RationalWiki talk:Blocking policy/daft blocking policy addendum

Turdblossom
This is one of many discussions that has descended into petty sniping and trolling idiocy on RationalWiki.
Here are the others, in case you are curious, bored, or enjoy pain:
- Community Standards/Revamp, January 2009 -- Community Standards/Revamp draft -- Requests for comment/HeartOfGold -- Community Standards/disruption -- HeartOfGold Sysop vote -- Site politics -- User:Copyvio's campaign to stop copyvio -- Serious Business -- Epic debate -- Cat fight -- Constitutional Convention, April 2008 -- Barroom brawls -- Voting Procedure -- Inactivity -- Property rights in WIGOs -- Nuclear Option -- Privacy clusterfuck -- The Rationalwiki Reform Society -- Community Standards/TK -- Drama dump -- The case of MarcusCicero -- Voting standards -- User rights and moderation revisited -- Make TK a sysop? -- Analysis of the relative income streams of the National Football League and international rugby union -- The mobocracy -- Statement candidacy for the RationalWiki Foundation Board of Trustees -- Is RationalWiki under the control of Feminist activists? -- Chicken coop/Archive37 -- Chicken coop -

Getting started

I like it, pretty much as is. RaoulDuke 20:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we could do an escalating severity of blocks. 1st=1 month, 2nd=3 months, 3+=6 months--Thanatos 21:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Seeing how that works out at eWoK aSoK, I'd prefer to keep it simple. Anyone who is ever going to have this policy applied to them is going to be a shithead that we don't really ever want back. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I like it, but I'm too involved to claim lack of bias but he wants stopping IMHO. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 21:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. --Kels 21:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't look bad, IMO. But couldn't it be less lawyery? More along the lines If everyone thinks you are a dick, most probably you are one - so you get binned or blocked... :-) larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 21:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I really don't like this. I know there is a problem with MC but our policy hitherto has been to put up with it until they become bored. I think we all know that blocks are easily circumvented so whats's the point? MC is one of those knuckleheads who gets his kicks out of picking a fight or trying to set the world to rights, I've met enough of the drunken bastards in Kilburn pubs to know the sort. I honestly think that not feeding the troll, no matter what he posts, is the best policy. Don't even post DNFTT banners. If we adopt blocking then we'll pretty soon need to reinstate checkuser as well. We are just too open a site to make this work. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 21:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the point is, our "policy hitherto" wasn't working. Doing nothing but trusting DNFTT to be enough in all cases is ridiculous. --Kels 21:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Pure and simple - MC has outstayed his welcome, annoyed everyone and is just a trolling prick so ban away. Ace McWicked^{I'm a pretty big deal around here...} 21:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, we know he'll come back with a "your as bad as Conservapedia" bullshit but thats his own invention. Any forum, blog, wiki whatever would have banned him long ago. He made his bed, now he can burn in it. Ace McWicked^{I'm a pretty big deal around here...} 21:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I made it lawyery to try and avoid any possible abuse of power. I have a dim sense that even total shits like MC are entitled to some form of due process before having their toes removed with a hacksaw.

I take the point about checkuser, though. There really isn't much to stop people creating a sock and continuing being a dick without it. I think we should block admitted socks if their parent gets blocked, but give everyone else the benefit of the doubt. I'm guessing that the sort of wankers this policy applies to will go over the edge in to outright vandalism if blocked, and vandals we can happily deal with til the cows come home. And like Kels says, what we're doing now isn't working and hasn't worked in the past. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as socks go, way I see it is if the sock's an admitted one then block it to match the main account. If not, then treat it as a separate person regardless. Basically if an asshole like MC makes a sock and acts like an asshole with it but won't admit the connection, then we just treat the sock like a totally separate asshole. If he starts a sock that behaves itself and acts like a regular user, then I'm fine with letting it go. After all, the point is to avoid the asshole behaviour, not to nose into the business of the user. --Kels 21:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The reason out "policy hitherto" hasn't worked is because you've all been feeding the troll like a French goose. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 22:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't think of a single forum anywhere I've seen where "Don't Feed The Troll" is followed by more than 75% of the members, so the troll still gets fed. Why do you think we're different? Hell, I didn't interact with TK at all for most of the time he was here, and recommended DNFTT, yet he still disrupted for a long time before he was finally kicked out. --Kels 23:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Please ban me

Please ban me - I'm literally dying to become the Cassandra of Rationalwiki. This is nothing to do with being like conservapedia, its everything to do with the way in which the mob has behaved and the way in which it self accelerates when one power crazed man takes the initiative. Nothing I have said in the last couple of days has been unreasonable - This is entirely the reactions of a group of jacobins INCAPABLE OF ACCEPTING CRITICISM OF THEIR OWN ACTIONS. This is priceless and you have given me the immortality only a martyr could hope for. Cheers. (I was going to disappear tomorrow for a few months anyway, but this gives me the feeling of success either way) MarcusCicero 21:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

How dramactic. Ace McWicked^{I'm a pretty big deal around here...} 21:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

You're still a hypocrite, no matter how you try to hide it. And now for something completely different. MarcusCicero 21:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

