldn't be unprecedented. DickTurpis (talk) 00:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind continuing this on a later date (in a few days?), yet half of the HCM has been based on how the community has been "hypocrites" for not taking action on the two sooner. Osaka Sun (talk) 01:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

TofP

Yup. I did it. And I'll do it again, probably. If not with this account with one of the many, many socks I've created over five years here. Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 03:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, why do you think this is justified? I mean, what's to stop someone else from doing the same to you, if they think you make an inappropriate joke?--^talk 06:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The difference being, most decent people would apologise if people called them out on an inappropriate joke. Not keep on telling the joke over and over. --Psygremlin (talk) 12:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Psy, I've already learned that you can't answer this question - you just shriek about decency and clutch your pearls, even though you well know we have never had a code of conduct and people can be as rude as they please. So I was asking ToP, as the other participant who might have some reasoning.--^talk 21:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I note that ToP voted not to block Rob above. Does anything make any sense anymore? DickTurpis (talk) 12:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It might be a falling-on-the-sword thing, then. Nutty did the same thing, and I respect him very much for what was essentially civil disobedience: breaking the rules and accepting consequent punishment in order to try to drive someone away he considered harmful, though he wouldn't try to have a vote to ban that person since he considered it wrong.--^talk 21:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure everyone agrees that Rob is an ignorant, self-serving prick who should go back to Andy and never come back. But we have to adhere to the Community Standards no matter who it is. That means not blocking anyone (without a way to revert) without permission first. Osaka Sun (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Case closed? (Nope!)

Any chance that we can now decide that this is now settled. I know that there will be many who didn't like the outcome and we've discussed - at length - the rules and lack of them but the block vote is a clear no and he promote vote has failed to reach the 2/3 majority - although I will admit that one is close. It seems to me that all that is left is minor bickering.

There is another, related, discussion as to what rules there ought to be and how they ought to be implemented but the Coop is not the place. Forum:User_rights_and_moderation_revisited is the place for that.

Of course, you are free to disagree. Bad Faith (talk) 15:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason not to leave the voting open for the proscribed amount of time, especially since the current result is no action being taken, so it's the same either way. Maybe a handful of votes will trickle in over the next couple days and we'll have a different result then. Might as well wait and see. DickTurpis (talk) 15:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Where do you see no action being taken? There are numbers supporting defrocking of Rob. --Psygremlin (talk) 15:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Not if we need 2/3 to do so. Then again, I don't know where our standards on this are written down, so I'm not sure if its 2/3 or simple majority. Either way we should leave the voting open. DickTurpis (talk) 15:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

According to the voting guidelines outlined in the Community standards, two thirds majority is not required to "defrock" a user etc. A two thirds majority is only required for penalties involving "a user's removal from the site" (i.e. blocking). Nutty Roux's desysoping in June passed by a simple majority of 14 to 10 (see here). Much as it would be nice to put this nonsense behind us, we have to be consistent in this stuff. Unless there's a general consensus towards closing/abandoning the vote early, it ought to run its course. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 16:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. We have to let it run. I'll just be mildly disappointed in those who voted to promote Rob when he isn't even the one who abused his powers.--^talk 21:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see it as being a powers issue. We're not Wikipedia; I don't see sysopship here as an issue of responsible use of powers as much as an issue of acceptance. We don't vet people as WP does, we grant sysopship as a mark of "you seem on OK fellow". Rob trolls us enough that I'm fine with revoking that mark. That being said, I'm somewhat tempted to vote not to promote him if for no other reason than I don't feel like getting emails from him every time someone blocks him and he can't undo it himself. How much longer do I have to decide if I want to change my vote? DickTurpis (talk) 22:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

What the fuck's going on on this page? There's half-assed votes all over the place. Have people gone mad?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 16:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Can we archive this shit now?

Been quiet for a few days. Nothing came of this and it's filled with embarrassing garbage and no cock pictures. Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 21:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I've suggested closing the votes tomorrow, when they will have run for a week. Current outcome is no action, but only by a margin of 11 to 10 against desysoping, so could still go either way if anyone else chooses to vote. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Come one then...

I am going to archive this shit pretty fucking soon unless someone makes a case to keep it open....5...4..3...Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 02:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Ice it. Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 02:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Libertarianism edit warring

This discussion was moved to talk:Libertarianism. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

We are not a repository for apologists for pedophilia

I want this guy gone. Now. I will block him and strip him of his rights, and I will continue to do so until either he is gone or I am permabanned from the site. Theory of Practice Haters gonna hate. 02:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah that's creepy. But I'll be sorely disappointed if this coop isn't mothballed. We don't ban people for even odious speech. Or do we? Seems like we actually might? Fuck. 03:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

For fuck's sake, Nutty--this is not what we're here to do. Some kinds of speech--condoning the worst of the worst behavior, for the love of God--have no place among civilized men. A website where people question whether or not adults should have sex with minors--is that what we want this place to be? Theory of Practice Haters gonna hate. 03:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree some ideas are sacrosanct and can not be discussed. Tielec01 (talk) 03:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

In b4 another HCM of what constitutes as inflammatory speech on the site. Will wanting this bastard gone give me the wikifascist label? Osaka Sun (talk) 03:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't completely like that this is about what he is saying, but it isn't Rob being an right wing Troll, it's somebody saying "Hey, maybe having sex with a kid isn't as bad as we think!". If there is a possible line for what really can be called unacceptable on this website, that sort of thing crosses it in my opinion. --Mikal ^{Harass Follow} 03:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

If we are going to draw a line, being an advocate for felonies might be a sensible place to draw it. DickTurpis (talk) 03:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Obviously - and I think this has been exhaustively established - no one user gets to decide when to just block another. After a bit of discussion, we can have a vote on whether RW wants to ban him for his opinions.--^talk 03:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I have temporarily promoted ToP, as he has continued his wheel warring over this matter, per his declaration above. I will demote him again in an hour, at which point hopefully he will have calmed down.--^talk 03:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Start the vote now. Osaka Sun (talk) 03:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Okeydokey. I'll set it up.--^talk 03:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Can we read the offending essay, or has it been deleted? Tielec01 (talk) 03:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes and yes. [6] Peter ^{Rapidly running out of marmite} 03:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Vote

Proposal: Ban Tisane from RationalWiki for two years, because of his essay (Essay:There is a lack of strong evidence and sound logic for concluding that there is a highy likelihood of severe harm from child-adult sex) and because of his defense of it.