You're not a Cassandra. Cassandra was accurate. She had better boobs, too. --Kels 21:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Also Cassandra was powerless to do anything about her visions. MC had plently of chances. Ace McWicked^{I'm a pretty big deal around here...} 21:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no particular problem with you going away with a sense of smug satisfaction, as long as you go away. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I really do marvel at the mob in action. And this from a group who claim such superiority from another website. And you judge Cassandra as being accurate from your vantage point - the thing about her was that no one would listen to her at the time. They probably would have accused her of being a troll too! Either way, this is a farce, no real evidence has being provided and its clear who the ringleaders are. The glory days of RW are dead and gone, your great members long since left, and all thats left is a rump of bigoted, ignorant, childish and power craven losers with nothing better to do. Ban me, but the hypocrisy will still be there, even if no-one has the intelligence to point it out. MarcusCicero 21:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have the least to do than any of us. Ace McWicked^{I'm a pretty big deal around here...} 22:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Comparitively, I'm not on here very often. Anyway, what are you waiting for? Where is my indef. ban? Surely you should just rubber stamp your hypocrisy and do away with the facade. No-one here would disagree, this is all an attempt at making yourselves feel better for breaking your principles. Just do it, slap your backs later and go on with being imbeciles and laughed at on other websites. MarcusCicero 22:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Is anyone discussing an indef. ban except MC himself? --Kels 22:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Which websites? Let's beat them up. RaoulDuke 22:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

EC) "I was going to disappear tomorrow for a few months anyway" so you started that "debate" with no intention of following it up? Why? Oh of course: to stir up shit - I forgot that was your main preoccupation. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 22:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Quite true Toast. Ace McWicked^{I'm a pretty big deal around here...} 22:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Listen asswipe, RW is run by its members, for its members. Yes, we have lost some valued members, but it happens. Life goes on. But this bullshit you keep going on about is fucking ridiculous. You are just one member. It is not RW's responsibility to accommodate you. If you like it here, then stay. If you don't, leave. You are not in control here and do not have the authority to recreate this site in your own image.--Thanatos 22:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I was going to stay and reform, but when the response was community backslapping I realised there was no way any of you would reconsider your hypocrisy. And please, read the proposals I made rather than use your atypical authoritarian mind to try and comprehend it. And stop with this bullshit. Just do the deed and get it over and done with. This charade is laughable, its simply so as to make yourselves feel better for breaking your principles. MarcusCicero 22:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

You wanted to change major proportions of the site. And stop talking like a polite asshole! IF YOU HAVE PROBLEMS, GO TO ANOTHER FUCKING WIKI! Hell, I'll email some sysops at CP. They would love to have another self-righteous moron over there.--Thanatos 22:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I've a feeling that your faculties are a little slow. You still haven't grasped the concept of voluntary reform. Never acquainted with libertarianism I take it? MarcusCicero 22:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

He won't, Thanatos. Maintaining a wiki and writing articles takes effort, while being a self-righteous troll is easy. Which do you think he's gonna do, when he's not hanging around his Secret Website Full Of People That Agree With Him But Nobody's Ever Seen? --Kels 22:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe add more of his socks to said website. Tell me, MC, Do the voices in your head agree with you passively (like a frightened child), or do they encourage you?--Thanatos 22:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Nah, the voices seem to tell me that you like to masturbate in your parents basement, then wipe your mess over the walls. I'll ask them for more things about you though - I can imagine you are exactly the kind of degenerate who flashes people late at night. MarcusCicero 22:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe those voices are the children you have molested?--Thanatos 22:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

.....I've come to this site because I enjoy reading up on more literalistic views than are commonly portrayed. Instead I find low brow insults and humor that I would expect from high school freshman.... Really? How about you just drop the politics of the situation and just ignore him? I was under the impression that if you don't agree with a person, you ignored them. But then again, it seems that infantile behavior is replacing senility these days.... This is coming from someone fresh out of high school, to give you a frame of exactly how ridiculous everyone is being.OpalHonors 03:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I estimate about a 75% chance of this being a MC sock. Interesting. Ah well, soon we will know for sure. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 04:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

If I'm a MC sock please let me know, because then I'm being controlled without my knowledge.... Oh No! my Multiple personality disorder has struck again! As if....OpalHonors 14:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Trolling troll is trolling

MC is still trolling so lets us come to desicion before he railroads the conversation. I have to flee the house now but I reckon ban away. Ace McWicked^{I'm a pretty big deal around here...} 22:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Ban away. I've had enough of this shit, and I really don;t understand why people keep unbinning/unblocking him. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 22:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Eh, if he's going away, let him go away. No point blocking him if he ain't here to enjoy it. If he's staying, decide a policy and then apply it him. I think we can probably stand another week or so of MC. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

And we believe anything he says after the mental problems incident because...? --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!}

Don't do this shit. If your going to break your principles you might as well do it with a shred of honesty. Do the deed and get it over and done with. Its not nice to leave someone hanging on the bottom side of a guillotine. MarcusCicero 22:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll make you a sysop and you can fall on your own sword. RaoulDuke 22:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Bullshit. You are extremely dull people. Timid, spineless, no sense of humour, tedious company and childish. At least have the courage of your cowardice and do away with the thorn in your side. MarcusCicero 22:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you go outside and play, and let the grownups talk, okay? Oh, and I vote block for a month. If he goes away for a couple of months like he said he would, no problem. He's not out anything and neither are we. If he lied and comes back early, then he's earned his block. --Kels 22:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh shut up little girl and do put your mind to more productive uses. I've never encountered someone with such a lack of self criticism in my life. Just ban me for good, break your principles, and then get on with your RW lives. MarcusCicero 22:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep this up and you won't get a cookie before bed. --Kels 22:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you even going to have the courage to block me indefinately then? MarcusCicero 22:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