Standard blocking voting parameters: needs a 2/3 majority, vote will last a week.--^talk 03:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

46

Yea

1. Duh. Osaka Sun (talk) 03:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
2. Sophie^Wilder 05:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
3. Fuck the 'JAQ' or 'just pushing the boundaries of free speech' bullshit, or the 'you never drew a line in the sand' crap. Dude wants to be a martyr to free speech so bad that he'll go to prison for threatening the President, then consciously and deliberately violate his parole so as to oppose The Man - fine, he can do that on his own fucking wiki and in his own private life. He clearly knows what theaters to shout 'fire' in to get the most attention. He's trolling, or a True Believer, and/or mentally unstable, and I don't care to share a wiki with him. I think the option to let him stay as long as he doesn't post any 'boundary-pushing' shit about sex with prepubescent children is crap. As far as I'm concerned, the stink is on this guy and doesn't go away when he's not talking. And by stink I mean his whole apparent life history up to this point, not just his posts about child sex abuse. I'm happy to have him demonstrate to me how fragile my commitment to free speech is by voting to ban him and letting him be a martyr again.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 06:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
4. A cowardly attempt to legitimize the unlegitimizable. "Hey, I'm only just talking about it" isn't remotely what he is doing. Even if it were, it would make this website a magnet for pedophile apologists and a source of mockery for the rest of the Web.--Brendiggg (talk) 06:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
5. Obvious troll is obvious. Get his arse out of here - David Gerard (talk) 07:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
6. per the above"--Mikal ^{Harass Follow} 07:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
7. The fact this has to go to a vote shows how far Rationalwiki is willing to sick its head up it own arse. Nobodies freedom of speech is being hurt when they get kicked off a website. The internet is a near infinite resource and hosting cost less than $5 a month. He has his own website he can post there to his hearts content.Pi 3:14 (talk) 13:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
8. The problem is that no matter how you look at it, what he's trying to defend is not only immoral and disgusting - it's also illegal. It's things like this that result in our detractors saying things like "Rationalwiki protects child abusers." Perhaps the editor needn't be blocked, but his filth needs to be deleted and he needs to be told in no uncertain terms to take his filth and fuck off. In fact, I would go as far as to say that RW should take steps to inform the authorities, in order to protect children from the deviant. --PsyGremlin^Khuluma! 08:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
9. Yes. As said before, the fact that this isn't treated as a total no-brainer points to a real problem in RW, where some nebulous ideal of "free speech" or "we don't block people" takes precedence over being a decent human being. Personally, I know which side I'd rather fall on. --Kels (talk) 13:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
10. Not primarily for this essay but for a long history of behavior that makes him a possible IRL danger to anyone here and certainly a disaster on any wiki he touches in any context. I'm not going to go into the details and you can easily look it up, although it's best discussed offline. He does not need online sympathizers and supporters, and he does not need editing privileges on any wiki. His only priority right now should be to get psychological help. Why are we even voting on this? Ignore the process in this case, or do we want to wait until he gets himself in the news while he is still an active editor here? Secret Squirrel (talk) 14:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
11. Just because CP averts the balance fallacy by banning opposing viewpoints does not mean we need to be CP's 'opposite' by fully displaying false balance. I don't know any reputable source of information or news that would allow this guy's ideas equal time next to well-evaluated points. Also, the guy irritates me and it's clear not even a prison sentence is a big enough time-out for him. What's a ban or two compared to that? ±KnightOfTL;DR^{garrulous en guerre} 14:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
12. For egregious orthographical violation of the plural of "orifice." Seriously, an appropriate response to adult/child sex aplogetics got said far better than I can, by Stan Marsh in the "Cartman joins NAMBLA" episode: "Yeah, you know, we believe in equality for everybody, and tolerance, and all that gay stuff, but dude, fuck you!" Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
13. TallMan (talk) 15:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
14. Don't like the essay, glad it's gone. In general, RW is more open and tolerant than most (in my opinion) but sometimes you have to draw the line. It always seems wrong to value the right of someone to post anything they want despite serious concerns from good, proven, long time contributors, it seems like we lose more good people because of trolls. Banning him would do nothing to stop him from returning as another ID and posting more of the same, but at least it sends a message that not every vile thought should be expressed here. Refugee^{talk page} 20:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
15. Setting the precedent of not allowing deranged retards to edit is a good precedent. Hipocrite (talk) 11:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
16. Aboriginal Noise ^Punkrock 13:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
17. Тy^Bored 13:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
18. Voting under protest--this issue should not need to have been brought to a vote/should not take a week to resolve/should not have the onerous 2/3 majority requirement. Theory of Practice Haters gonna hate. 13:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
19. Balaam (talk) 13:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
20. Support, but not just because of the essay. Virtually every edit Tisane makes is highly questionable in some way, and we should in no-way be providing a soapbox for this type of content. — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talk^{Do You Believe That?} 14:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Additionally, it seems like there's not really any good option here. The current dispute resolution process, for better or worse, isn't really set up for dealing with issues like this. This yes vote is not meant to imply that discussing controversial issues is inappropriate for RW or even for essayspace - it's meant to imply that when discussion over why your "thought experiments" are problematic and create false dichotomies, then going to essayspace to repeat the same debunked arguments on a highly contentious issue is a terrible idea.
21. Anecdotal evidence (or lack thereof) is not evidence (or lack thereof). The essay questioned the legitimacy of the evidence without providing any to the contrary, in a very irrational, false dichotomy "There's no evidence, therefore God"-style of thinking that this site eschews. Plus, it's about having sex with children. The man is Tinsane. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
22. 16:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
23. Abd, and his actions have made me change my vote. --Revolverman (talk) 16:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

    Why would a third party's actions cause you to vote for a two year ban on another party? nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 18:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

24. You'd be hard pressed to find a successful online community that doesn't ban users like Tisane. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 20:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
25. This has no place on RW. Aceⁱ⁹ 01:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
26. Another lurker vote for keeping RW sane. --Benodd (talk) 01:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
27. Shit, even I felt obligated to log in and say my piece on this: Ban the fuck! Smedley (talk) 03:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
28. Peter ^{Rapidly running out of marmite} 04:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
29. rpeh •T•C•E• 04:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
30. As I have perhaps mentioned before, there is a moral, if not legal obligation, for RW to report crimes. In many states, sexual behavior with children is illegal. Even if the scars are not immediate, there are good reasons why human children should not be placed into sexual situations prior to their ability to understand and properly consent to their actions. Simple "consent" is not good enough, there has to be informed, free-choice of consent. Statutory rape apologetics are unacceptable, and beyond puffing up some designer religion, or whackjob timecube shit, statutory rape apologetics is wrong. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 07:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Fuckyouverymuch--Elvis (talk) 08:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

      I hate to say it, but there are eligibility requirements around here somewhere. Peter ^{Rapidly running out of marmite} 08:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Nay

1. If he can promise to refrain from promoting pedophilia on this site. He is entitled to his opinions on the subject, but not to use RW as a platform for them when they are obviously unwelcome here. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 04:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
2. Osaka Sun, thank you, and you may also now go fuck yourself. --Abd (talk) 04:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

   Oh, no problem. Osaka Sun (talk) 04:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