We're not discussing blocking you indefinitely. Perhaps you want to go someplace where they are? --Kels 22:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Or perhaps we could start discussing that? --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 22:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

When are you going to get this in to your head. While you may be the proximal cause o the policy change, this isn't all about you, you, you. If you want to be martyred, you'll just have to wait. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Why not? You might as well. You hardly think I'm going to reform to your nonsense standards? If I wanted to degenerate to the worst kind of internet scum I might respect a 30 day ban, but either way I'll still come back whenever I feel like it on sock accounts. If I'm indefinately banned I might just decide to kick this whole enterprise on the head. MarcusCicero 22:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

How about this policy change: All socks of a blocked user are infibanned, regardless of how long the user was originally blocked? --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 22:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

So, I have to get this straight. You insist you're not a troll or a vandal. You like this place in some weird way and want it to succeed. You want us to all conform to your standards, even though you don't yourself. But you aren't willing to abide by our rules? I'm sorry, your story is getting less coherent by the second. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

This addendum is a terrible idea

Our Community Standards page states "Sysops should limit most blocks to an hour or two". Now apparently we're drafting an addendum that says "or maybe or month or six". Not a good idea. Doing a complete U-turn on site policy in order to deal with one disruptive user is the exact opposite of not feeding the troll.

If y'all want to call a vote on blocking MC, then go ahead. But it should be a one-off, like the TK-banning. Writing this into RW policy will set a really bad precedent. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

TK--CUR--Fall down--MC. This stuff happens semi-regularly enough that we should have a codifed way of dealing with it, no? ^{— Unsigned, by: RaoulDuke / talk / contribs}

No, just some acceptable precedent. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 22:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Really? I thought it'd be a good precedent to avoid the months of will we/won't we convulsions we have had with both TK and MC. If we have a clear rule and the ability to enforce it, I'd like to think we can avoid HCM in future. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The precedent we are looking for is "can we block trolls". Not looking for how, just if we can. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 23:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

My 2c

Him being an asshole doesn't excuse you being assholes too, or violating the community standards, or inventing a new rule that goes against the principles of this place. All he does is troll talk pages and "improve" articles by removing stuff he doesn't like. For the latter we have the vandal bin if it gets out of hand. As for the former, ignore him. Or does it hurt so much because what he says is true? -- Nx / talk 23:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Given that you don't accurately describe the situation or what we're trying to do here, I'm inclined to say no, him saying things that are true has nothing to do with it. --Kels 23:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

You say that, but it hasn't worked has it? In MC's case, half the people thought he merited the vandal bin, while another half were willing to parole him. All that happens is that we get ourselves in to an infinite loop, and don't fix the problem. The problem is that the behaviour of MC and his ilk isn't always clear cut vandalism, but it is anti-social and detrimental to the site. We are good at dealing with vandalism, but we need to recognise that this is a different category of problem. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site}

As we saw when TK was doing the exact same thing, 99% of the wiki can be fed up with him, but all it takes is one person with sysop powers to just unilaterally parole any block, even of an hour, and it falls apart. That's the problem here sometimes, a lot of people haven't got the sense of a deck chair in situations like this. If someone is getting in the way, you get them out of the way, you don't be tolerant past the point of stupidity. --Kels 23:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

This policy isn't going to change that - it just moves the discussion to another level, namely "what constitutes a pattern?" –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 03:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

How can we possibly have a vote on a "new blocking policy" when we don't even have a proper policy on who is made a sysop or bureaucrat in the first place? As Kels points out it only takes one person with powers to parole or unblock but it also only takes one person to start the whole thing off by unilaterally blocking someone in the first place. The entries above are a shocking indictment of escalating a situation to hysteria by people whom I frankly thought should know better. Next thing people will be suggesting that he be skinned alive and rolled in salt. We either have standards and stick to them no matter what the provocation, or we go down the CP route.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 07:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

For fuck's sake

I got out for a couple of hours and come back to find this shit still going on? Just block the little fuck and we'll get on with whatever it is we do. He is incoherant now, has made several promises to "reform" but never has, is a concern troll, a troll-troll, adds nothing but grief, ties up RC with his bullshit and gets us all into a CUR like knot. We banned TK, we can ban MC aswell and I dont care wheher he thinks its "hypocritical" whatever the fuck. He needs to go and now. Ace McWicked^{I'm a pretty big deal around here...} 00:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

VOTING TIME!!