3. I have no reason to ban him. I have every reason to ban his articles on child molestation, (not teen sex, CHILD SEX) being "ok" and "without real evidence to the contrary, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary. --GodotRIP original "muahahahah". 1...2....3...4...muahahahahah 04:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
4. Ditto the above. Delete article/essay, but no banhammer. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
5. C®ackeЯ, as this dreck is to be found at another wiki, we don't need it here. If Tisane does not seek to advocate child sexual abuse further on this wiki there is no reason to ban him. Pushing the envelope is all well and good except that sometimes one must realize that what they are pushing can sometimes push back. 04:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
6. What the above said. Sam ^Tally-ho! 05:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
7. He has some gravely mistaken ideas about the kind of psychological impact that sexual activities with adults can have on children. That said, I would prefer to let him make his case, so it can be rationally rebutted, than to ban him. Ideas like his are best allowed to exist in the bright light of day, where the light of reason may scorch and wither them, rather than to allow them to grow in the darkness. Zack Martin  07:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
8. We encourage people to engage in dialogue. I guess that means even if we don't agree with what they're saying. Генгис^marauding 07:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
9. Let me say: fuck this guy. Any essay that has "Damage to orifi" as a section heading is seriously twisted, and a look around Libertapedia makes me nauseous in the specious shallowness that has gone into the reasoning behind his monstrous conclusions. While I generally don't buy the "we don't need to host this nonsense" justification for deleting unpleasant ideas (used way too often in various forms by several editors), elaborate justifications for sexual assault go well past the bounds of acceptable topics. That said, if he does not continue this behavior, then a single essay is not worth a ban.--^talk 08:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
10. My eyes are bleeding; I can't read things I don't agree with. "I'm offended by that." Well, so fucking what?' —Stephen Fry Tielec01 (talk) 12:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
11. Tisane is a vile creep for writing that essay, and I wholeheartedly support its deletion, but a ban is not necessary. If he continues to harass people with his reprehensible views, then escalating warning bans should be the answer--"Shut up, Brx." 16:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
12. His essay is in poor taste, and tests the very limits of free speech. Having said that, while us keeping the essay or not is debatable (I don't think we should host such extreme tripe), I don't think we should ban someone for expressing such an, albeit horrendous, opinion. It is contrary to our statement of welcoming dissidents. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 17:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
13. sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 18:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Wasn't going to vote, but since I"m a troll now, fuck you all.
14. "Poor taste" is an understatement, but an odorous opinion isn't worth a ban. Perhaps just do the usual and constantly harass them? ^gnostic 19:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
15. Nay. It's been some time I contributed to RationalWiki, but I've been lurking the whole time, and am against the two-year banning of this user for the expression of his odious opinions. Ultimately, I feel this yes/no vote isn't a single question, but two questions. Those voting 'yay' are voting that this user's speech has met the high threshold for banning - voting on this specific incident; those voting 'nay' are voting that nobody should be banned for the expression of an opinion. RW shouldn't be decided if this guy should be banned: It should be deciding, clearly and once and for all, if it is legitimate to ban somebody for an odious opinion. If it is, this guy has obviously met the threshold. If not, very well. I'm voting nay because I'm of the camp of not banning for the expression of an opinion, though I respect that those in favour of banning have serious issues with this, as we all do, and are acting in excellent faith. ^EXTERMINATE 23:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
16. Nay. I say, though, a bot could be written to monitor his edits for pedo-posturing, and revert them instantly. It's kind of obvious no one likes that stuff here, and he can always go off to pedowiki, and attract the FBI there.RandonGeneration (talk) 04:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

    LOL. You write the regex and I'll write the bot. 01:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Goat

1. I vote Goat for now. Perhaps kep the essay but wrap it as an example of flawed reasoning and statistics ? If he is wrong a rebuttal should be easy. The North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) seems to hold similar views.

   Is there a lawyer who can say the legal position ? Is the hosting of what might be seen as pro-pedophilia itself a crime ?Hamster (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

   I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice: It depends on the jurisdiction. Under US law, advocating criminal activities is not illegal, unless the advocacy is likely to result in the imminent commission of a crime. (see the US Supreme Court case, Brandenburg v. Ohio, 1969). On the other hand, I remembering reading that Canada has legally banned NAMBLA's materials (although I can't find a source for that right now). Since the website is hosted in the US and owned by a US not-for-profit corporation, it is unlikely to result in legal problems. Even in jurisdictions where such material can be illegal, if the material is being hosted for the purposes of rebuttal, it is unlikely to result in any problems. On the other hand, if this site was hosting such materials for endorsement rather than rebuttal (which I hear no one proposing), such problems would be more likely to occur. Zack Martin  23:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

   It is not illegal. It's actually not even close to being illegal - discussing and arguing against the illegality of something that is illegal is very much protected speech in America.--^talk 23:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

   I found it - please see section 163.1(1)(b) of the Criminal Code of Canada, which defines child pornography to include: any written material, visual representation or audio recording that advocates or counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act. So Tisane's writings, while legal under US law, could possibly be considered child pornography in Canada (although I guess he would argue he is not actually counselling anything, just "asking questions" — I think it's a bit of a legal grey area). As such, Canadian users or editors might want to be careful - I think it unlikely they would be prosecuted if they were in possession of his materials for the purpose of disagreeing with them; but that's a risk they'll have to evaluate for themselves. Zack Martin  23:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

   Nothing that Tisane wrote could be legally interpreted as "counselling" someone to engage in sexual activity with a minor. There is zero legal risk here.

   If someone believes that Tisane's activities represent a risk of harm to a child, I am, as a parent, highly offended that the response would be to try to ban him here, wasting time on something of little consequence, instead of actually reporting him to authorities. Tisane is a real person, it's easy to find his name, and his location as well. However, there is nothing here to report. That's the insanity of all this. He isn't advocating the NAMBLA position, he has simply questioned certain knee-jerk assumptions he sees as common, rightly or wrongly, and there are people who really don't like their knee-jerk assumptions questioned. The question I see is whether or not this site wants to encourage free discussion of issues from a pro-science perspective, that dispassionately looks at fact, or it wants to pander to the opinions of some large and very aroused segment of the user base. That's a real choice. If Tisane is allowed to continue, some users might resign in protest at allowing this "monster" to edit. But there is no legal risk. --Abd (talk) 00:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

2. Goat. It would seem having a clear content and deletion policy would be the first order of business, then violators given a warning. This prima facia appears to be more of ToP & Psy's public displays of self-righteousness to justify persecution of their intended victims and making sacred and holy their indignation and intolerant views. Reserving the right to change this vote. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 23:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
3. Both sides present impassioned and convincing arguments. There is no neutral authority here, as no lawyers or non-profit experts have proffered opinions, and our rules do not deal with the charges leveled against User:Tisane. So, I don't know how to vote. Blue (pester) 01:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

   If nobody can assert a specific illegal statement, there is no basis for imagining it, and so no risk to this site. ZackMartin seems knowledgeable, as to his general comments on legality in the U.S., even assuming that Tisane advocated a criminal activity, much worse than what he actually did. This flap is a beautiful example of HCM.