Ban the asshole

• The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 01:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Ace McWicked^{I'm a pretty big deal around here...} 01:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Kels 01:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC) (what, like that's a surprise?)
• Thanatos 01:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Clepper ^{is fallible} 01:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Conservapederast 02:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 02:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts from someone who doesn't know anything about the issue but saw the sitenotice: Yeah, I don't know what's going on here, but I saw MC's whining above and if that's representative of the rest of his activity, well, I wouldn't wish it upon anyone to have to put up with someone like that, who just reeks of wanting to cause drama. Also, urine-soaked. I wanted to work the phrase "urine-soaked" into that sentence but couldn't figure out how, and besides it's a pretty long sentence as it is, so I'll just tack it on the end there. --Syndrome 03:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Give him what he wants, what can it hurt? JS Leitch 03:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Maybe we're a terrible place that it's too much work to edit and we're terrible oversensitive people, like he says. But it seems pretty clear that he's never going to do anything useful and he is just going to keep being mean. For whatever reason, he's got to just fuck off forever. He and TK are probably the only people who merit this; even CUR was nowhere near as bad as MC, since he tried to be nice and made an effort (if misguided).--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 04:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC) Human makes a good case. I am swayed.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 07:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

RaoulDuke 04:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC) (Formerly ToP) Convinced by Human's eloquent discourse.

HAL-9000

• --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 08:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

--Jeeves Mk.III 10:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for it Mark Jeeves 10:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

He certainly seems an unpleasnt sort of chap and needs to be taken down a peg or two. What? -Wooster 10:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Jeevus Christ 10:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Et tu Brute. Jeeves Mark Antony 10:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• (switching to sock mode) Yours truly^{Dear Sir} 10:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Let him stay for a while

• Yorick^{Is Joe Biden Eva Braun?} 02:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC) He seems like an absolute ass. And for that I vote let him stay.
• Web 02:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC) You fascists wont silence the voice of the proletariat! EDITORS OF THE SITE... UNITE!!! On a more serious note, the guy is annoying, but its against the point of this website to ban him.

TK was banned don't forget. There has been precedent. Ace McWicked^{The Liquid Room} 02:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• الملعب الاسود العقل ^{Your ballroom days are over, baby} 03:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC) Well he should have a sense of satisfaction. He accomplished what I imagine he came here to do. Trolled the community to the point that nobody could handle it anymore and new rules were drafted up specifically for him. Is he really that intolerable? He could certainly be 10x worse if he wanted to be. I'm just worried about where this might lead.

I am opposed to new rules. We should just ban him. Because of the way he acts and we all hate him. It's very mobocrat.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 04:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 04:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC) Inventing a new policy simply because of a conflict with one user is a massive overreaction and goes against the RW ethos.

Three times at least, to my knowledge. TK, CUR and now MC, all pretty much along the same lines. It's something that comes up, and better to learn to deal with it. --Kels 04:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

TK was blocked, clumsily, according to standards in place at the time. CUR was not blocked, he was driven off. ħuman 07:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Quite - those two cases were dealt with using existing methods: this policy change is aimed at exactly one user and is, as I said, a massive overreaction. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 12:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

--Harold 06:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• I think he's funny. Sadly, he makes a lot of us look a bit thin-skinned. Get over yourselves and revert his edits if they are poor. Make fun of his talk page comments if they are pathetic. Have some goat pilaf. ħuman 07:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Turn RW upside down and change the policy to something authoritarian and strict - because one bloke taunted us? Get a grip. If he trolls, laugh at him. The more he blusters, the more we laugh. I've been trolling him backa couple of times, and he has no answer. Well, he called me a child, so, um, block him for six months [/sarcasm]. This is, after all, how we dealt with Jinx _{hi Jinx!} and Rem.Ryan, so why get all procedural? TLDR - we've all got our knickers in a twist. Again. We need to sort this out, but not with stupid giant banhammers. Totnesmartin 07:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• I really don't see why trolling talkpages, creating silly "debates" and occasionally removing things from articles merits blocking. Word wisest Phantom Hoover! 08:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• --Editor at CP^{Oh, Finland! Why?} 08:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC) (though I miss Jinx _{hi Jinx!} and have no idea who Rem.Ryan is)
  • Rem.Ryan was the bloke who turned up to lecture us a great and tedious length about the virtues of libertarianism. He started a couple of interesting debates, and for a while it seemed he was everywhere, but he got fed up with us laughing at his ideas and went back to his hideout to fend off the guvmint from his goddam prapperteh. Totnesmartin 08:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• -- Nx / talk 09:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} (Just to ensure that my vote is tallied)
• --Concernedresident 09:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC) His comments have been dragging stuff off-topic, but it's easily ignored. We're a small enough bunch here that if we just stop replying then it becomes nothing more than mild background noise. Yes it's irritating to check for recent changes and see yet another 'debate' raging over his martyrdom, or his mission to remove the lulz from our lives, but that's tolerable. I don't think we should be properly blocking unless an editor is uploading illegal stuff (like child porn).
• Broccoli 09:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

DOn't be hypocrites. let him stay --Marcus Jeeves II 10:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I've been following this from afar but feel the need to register my disapproval Cicero Kid

So you're saying that because someone wasn't involved in this case they don't have the right to vote on a precedent that would drastically change site policy? -- Nx / talk 10:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

did I say that? Cicero Kid 10:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought you were disapproving of people letting you stay. Totnesmartin 10:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I was disapproving of people disapproving, so was approving the proposal of the naysayers and I'm not an Irishman (nor his brother). Cicero Kid 10:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Humour him or ignore him. I haven't seen him do anything anywhere near as destructive as people are making out. Also, shouldn't we be voting on the policy proposal here? This is what happens when you try to debate two issues simultaneously on the same page. ^{— Unsigned, by: Weaseloid / talk / contribs}

• ^narchist 12:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC) If you can start blocking people outright for a good reason, you can do it for a bad reason. I've seen plenty of places that take the term "trolling" and use it to apply to anyone with a dissenting view or persistent behavior of any kind.