   Zack's mention of the Canadian civil code and "child pornography" raises an issue. How is that actually interpreted? I found this site, belonging to a Canadian law professor, and on that site, this page. If Tisane's comments here were "child pornography," because of arguments presented, so too would be the law professor's page, which presents some of the same arguments. If anyone wants to follow up on Canadian law, they should also read, at the end of the law pages cited, the Defences and Question of law sections. Bottom line, my interpretation: to assert that Tisane's writings here were "child pornography" under Canadian law is preposterous.

   We might ban Tisane because he obviously upset some users. However, something else is likely to upset them anyway; and if the response is fed by sending away Tisane, that will reinforce the behavior. Tisane did not create the upset, he triggered it. --Abd (talk) 03:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Commentary

• We shouldn't host this rubbish, but is the act of posting the rubbish is a permanent-ban-worthy offense? TK threatened to sue Trent and only got 2 years; MarcusCicero trolled nastily for years and only got 2 years; that's the biggest sentence we've ever meted out to sysops. As far as I can tell, this vote is for an indefinite ban. Blue (is useful) 04:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

A two-year ban should be fine. Osaka Sun (talk) 04:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

He has been airing the same opinions at talk:child sexual abuse & elsewhere for a couple of weeks or more, and has been given no warning that he could be banned for them. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 05:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

No decent human being would need a warning. You know why? Because decent human beings don't write stuff like that. Theory of Practice Haters gonna hate. 05:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

That would only be approximately no-one noticing. They have now - David Gerard (talk) 07:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I like to say that the best way to fight lies is with the truth, in protest of censorship, but I skimmed Tisane's posts and was too horrified to even want to refute him. Can't say anybody wants to tackle "damage to orifices," and I can't say I blame them. So deleting it was the right way to go. If he wants to discuss the ethics of pederasty, he can do it elsewhere. I don't feel banning him is necessary- he now knows this discussion topic is taboo and will hopefully refrain from bringing it up again--"Shut up, Brx." 16:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Heres my problem with the statement that "he now knows its wrong to have brought this topic up" is theres no reason he should have thought it wasn't Taboo in the first place. --Mikal ^{Harass Follow} 16:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm amazed that this is a guy that people want to have hanging around. We aren't the government that runs the the only printing press in the universe; we aren't his ACLU lawyers. This guy's personal history points quite clearly to his being a professional-grade provocateur. Why do we have to offer him another platform, when he already has his own? Would those of you who want him to stay around invite him to stand on your lawns to expound on his ideas to your neighbors? Invite him along to parties and professional functions with you? "Hey, there's this guy I know who spent time in jail for threatening to kill the president, then he went back to jail for telling a judge that he was going to buy weapons in violation of his parole, and oh by the way while in prison with sex offenders he developed some controversial notions about how sex with prepubescent children hasn't been rigorously proven to be as bad as we think it is. I happen to think he's creepy as fuck but I'll be letting him hang around me from now on because now I've asked him explicitly not to talk out loud about that last part. He may have some other unorthodox ideas, but as I haven't anticipated them and told him not to say them already those might come up as well, but if I tell him to fuck off and stay away that would make me as bad as Hitler." Sweet hopping Christ. I reiterate: it's not just the 'principled' questioning of the harm caused by sexual assault of children - that discussion might possibly be able to be held in a supremely careful way, but Tisane's essay ain't it, and the essay alone is enough in my opinion to kick him off the site, being crafted as it was - it's the whole package of his personal history too. He wanted to be a martyr about verbal threats; he wanted to be a martyr about violating parole conditions; now he wants to be a martyr about espousing pedophilia - assuming of course that he doesn't actually espouse it, like when he threatened an assassination without 'actually' being a 'threat'. Let him peddle his crazy somewhere else.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

So the consensus seems to be moving in the direction of giving User:Tisane a two year ban, not for site policy violations or a dubious activity on this site, but for contributions on other websites. For the record, here is Karajou & TK's handling of the same user from Conservaleaks. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 03:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

From a Victim

I was sexually abused as a child and I oppose this motion. While I appreciate that commentary from a new user is likely to be viewed with a certain degree of skepticism, please believe me when I say I have been a member of this site for several years. I have already voted in the discussion above, and will not be voting via this account. If people want confirmation of these claims, I'm prepared to email three users (of my choosing) and ask them to confirm my identity while protecting my anonymity.

I was abused by my grandfather, who was a vicar in the Church of England. I honestly can't remember when it started, but he died before I was nine years old and it had gone on for some time before that, so it probably started sometime around the age of 6-7.

It only ever happened when we were alone. He would tell me that I'd been a naughty boy and I needed to be punished. I had to bend over his knees and then he would spank me "on my bare bottom". When it was done, he would tell me it was "our little secret" and send me away. I never told anyone about it until a couple of years ago when finally opened up to two of my best friends.

After this had gone on for a while I tried to make sure I wasn't alone with him. This wasn't always possible: when you're young you rely on adults for everything, and sometimes he was the only one around. There was also the feeling that maybe I really had been bad and needed the punishment.

I'm sure some of you will say that this doesn't count as abuse. I wasn't fondled or penetrated so what's the big deal? Well the fact is I was violated by someone in a position of power who used that position to insist on my secrecy. If you've never experienced this, or something similar - like rape - I can't explain it to you. I've lived for 40 years with the memory of what happened.

Given all of this, I STILL say that banning Tisane is wrong. He is totally misguided and needs to seek advice, but we as a group can NOT censor opinion. And opinion is all that he has posted. Voltaire was absolutely right when he said "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." In this case it should be prefixed with "You're a total, irredeemable cunt but..." but I still believe in Voltaire.

In conclusion, RationalWiki is not obligated to host Tisane's noxious shit, but he should not be banned for having the opinions he espouses. VictimOfAbuse (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I've had occasion to counsel both survivors of abuse and perpetrators, and the story above rings true. By the way, I also have children (7) and grandchildren (6). Two of my children, the youngest, were internationally adopted and I had to go through multiple CORI checks and extensive examination of every aspect of my history. VoA has begun, from the comment above, the process of recovery, it begins with honesty, about what actually happened. What is amazing to me about the process here is how there is almost universal agreement on something that didn't happen, as far as I can see. But it was easy to assume that it was happening, all you have to do is read what Tisane wrote and not be careful about what he's actually saying, and assume (bad) intentions. I happen to have known Tisane since roughly 2007 or 2008, I forget, and I've looked back at his history before that. There is no sign that he is a pedophile or pedophile apologist. He apparently has no criminal record related to that. Nothing in what he stated was an advocacy of committing a felony. And, yes, I've read the original essay now. It changes nothing, so far. If I've erred in this, anyone could post his offending statement. I can tell you right now, though, what has been referenced so far is not what has been presented as the meaning. Tisane's writings have been translated into what they supposedly mean, and the severe offensiveness arises in that translation. It is like this with any demonization, commonly.

Tisane has raised an issue that a lot of people obviously don't want to talk about, how there is a certain extreme response to any issue around child abuse. He asked questions that require looking at this. People's lives have been ruined by allegations of child abuse, with pseudoscience rampant. None of this means that child abuse of any kind, including sexual abuse, is not harmful. I'll testify, from what I've seen, over and over, child sexual abuse is harmful. But Tisane was asking, How harmful? I've seen the damage from false charges, or charges that don't consider context, be harmful in the extreme. I saw a local teacher's life and career totally trashed over what had actually harmed nobody. There had been no sexual behavior involving children. Just an assumption that it might happen, coupled with possession of images meeting the definition of "child pornography," which does not necessarily mean any abuse of children in the collecting of the images. Read the lists of characteristics, Tisane pointed to one, as I recall. They can be highly subjective. The lists consider degree, but the laws don't necessarily do that.

Child abuse of all kinds -- not just sexual -- causes damage, practically by definition. Demonization of abusers does not ameliorate this, and, in fact, can suppress actually dealing with the problems, because it suppresses reporting. The proper social goal is to end child abuse, not to punish abusers, who were, generally, abused themselves. Demonization allows the rest of us to be comfortable, to imagine that we have dealt with the problem, but it lives on in us, and people who deal with child abuse know that.

I've been reported to child protection agencies about five times, partly because I always involved my children with mandated reporters, therapists. No abuse was ever found, and I fully support the reporting laws. It is about time we act to protect children! My children have been trained to talk about whatever is important to them, and have *never* seen disapproval from me, even if it was awkward talking to Child Protective Services (Calif.) or Child and Family Services (Mass.) I'm not going to disclose details of four of the reports, because they involve my children and my ex-wife. However, I will disclose the fifth, because the underlying incident was totally harmless, and I certainly hope my girls remember it when they grow up. Probably not, though. It was, for them, probably, just one more piece of how they love their dad and their dad loves them.

In a meeting in a 12-step fellowship, where people talk openly about their lives, I mentioned how happy I was that my two small girls fell asleep with their heads on my shoulder, one on each shoulder, one time. Horrors! Man sleeps with girls, aged 6 and 8, a woman at that meeting thought, and she reported this to the police. They are obligated to pass this on to CFS, they do not filter the reports for believability. So I ended up getting a call from a police officer, and she wanted to interview me. Fine, I said, and we had a great conversation. She ended up breaking the law, in a way, because she revealed enough information that I knew exactly who had reported me. No surprise. She'd reported many others, she, ah, had some issues. I also talked once with a worker from CFS. Routine. Report closed, no abuse.

However, suppose I'd been struggling with some personal issues, suppose, say, I was actually a pedophile, which is not illegal. It's acting on pedophilia that is illegal. Suppose I was afraid. Suppose I hadn't fully cooperated. There was a case where some social worker took action against a mother who slept with her children, the worker thought it was age-inappropriate. That was eventually resolved in favor of the parent, but there was enormous disruption in the mean time. Very easily, a parent who has done nothing wrong can lose custody of their children. As a parent, the only thing worse than that for the children would be actual and serious abuse. Basically, it would be child-abuse-by-state-action.

Tisane is raising some real questions. My sense is that this wiki is utterly unable to address these, confirming my own observations in other areas where challenging the popular wisdom is unwelcome, and therefore it's correct to ask him to take this elsewhere. But we might as well take the opportunity to notice our limits as a community. My, my, this has been HCM! --Abd (talk) 20:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Tisane is raising some real questions. sorry but I disagree. Where are his case studies, follow ups, psych evaluations. He raises some pretend issues in order to attempt to show they have no validity. It seems indistinguishable from the NAMBLA position and flatly contradicts several works on stages of childhood development. Hamster (talk) 01:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I did not claim that he established any position. He asked questions, for the most part. Hamster is expecting him to provide the evidence, because he thinks Tisane is trying to prove a point. What is "indistiguishable from the NAMBLA position" is Hamster's imagination, which supplies that position, as what he thinks Tisane intends. This process happens in many debates on RW. It's not surprising.

Tisane is trying to prove a point, but it's not about child sexual abuse. It's about social process, in general. He's been doing it for years. And the users here cooperated spectacularly. Q.E.D.

Meanwhile there are real victims of child sexual abuse, and nothing that anyone is doing here is actually protecting them. The position of the users screaming for Tisane to be banned? Get him out of here! Concern about real children? Not our business! We just don't want to look bad. He's accused of pedophilia and illegal activity, but does anyone who supposedly believes this is so actually put themselves on the line to report it? Pardon me while I spit. --Abd (talk) 02:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

speaking for myself I dont know who Tisane is in real life and dont much care. I dont have any actual evidence to report, and my local DA says the essay is not actionable in my county or state. I have passed the essay to the federal task force on child sex trafficing, it will be fun to see if they decide to find and monitor his actions. Have a nice day.

I read your comment again and realize I read it wrong the first time. Yes, nothing posted here is directly affecting child abuse victims. Thats not to say that members here are not active in that area in real life. As far as I am concerned Tisane is a potential child molester trying to justify his viewpoint. What real harm would it do to Tisane if I bent him over and fucked his ass with a crowbar ? None because I heard no objection and his anus will heal, so no harm no foul. Hamster (talk) 03:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Fascinating what turns Hamster on. --Abd (talk) 04:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

yes ABD, I loved my service in dealing with child sex victims , where we held little girls while they bled out from having their wombs torn up after being group fucked by adult men. I particularly loved the little boy whose guts were hanging out his ass because of the implement forced up his ass. All just good fun isn't it ? Hamster (talk) 04:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: currently this discussion is collapsed. The above comment was added after the collapse. It was not collapsed because of the comment. --Abd (talk) 05:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the collapse, it doesn't help a proper discussion. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 08:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

New Mexico State Law

New Mexico state law requires all individuals who have a reasonable suspicion to report that abuse. (NMSA 32A-4-3) "Every person, including ... [non-exclusive list of various professions]..., who knows or has a reasonable suspicion that a child is an abused or a neglected child shall report the matter immediately..." RationalWiki is a legal person subject to the jurisdiction of New Mexico. This is a case where the law intrudes upon RW's "say anything the fuck you want" policy. If the Board of Trustees for RW have a reasonable suspicion that child abuse or neglect is going on, then they have a duty to report it (reasonably so, even if such abuse is occurring outside of NM jurisdiction, after all, it's not the act that is being legally enforced, but the reporting of the act). RW thus has a vested interest in not condoning behavior that would risk legal liability. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 07:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

That issue should really be raised with the RWF board. If the RWF board has a good faith belief that any child is at risk of harm, the reporting obligation would attach to the RWF board or officers. Zack Martin  08:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I can see no reason for a good faith suspicion that Tisane has committed child abuse or neglect on anyone. This is a bit of a red herring in terms of the issue of whether Tisane should be shown the door. Damo^Hi 11:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Serious question

It's been touched on above, but we need to consider if this sicko poses a physical threat to children and whether we have some sort of obligation to report it. PsyGremlin^Siarad! 09:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Hamster says he already has. See his comments above. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 09:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes he has been reported to the Florida State Board of Agriculture, or the FBI or whatever for illegal and unethical thought experiments. That you even said the above, osttensibly without irony, beggars belief Psy. Tielec01 (talk) 09:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Normal people don't defend baby rape, even as a thought experiment. Anybody who even remotely thinks that it's ok to fuck children should be seen as a potential danger to small children. --PsyGremlin^Sprich! 10:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