Bring back TK!

Apparently I missed the part where TK got banned. Maybe that's why he's recovering. RandomSock 03:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

We should not even be voting on this

--Bob^{Not Jim} 09:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the debate is worth having. But a binding vote? No. Totnesmartin 09:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

What I mean is that this debate page is about the policy. But this vote is about an individual. In the highly unlikely event that the policy were approved then, and only then, could we vote about an individual. But that wouldn't work either as the proposed "policy" does not include a vote! It's absurd from start to finish.--Bob^{Not Jim} 09:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I really, really, really don't see what all the fuss is about. JUST IGNORE HIM if he bothers you. Personally, I think he has hit at least two sore points - we've drifted massively off-mission, and it has become largely juvenile around here. I have fond memories of the days of real article development. But the idea of getting your knickers all up in a twist over some-anonymous-user-of-the-internets just seems laughable really. This endless debate is something of a sham and a total waste of bandwidth. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 15:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Abstain

• Ace McWicked^{The Liquid Room} 09:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC) Seriously off track now, accusations of fascism from Human, need to take sleep, the entire thing pisses me off now and, on a related topic, I need to take a piss.

Well, you gotta take my "fascism" usage with not only a grain of salt, but half a beer and 450 ml of Scotch. Enjoy your piss! ħuman 10:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Goat

RaoulDuke 10:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Totnesmartin 11:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

What took so long?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 11:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Long-Eared Jerboa

Do not introduce this policy

I note that the topic here is Blocking policy/draft blocking policy addendum yet we are voting on blocking a particular user. I rather feel that we should decide on this policy change before we decide to implement it against a particular individual.

I am against this policy change:

• A troll will simply create a sock or multiple socks and make us look silly.
• The solution with troll is not to feed them. A couple of days ago our most active troll was served up with a real troll banquet which must have made him very happy. If people are unable to ignore him then they have themselves to blame.

Could I ask people to consider if we want to introduce this change before implementing it. I would also suggest that at least 48 hours be allowed to pass after the start of the vote on this issue before implementing it in order to give everybody an opportunity to comment on this very significant change in policy.--Bob^{Not Jim} 06:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This "change in policy" will not stand as long as I can unblock people. ħuman 07:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

So, are you saying the community standards should only be followed as long as you agree with them? What the fuck? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 08:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

No, just that they stand as they are. Changing them in response to one editor who found some thin skin is utterly lame. In other words, the "project page" associated with this talk page is completely against the ethos of what RW was and is. And also utterly fails to understand that without checkuser - which we voluntarily disabled in disgust - blocking is a futile reponse to people who get on your nerves. ħuman 08:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

While I agree i00% with your position about this proposal Human, saying that you will simply ignore will will of The Mob also goes against the site ethos.--Bob^{Not Jim} 09:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I gotta agree with Jeeves here. Human, you have no carte blanche in this community. Ace McWicked^{The Liquid Room} 09:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Ace and Bob, you didn't read carefully. I said "This 'change in policy' will not stand as long as [emphasis added for clarity] I can unblock people". If the community changes so much that not blocking anyone is no longer the rule, I will be de-sysopped for unblocking people, and then I won't be able to violate community standards anymore. And if they change that much, I wouldn't want to be a sysop here anymore. ħuman 09:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not just Human. As he pointed out, Trent (where is he?) has also been opposed to this sort of thing in the past. Now although he is just another editor I think he would regard it as some sort of failure if the mob pushed this through and I could well imagine that he might just hand over the site to whoever wanted it. Trent doesn't make a lot of edits but let's make no mistake that he puts in a lot of time behind the scenes to keep this site going. If anyone else took RW over could they, or would they, put in the effort to keep it running like it is and be able to finance it? I don't pretend to speak for TMT but I also don't think we can ignore his feelings on the issue. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 09:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I must admit that I was doing a bit of Trent mind-reading, as his position on blocking has always been quite clear. As I stated above, I also dislike this proposal. My objection was only to to Human's (apparent) unilateralism.--Bob^{Not Jim} 09:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

TL; DR, WTF and LOL

I spend six hours working on my truck and you idiots are doing this?

What part of We don't block people at RationalWiki don't you understand?

So he incites anger on talk pages, his posturing is actually rather amusing since it is so content-free. He insults some users, are your skins so thin? And once in a while he argues by deletion/edit comment on some articles. I call on the first person who is not guilty of some amount of any of these things to cast the first stone.

And then we can all go home.

In case it's not clear, I am completely against this silliness. I've been editing here along with the rest of you (and that "you" includes MC, who, despite his juvenile protests to the contrary, is one of "us") the last week or whatever, and it did not cost me money or cause me irreparable harm to read or skim things he did or "conversations" he started. I was always free to ignore any of his, um, "contributions".