But we know Nathan Larson is basically a deranged individual who trolls in real life. He defines potential danger to all. That RationalWiki embarrasses itself by allowing this seriously disturbed individual to do anything here is beyond me. Hipocrite (talk) 11:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone seen [his gallery of little girls?]^{link to nathania.org removed} He even has one picture of naked underage females, and lots of pictures of little girls looking coy. I think this man is a sicko fuck who needs to go away for a long long time, for the safety of little girls everywhere. 62.113.219.6 (talk) 11:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

A troll added [this link to Nathania.org].^{link to nathania.org removed} That is Tisane's page, where he describes his own thinking about "pedophilia," in a detail very unusual for a public disclosure. It is not the thinking of a pedophile. It is the expression of someone willing to go outside the bounds of public acceptability as to personal disclosure. He's taking a legal risk with that page. He could probably defend it in court, each image is legal; however, a claim could also be made that the collection shows prurient interest. (I think the claim would fail in court, but ... he could also get slammed. Parole officers are not fair, necessarily, and they can jail first and ask questions later. The actual text of the page may be offensive to people who dislike honesty. Someone could indeed report this to authorities, and they would investigate. I'm not reporting, because I'm satisfied, reading it and seeing all the other evidence, that he is not a pedophile and he is not a threat to children, and I don't want to waste the time of the agencies. I deleted the material, confirming Psygremlin's removal and block of the editor, and blocked the IP. But the link to the page is relevant. Tisane is showing what images of children are *legal.* He's not correct, though, if he assumes that a collection of legal images cannot be found to be child pornography. I've mentioned already a local case, where someone was prosecuted for having a page of photos that might have been quite like what Tisane has constructed. He lost his job, he lost his kids, and I think he did time. His ruminations on the page are legal, if provocative. --Abd (talk) 12:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Looks like pedophilia to me. Reported to FBI via National Center for Missing & Exploited Children at https://report.cybertip.org/index.htm Hipocrite (talk) 12:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Can everyone please hold fire on further reporting until we've heard from at least one of the Foundation board members. Any investigation of comments/incidents at RW or involving RW in any way is the sort of thing they should be advising on, and ideally taking the lead on any reporting to legal authorities. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm reporting things found on nathania.org, no reference here. Hipocrite (talk) 12:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Technically correct. Those people should be experts, they should know what is pedophilia and what is not. Thanks for your concern for children, Hipocrite. Tisane could indeed go to prison, immediately, for that, I think he is still on parole, and parole officers will jail first and ask questions later. Depends on the officer. Remember, I was a prison chaplain. I've seen people jailed for perfectly legal behavior, just because a parole officer didn't like it. And it can take months to sort it, while the inmate sits in jail. Meanwhile, someone else made a truly illegal threat here (prosecutable as a threat of assault), and it sails right by. --Abd (talk) 12:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The RWF isn't responsible for monitoring content here and has no legal reporting obligation under the circumstances. (That's my opinion and I'm not the RWF's lawyer) 13:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I followed the link before it was removed and if the author has underage daughters he certainly shouldn't have unsupervised access to them. Proxima Centauri (talk) 13:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

If you'd read the material, you'd know he has no children. Nutty Roux, you are correct, the RWF has no legal reporting obligation. There might be a user here who is a mandated reporter, but such a person also probably has the training to recognize that there is no risk to children here. There has been libel here, but, again, the RWF doesn't have liability for that, unless it ignores a complaint from the libelled person. --Abd (talk) 15:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't read the whole page and I didn't read it carefully, I don't like spending too much time on a sick page like that. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

But he should, apparently, be allowed unfettered access to this community and be a part of the face of an organization working to promote rational thought. Excellent work, Rationalwiki. We have never missed an opportunity to follow the most questionable course of action. Theory of Practice Haters gonna hate. 13:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Tisane's entire point is the avoidance of rational thought by people on the topic of child sexual abuse. He's been accused here of felonies, he's been accused of approving child rape (where?), with no evidence provided that would show a felony. However, the area he's entered is one where "rational" may not help. I just had the conversation last night with a former therapist who has dealt with real child abuse. Tisane might be legally innocent but still face serious damage. It happens. He created an appearance precisely to demonstrate the hysteria. Well, he might have succeeded! If you look to the police like you are an immediate danger, they might shoot. And when it turns out that the "gun" was just a piece of wood, and you were just seeing if they would shoot you for picking up a piece of wood, too bad. Tisane may be in a situation where accusations can land him in jail. --Abd (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

No risk to children? Having had the misfortune to peruse his site, I came across the following (attached to a pic of a nude, preteen girl) "The girl on the left looks like she has potential to develop some nice curves, and she's already rather pretty in the face." Anybody who can speak of a preteen in those terms IS a danger to children, and should be castrated. Preferably with a broken bottle. --PsyGremlin^Hable! 15:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I have preteen girls (and two grown ones). What Tisane wrote is what many might think, but not say. That's the difference. Tisane has made it clear that he's not a pedophile, anyone who knows what pedophiles are like would immediately recognize this, just read the whole page instead of what phrases cause you to become unglued. He's openly describing how he thinks, and, in this case, he's deliberately expressing it in a way that will push PsyGremlin's buttons. It worked, eh?

All those images on that page are legal. And thought is not illegal. The kind of expression Tisane made there, can be found, in frequent commentary, said about many underage children, those who become involved in modelling. The nudist image is the exception on his page, the rest of the photos are more provocative, but show, essentially, the legal sexual exploitation of children. Did you notice where those images came from? He's pushing the limits, for sure, But what PsyGremlin has stated here goes way beyond that. "Castrated with a broken bottle"? That's like Hamster's totally-beyond-the-pale "hypothetical" threat, only it goes even further. It actually advocates it, no "what if" quibble. Mods! There is indeed a problem here. Tisane has triggered it, but he is not actually the problem. --Abd (talk) 16:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh sure. Because I'm totally going going to track this cunt down and cut his balls off. In fact, you're as despicable for standing up for his love of baby raping. maybe you should fuck off to pedowiki too. --PsyGremlin^Parlez! 16:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, let's ban everyone who disagrees with Psy. --83.84.137.22 (talk) 16:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Aw shit, this ain't goina be good... --Revolverman (talk) 16:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, shit --> fan. I'm blocking Psygremlin because of repeated threats of physical violence, till he calms down. As long as I have the tools, I have this responsibility, at least once. Attention is requested. --Abd (talk) 16:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Holy christ Abd. Are you that full of yourself, or is this all an act? --Revolverman (talk) 16:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

"Tisane has made it clear that he's not a pedophile"...no, Tisane has made it clear he is one. See "Old enough" on nathania. Ban him already and forget about a weeklong vote or a 2/3 majority. But I suppose he and his enabler are going to dismiss that as "just" a poem or "just" a random mental exercise. Secret Squirrel (talk) 18:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Something to consider

It's really irrelevant what Tisane is or is not; it is really not our place as Rational Wiki (though any of you may individually and rightfully think it's your place) to monitor his off site actions, to report him, or to evaluate his motives. What *is* our place, is to define what we want to say, how we want RW to be seen, and how we feel (as a community) about these kinds of articles, essays, and discussions. I do not think we would support something coming and saying "Rape is a legitimate form of procreation". Why are we hesitating in saying "oh, he has a point", "he's just challenging the establishment". are we really that deeply ingrained in some "rational Objective", that we think all arguments are equal and should be allowed equally, and open for discussion, and warented of discussion? I see no reason to ban him, he's done nothing illegal here. I see no reason to support his articles, essays and opinions, either.GodotRIP original "muahahahah". 1...2....3...4...muahahahahah 18:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

This then begs the question:which is more important to us as a wiki

1. The goals to have a rational place to do sciency stuff and refudiate woo
2. The principles by which we obtain those goals

I am beginning to see how these pesky principles are getting in the way of obtaining the goals. The "right" to (blatantly) offensive speech is one thing; I do not feel we have the luxury of having seeing as it leads to various coopings and general ill will amoungst otherwise congenial and convivial editors.

Keep such offensive content off the wiki, (as we have done); keep provocative editors under scrutiny. Bannination, though seems silly, based solely on the content.

18:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Cracker, what do you think is *rational* about his argument. And seriously, why is his position better than someone who says "why isn't our creationism taught in school, it's another theory, right?" Yes, it is "an argument" in some strange sense of the word. it is not a rational one, it does not fit into the idea of scientifically supported arguments. Denying the professional opinions of experts in the field, a mulitidue of studies that look at various aspects of now-adult victim's lives, and listening to those victims themseselves doesn't seem very rational or scientific. so why are we saying "it should be a valid argument". --GodotRIP original "muahahahah". 1...2....3...4...muahahahahah 18:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

And once again RW shoves its head up its collective arse and engages in hand-wringing. So now we're quite happy to have a pedo spout his filth on the wiki, with no repercussions. Why not invite all the Metapedia swine over while we're at it. By allowing this shit to stand we smear the entire site with its stench. But god forbid we deny a pedo the chance to defend raping children. Somebody has some fucked up morals on this site. PsyGremlin^{話しなさい} 19:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You are the one doing all the smearing and threatening. --83.84.137.22 (talk) 19:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Unless you're willing to admit you'd go out for a drink with a pedo, or allow one in your home, or allow one to babysit your kids - why the fuck would you share your wiki with a pedo? Because it's "rational?" fuck off! PsyGremlin^Sermā! 19:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I had edited my above comment to show what I had meant but Psy, in his infinite wisdom reverted it.

I will add it here for your amusement.

The "right" to (blatantly) offensive speech is one thing; I do not feel we have the luxury of having such a "right" in place seeing as it leads to various coopings and general ill will amoungst otherwise congenial and convivial editors. 19:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

So, Psy, do you go out hunting down "pedo" folk or do you simply wait for them outside of schoolyards?

Such a black and white view seems at odds with reality. Having a drink with a "pedo" is one thing having a "pedo" babysit the chil'ren is quite another...and you know it. Just stop. C®ackeЯ

PsyGremlin, Why should having a drink with a pedophile matter, or sharing your wiki with one matter? Unless you are willing to become as active to oppose sharing your tax dollars for pedophiles to collect government disability benefits, spare us your moralizing and indignation. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 19:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd share a drink with a "pedo". I just wouldn't let them meet my kids (if I had any, which right now I don't). I'd be hesitant to introduce them to (adult) family, friends or colleagues, in case they said something embarrassing. But, a drink? Sure. I believe that God/dess loves everybody, no matter what they have done or feel like doing, and thus I would be happy to have a drink with them. Zack Martin  21:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

If the vote above passes, as it seems it will, I think a new section on the 'community standards' and 'constructive dialogue' pages needs to be added that lists out the ideas and concepts that won't be tolerated at RationalWiki. Although it may seem self-explanatory to most that voted yes that paedophilia is not a legitimate field of ethical enquiry here I was under the mistaken impression that any topic was open to constructive discussion regardless of how culturally offensive it was. I certainly never thought someone could be banned for life for bringing up offensive ideas or concepts. We should warn users of the topics that are off limits here so we aren't misrepresenting the community expectations. Tielec01 (talk) 08:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

edit button

I want to say that, to the people leaving over this, we cannot throw away our system of running things just for the instant gratification of punishment. That will open the door for another "Oh that's WAY too bad, insta ban". Christ, what is it about kids that makes everyone lose their shit? --Revolverman (talk) 21:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Revolverman, Tisane was attacked for asking that very question, and beginning to explore some answers. It's prohibited. --Abd (talk) 04:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Verdict first, trial later

My long-term interest has been how wikis make decisions. I wrote a review of part of this process, focusing on the evidence for Tisane's alleged offenses. This entire discussion is thin on evidence, and requests for evidence for specific claims, such as advocation of pedophilia, felonies, child rape, etc. were ignored. At the same time, graphic threats of physical violence were issued, with little apparent concern.

While we might think that the evidence is obvious, it should be possible to point to specifics, if the claims are true. Most are not true at all, some have some basis, but the reality has been vastly exaggerated. The review is long, so I've archived it to history. As the review says, if anyone really thinks this should be on the coop page directly, they can put it there. This is, however, only for those interested in the process here, and how Headless Chicken Mode operates.

Whether or not Tisane is this or that, or should be allowed to edit or not, is irrelevant by comparison to the real issue: whether or not it is possible to discuss an issue of public policy here, where a priori or knee-jerk opinion is so strong that rational consideration is rejected by the majority, and evidence is not required.

Verdict First, Trial Later. This is standard on wikis, all too often. It's not just RW. --Abd (talk) 03:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The crap on his bliki looks like the same crap from K-Mart you get in a high gloss sale insert with any Sunday newspaper. In fact, that's probably where it came from. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 04:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you are referring to the "child erotica." (In one of the collapsed sections there is a link to a site for police that distinguishes between child erotica and child pornography, this is a legal distinction, not something made up here. I did get the link from Tisane's page, and also read more widely. It's a complicated topic.) He may have gotten the images from what is public on one of the scuzzy web sites that amalgamate these photos, but tons of this can be found in advertising for children's clothing. Images of children in possibly provocative poses are abused in this society, and it is not illegal unless it goes beyond a certain point. That is part of Tisane's argument. --Abd (talk) 04:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

What Ace reckons

RW should not be a hosting platform for essays about one users defense of pedophilia. This is what Ace reckons. Said user should not be accepted as an RW user. Said user is welcome back under an alias of course (we wouldn't know anyway) but said alias should keep their views to themselves. Seems fairly simple to me. Aceⁱ⁹ 04:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree on deletion. Doesn't refute any junk science. User:Tisane likely is, as alleged above, a professional provocateur. His advocacy of political assassination was written in the Bush era, and I suspect he didn't have such vociferous critics back then. The vote to ban him here seems to be based on old grudges from Wikipedia, Mediawiki, and elsewhere. And the arguments now are over what he is likely to do here, based upon what he's done elsewhere, rather than any specific violations here other than a crude attempt to post an essay that looks more like junk science, rather than an effort to refute it. Do we want to make it a bannable offense to provoke, troll, or seek to embarrass the reputation of other websites? nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 05:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

We were condoning Bush assassination threats? Robbie, be lucky you're still on the wiki yourself.