But then again, I only overlap with his editing time by a couple-three hours a day. You Brits, on the other hand, get a fresh dose of "active" MC with your morning tea, and a fresh steaming helping with your elevenses, and I can imagine that by suppertime you've had you fill of bloated braggadocio. And yet, none of you really call him on his bullshit. The prominent intellectuals who all went away, indeed. He can only name one, AKjeldsen, and never actually quotes AK on why he left, he just leaves it out there and you guys bite the hook (get it? that's a fishing reference). Who else left? PalMD, for his blog promotion and very busy life? He still checks in regularly. Andreas? AmesG (driven off the site by warring with TK, not us)? Who, indeed? Heart of Gold? Bohdan? Whatever will we do to attract such intellectual giants and huge contributors so MC can once again be proud of RW?

This place has been a hive of silliness since day one, MC. It has also been a place where we work on our mainspace articles, to make them better-references, better-written, and more chock full of fucking internet memes.

MC, this is the internet! - what memes are we supposed to use? Jazz composers work with jazz memes. Novelists work with memes of the novel. Filmmakers... well you get the picture. I suspect you don't actually know what a meme is.

Well, this is me mostly done, but to repeat it one more time...

We don't block people at RationalWiki

If MC really pisses you off, and you think he's a troll, well, he has succeeded. If he amuses you and you think he's an idiot, you have succeeded.

That's me done. I'm not going to vote above because if I see anyone blocked for pissing people off I'll undo it until someone de-sops me. ħuman 06:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

What Human said. Editor at CP^{Oh, Finland! Why?}, somewhere between 06:59 and 07:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm parking my truck here as well.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 07:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, this was impassioned and idealistic and reasoned and persuasive. It has summarily changed my stance; cancel my before.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 07:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree. I think there are some people here who need to grow a considerably thicker skin. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 07:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's issue of skin thickness. The only person who offends me is Jinx and I am only offended by his breath-taking stupidity. Ace McWicked^{The Liquid Room} 07:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It's totally ironic that many of the people who were telling MC to ignore the parts of RW that he doesn't like then get het up about his posts rather than ignoring them. Oh, and Human, did you read my comment at Debate Talk:The Rationalwiki Reform Society about internet memes or is it just not-so-great minds thinking alike? Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 08:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup, it's a case of us meme-cripples thinking alike. Too bad we never aspire to MC-like brilliance, we just do our thing. I did like that post. ħuman 09:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Once upon a time we blocked people at RW. I don't see why we shouldn't do so again. Why exactly should we have to put up with a troll hijacking threads, stalking users, fucking with articles and hurling abuse at people? For the sake of a recently introduced standard that is now apparently enshrined as holy writ, never to be modified?

Blocking is an appropriate tool for dealing with some categories of trouble maker. It's all very well wanting not to be like CP, but we have gone way too far. We shouldn't have to tolerate jackasses beyond reason just because they aren't vandals. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 08:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Jeeves, with all due respect, you are wrong. Yes, when we were young, all we had was blocking. Remember the fibonacci sequence? I remember 2007, and our first "vandal". All I had to work with was the F sequence - in fucking minutes. It was not fun. Nowadays we have eleventy-seven active users, and the vandal bin.

Jeeves, if you can't handle M's insults (which in my opinion hold no water at all), don't read them. Seriously, you are on a one-man crusade against MC, and all it means (see above) is that he is winning (over you). Your lame proposal to block people who piss you off is never going to fly on here. You realize that both Trent and I have made a long-term hobby of unblocking all blocked usernames (that aren't people's IPs) since the earliest days of this site, right?

Anyway, dealing with jackasses is what we do, and we invite them to join up. If we can't handle a kind of jackass we didn't foresee, what losers does that make us? ħuman 09:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

See, I don't particularly care if MC in his own mind thinks he has "won", whatever that means. I simply want him to be elsewhere. The final straw was when he started fucking with a thread created by an entirely new user. This is not what we need, or should want. Nor should we have to put up with it.

What we have here is a situation which is not well handled by existing rules. We have a time sink who pisses on articles, then bitches when people revert his crap. Is there any good reason why, after giving him so many chances to reform, he should still be here? The only one anyone has yet presented is because we have no policy that enables us to get rid of him, the problem I'm trying to fix. Fundamentally, the question I want to ask you is where the threshold for net negative contributors to this site ought to be set? MC is a far worse time sink than any of the various New Gwenson vandals, etc. ever were. It seems wrong to me that they should be vandal binned, but we have no process for dealing with the greater problems. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 09:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that thread. Most of the pissing was from other users. You know what I did? I went to the new user's talk page and offered help in finding their way around. You, on the other hand, did this? Really? I am getting really sick of this "jumping on MC" shit. He didn't "hijack" that thread, he just made an inane comment. As far as you "wanting him to be elsewhere", well, sorry, you don't get that wish. This is an OPEN FUCKING WIKI and this fascism is really getting on my tits. But I have to admit, it's always fun to read! ħuman 09:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, funnily enough, the mob is currently voting for MC to be elsewhere so I think perhaps I will get my wish. You've defended the mobocracy in the past, as have I. It seems now that you're really only in favour of mob rule when it confirms your preconceived notions of what RW ought to be. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 09:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It's running about tied as I see it, which isn't exactly a mandate to completely override the site guidelines. Also I got someone to change their vote with one simple post. Think about that. PS, you're wrong. Have you read the sysop guide lately? PPS, what's the bug up your ass over this MC guy, and why can't you handle him editing RW? ħuman 09:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The sane people are ahead by a few votes now. Word wisest Phantom Hoover! 09:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Specifically, 12 votes for vs 14 against. Word wisest Phantom Hoover! 09:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, yeah, but the Jeeves family hasn't finished chiming in yet ;) ħuman 10:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

And 14-12 isn't a big ebnough majority for such a drastic change. Not sure what would be big enough, though. Totnesmartin 10:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

13:3 or so worked well for changing the wigo look. I didn't mind being on the losing side with that ratio, on a simple "look and feel" issue. Perhaps we should all "look and feel" MC and this silly blocking rule change? I also second your motion to move this to "fun:" because it is. ħuman 10:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I wish talk pages had talk pages. And on another unrelated topic... my lame sig

Because this one deserves its own talk page!

Oh, and who votes for me to get rid of the "pink smear" signature? I sorta liked it, in that it was created by the mob, but I fear it might not be RATIONAL enough for some of our editors. ħuman 08:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

RationalWiki talk:talk:Blocking policy/draft blocking policy addendum since you asked. Totnesmartin 08:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

That sort of thing is why I love this site. Thanks for reaffirming my addiction, Martin of the Nes that is Tot. ħuman 09:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I like the pink smear signature, it's unique..OpalHonors 21:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Fundamentally, the question I want to ask you is where the threshold for net negative contributors to this site ought to be set?

Who defines the +/- value of contributions? Personally, I think the "project page" associated with this talk page is -100 wiki points for petty fascism and lameness. ħuman 09:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

But we're free to disagree with it and discuss it first, so it's not especially fascist. It's using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, but that's it. If teh mob thinks a user is not making valuable contributions, we get them to do better. If it's someone like Fall Down, we get him to admit his motives and can act accordingly. The thing is, all the people we've had trouble with have done different things for different reasons, and a blanket policy on them all would have to be over the top to cover all eventualities. And it still won't stop a really determined pest with TOR. Totnesmartin 09:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

True that. I think its spirit is fascist, but of course the venue in which is it presented is democratic in some way. Let us hope the volks win over the wagens. ħuman 09:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Alternative proposals?

So, there are people who don't like the idea of blocking. That's fine. But what alternatives can you people come up with? The only thing I've heard so far, ignoring anti-social behaviour, is obviously not working and isn't going to work.

We have had a small number of people come to edit here who have had no intention of making positive or even neutral contributions to the site. We waste time dealing with these people, and they provoke HCM with irritating regularity. As far as I can see, HCM is always a result of having no good policy for dealing with such people and as a result people improvise a policy, and other people smack them down, rinse and repeat. I don't think this is a good thing. Have you got any alternative suggestions? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 09:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, OK. It's a fair question. Actually I do ignore them. It's what I did with TK and with MC. Never knowingly responded to a post of his unless it was to post DfTT and that kept me sane. But it seems that not everybody is able to do this so there is a problem. But is it a problem for those who feel they just must respond or is a problem for the site?--Bob^{Not Jim} 10:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is a fair question. Funny thing is, I haven't got my knickers in a twist over MC. And never wanted to block, say, Heart of Gold, or Lumenos, or that ID troll we had. HCM is a function of the users here, not a result of some evil editor. Think on that a bit. HCM is what we do not what they do. ħuman 10:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought the reason that DFtT didn't work with MC was that no-one paid attention to it. Word wisest Phantom Hoover! 10:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

No, the problem is that you don't notice the people who respect the DFTT. By definition you don't notice people who respect DFTT. --Bob^{Not Jim} 11:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

(EC)Is it MC's fault that we react and have huge turdblossom debates? No, it's ours. Nobody makes us react the way we do except ourselves. What we need isn't a new policy but a new mindset. Perhaps if we weren't all hanging on Recent Changes we wouldn't all get pulled into every bit of drama that goes on. Totnesmartin 10:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It's all very well to say it isn't a problem for you. But it clearly is a problem for a good number of editors here. I'd also say it is the site's problem, since even with every user operating with zen-like composure, someone still has to revert the troll's edits and reply to their talk page whining as to why they got reverted, and then put up with the inevitable barrage of insults that follow. Why should people have to do that? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 10:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to. Someone else will. This site has amazing resiliency. Hell, by the time I wake up at 2 PM UTC+4, you Brits are all done re-fighting the Troubles. And all I see is the fallout. Damn fallout. Why you use nukiler boms anyway, you small country, no need? ħuman 10:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

What the fuck? That's your solution? Let someone else do it? Well, I can see how you stay above the infighting, but as a global solution that's the most pathetic thing I've ever heard. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 10:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup. If you Brits don't get it done before I wake up, I'll fix it. Simple enough? ħuman 10:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

A few editors could tag-team him. Actually, that sounds like wrestling... Totnesmartin 10:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually DFTT does work. I don't know if any of you have been following the antics of Lumenos over at wikiindex. He had a great run while people were responding to him, but once people got fed up and stopped talking to him he was left to responding to his own posts. To be fair, that wasn't a conscious DFTT decision, but the effect was the same.--Bob^{Not Jim} 11:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

For my part, it certainly was a deliberate instance of DFTT. Since Lumenos was pretty clearly revelling in the attention I decided to leave the site for a while because sooner or later I'd say something stupid in response to his idiocy. At some point I'll go back. It's the same with MC here. Some of what he says has some merit, but if he can't be bothered to play nice then I can't be bothered to respond to it. If MC starts genuinely disrupting the site (deletions, silly moves, etc) then he should be blocked for that; at the moment, he's just a low-level irritant that can be ignored easily enough. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 12:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, Jeeves idea of trolling and mine are very different. He considers a genuine reversion to be trolling (Such as reverting people claiming the Falklands was about oil) He has no sense of humour and even worse, he has no sense of seriousness. He's just a humourluss nut who people put up with around here. MC 86.40.107.245 11:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

User 86 is not me. MC 66.45.240.66 11:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

And now for something completely different

The two most interesting pages in this slow news week at RationalWiki have got to be this one and that "debate" thing MC set up.