None of the previous grudges were coop-worthy. Child porn is much more significant. Osaka Sun (talk) 07:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand the "welcome back under an alias" argument. If he's welcome to return, why should it matter whether uses the same username or not? Either ban him or don't. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Because we don't have checkuser there isn't much we can do. So he would be welcomed until such a time as we figure out who it is by way of him writing the same shit again. Aceⁱ⁹ 07:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's what it comes down to. If we're making a statement now that he is welcome back under another alias, then we're obliged to block his account only without blocking his IP and to tolerate him when we figure out who he is. In which case, the ban is completely pointless. Past practice in cases of community bans has been to IP-block, and then block any sock accounts or alternative IPS as soon as they are identified with the banned user. On the other hand, if we're letting him continue as an editor here, I'd rather it be under the same account so everyone knows who it is rather than forcing him to assume a new identity. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't be fucking cute. You know know what I fucking meant. Block him, ban him and delete his essay. This is a no fucking brainer. It isn't hard to circumvent these blocks and a new user betraying none of the same traits would be welcomed. Just block the fucker instead of getting caught up in the minor fucking details. Jesus fucking christ man, it's like RW has been replaced by a bunch of cross dressing lawyers whose panties are on to tight. Aceⁱ⁹ 07:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Brasov

This punk has to go. He's been outright hateful to community members and seems to have signed up for no reason other than to pick a fight. (Check his talk page where I read him the riot act -- I'm just posting here to make sure there's an outside consensus.) EVDebs (talk) 08:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Exposition

Violated standard RW:CS § Conduct Discussions here sometimes get heated, but resorting to personal attacks is strongly frowned upon, however justified they may seem. In particular, attacks incorporating racist, sexist and homophobic language and insults are not tolerated.

Evidence User talk:Brasov seven billion people say it exists, but they're wrong, that's just groupthink. SophieWilder 18:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC) Sophie, if you don't refrain to spam my mailbox with estrogene-loaded hate mail I'll report you to the moderators. Is that clear?--Brasov (talk) 14:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC) Talk:One single proof I won't do your homework for you. The GW flag is carried by a politician, a clear interference. Consensus is meaningless when there's pressure to conform. A denialist label guarantees a dead end to even the most able career. How far can a questioner afford to dissent in an IPCC panel knowing what he's risking? There's also the pettiness of the GW issue. How many serious scientists would contribute to such panel? Why invest precious time debunking Scientology? In the current climate it's reasonable to assume the dissent camp is larger the admitted size, but why the hell bother?--Brasov (talk) 17:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC) The most clear case is that of Holocaust deniers: voice your doubts in public and go to jail. Very effective to achieve scientific consensus. If it ever fails, we might want to try Dismemberment instead, a proven overwhelming argument.--Brasov (talk) 18:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I compiled this as a public service. I am not inclined to think that these offenses merit anything serious. If the user makes any more misogynistic attacks, I don't think anyone would object to a unilateral ban of up to a day. With regard to his annoying editing habit... well, there's not much precedent for any significant action either. Blue (is useful) 09:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I would also like to state for the record that these kinds of personal attacks (including [trans]misogyny) have never, ever been seen as grounds for serious action. If they were, half the sysop corps would be hanged by now, along with a few moderators and members of the RWF Board of Trustees. Blue (is useful) 09:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

But Brasov is an unpopular editor, so different standards apply. -- Nx / talk 09:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Keep the hate alive man. Aceⁱ⁹ 11:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Both of y'all are peaches. You make RW great. 12:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

"Estrogen-flecked hate mail"? That stuff's expensive! Anyway, I don't see this as a coop matter...yet. Give it time and see how deep a hole he digs for himself first. Sophie^Wilder 12:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

No. Collegiate Cerulean has spoken. She only needs to put her money where her mouth is and either close this coop or bring charges against all the nasty people she was referring to. 12:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Alternative reason

The guy is a self-admitted troll:[7]

What if I enjoy watching the fits of pissed-up-to-their-necks, pimple-ridden maladjusted preteeners as I show to them that signing-up for a wiki that sports "rational" in its name does't turn a gonzo into a half-gonzo? Am i not entitled to it?--Brasov (talk) 5:04 am, Today (UTC+2)

I suggest either indef-blocking the account, or giving them the Dirk Steele treatment (ignoring their edits as long as they stay in their sandbox).--ZooGuard (talk) 09:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the ZooGuard. The guys is nothing more than a damn internet troll. I have no love for keeping him around and wouldn't complain to see him go. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 19:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Ban. Humorless fascist^sociopath 19:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

While we're at it, does anyone know if "Dirk Steele" is a sock? EVDebs (talk) 08:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I think they're just tag-teaming, and probably pleased to see someone on their side who shares their pet subject. Sophie^Wilder 13:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Too soon

While it would be nice if we followed the community standard against unpleasantness. It is, unfortunately, largely honoured in the breach. Accordingly -

• If you think he's a troll ignore him.
• If you think he's trying to make a serious point then engage him and change his mind.
• If you think that he has has poor editing technique then educate him.

It is far too soon to start any other action.--Bob^{"I thought this was supposed to be "Rational" Wiki?."} 10:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Sophie^Wilder 13:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree with both above me. Just 'cuz he doesn't "Fit in" doesn't mean we should treat him like shit. Seriously. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 13:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm understating when I say he doesn't "fit in". I think he's here to cause trouble. I think that's the only reason he's here. It's all he's done so far. EVDebs (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Clearly a massive cock, but ignore and revert for now IMO - David Gerard (talk) 18:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

None of the evidence above is even interesting, let alone incriminating. People need to grow thicker skin. DickTurpis (talk) 17:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm hungover, and I've just been to the dentist so I'm superhappy at the moment. There's a solution to this problem that doesn't involve banning everyone who says things we don't like. FUCKING IGNORE BRASOV. I get that you take the moderaton job seriously Blue, and good on you, but just calm down. You know that if you pursue this it will end up in HCM; this is precisely what you are meant to avoid.Tielec01 (talk) 03:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Uh... are you responding to my post from six days ago above? Blue (pester) 03:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but he's high off his balls--"Shut up, Brx." 14:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Now timely

This is unfunny vandalism. If it continues, I suggest we get rid of it. Hipocrite (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Problem is, if you follow the changes from that point, it shows that he's a dertermined POS troll who will use IP editing to circumvent a block and edit war. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 19:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly what I thought he was going to do. EVDebs (talk) 03:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)