So who's the troll and who's keeping it real?

At least when he pisses everyone off it ends up with us all getting to opine, which is what we really like to do most anyway, isn't it?

Oh, and if they want, I will offer to clear my talk page so it can be used for a Jeeves (Mark III) vs. Marcus "Android" Cicero cagematch. Rules to be discussed between rounds four and five. I reserve the rights to sell the televised version to Versus. Or anyone who'll buy it. ħuman 10:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I vill destroy him. I vill eat his children after I have forced them to eat zer mother. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 10:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I am so into this. Shall you and he agree upon a start time, upon which I will prepare the octagon in which you will meet each others teeth and blood and phlegm, with only a weak referee to protect you against broken bones and crushed thingies? ħuman 10:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I will debate you when you like you bastard. MC.66.45.240.66 11:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You are both free to debate during the match, but keep in mind you will be expected to do it while punching and kicking each other, knocking each other down and trying to dislocate each others' shoulders or, in general, causing each other to lose consciousness. No eye gouging, hitting the back of the head or the "groin area" or small joint holds. ħuman 22:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

These sock accounts

These sock accounts are not mine, just so you know. I'm following the debate with interest. MC 86.40.107.245 10:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

They're all mine, actually. I thought it would be fun to load the "voting". I am also "following the debate with interest". But does your interest involve any respect for the incredibly high-minded and RATIONAL way we are dealing with this utter silliness? Or did we use too many internet memes? ħuman 10:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I was surprised to find reasonable heads eventually prevail once the original troublemakers were discovered, but I would have prefered martydom all the same. 86.40.107.245 10:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Which is why you shouldn't have it, I think. Totnesmartin 11:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Please keep saying my name. MC 66.45.240.66 11:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

These socks are getting annoying. 66. is not me. MC 11:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Please ignore my brother. He sometimes pretends to be me. I've told you before that he is not well. MC.66.45.240.66 11:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Shut up 66. A whois puts you in America. Word wisest Phantom Hoover! 11:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

That's only incredibly creepy, PH. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 15:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I am using anonymous proxy. Do you think I'd be stupid enough to use my own IP? Get a life why don't you? MC.

None of you cunts can take a joke. If you had any balls you'd block me for life. But you know that you'd never have another person to show you how stupid and wrong you are. I laugh at you every day and so do my friends. MC 193.200.150.125 12:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Now that's just playground bluster. "And so do my friends!" Why are they never here then? Show us the friends of yours on this secret treehousewebsite exist and I'll believe you. Totnesmartin 12:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The only one of these BONs who are me is 86. MarcusCicero 13:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Am I dead or alive then?

Am I a gonner? MarcusCicero 14:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Here you are alive, but we can't do anything about you being dead inside.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 15:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Moar conflicting views

Right. I, for one, find it ridiculous that we are seriously considering not banning MC. He is a hate troll, who has impeded the workings of this site for way too long. While I agree that HCM is caused not by one member, but by the response of ALL members, it can be most definitely be traced to a source. For pretty much every one since CUR left, that source has been Marcus. Think of the clusterfuck over "My brother has a mental problem, nya nya!", or perhaps the "We need to reform RW, and everybody but me needs to follow rules made by a concern troll" 'debate', for a more recent example. And, for another shining example of MC's doucebaggery, read this page. Somehow, he managed to single handedly derail all activity on RW and divert it to a pointless debate on policy. If we eliminate the source, the problems should stop. If he comes back in a sock, well, a CP-style "sock of blocked user" should do the trick. Oh, and as to the policy change, allow me to assuage people's fears on this:

WE WILL NOT MAKE THIS POLICY!!!!!!

This is a one-time thing to see if we are allowed to ban MC, and perhaps (note:perhaps) to provide a template to work with. We can't use CUR as an example here, because he was honestly contributing to this site in good faith, and most users here don't remember/weren't here when TK was banned, although reading up on it, I see no reason why we shouldn't follow that example.

MC, time and time again, has shown that he is not mature, responsible, or respectful in many ways. He will single out users (used to be me, now it seems to be TOP) and harass and insult them, and then when the user tires of this and tries to take action, he will then hide behind the shield so conveniently provided by the mob. "You don't ban people here" "Give me another chance" etc, are all rallying cries he uses to escape the banhammer. And, when he is banned, all he needs to do is wait a week or so, until a user with no idea what just transpired comes along and unblocks him and unbins him: "Run along and play nice now, Marcus. This is your last chance". MC has had far too many last chances to be allowed to remain unbanned, let alone unbinned.

Now is the time that MC's last chance is really his last, now should be when his shield, so conveniently provided free of charge by the mob gets taken away, and now is the time that his escape route, currently courtesy Tom Moore, soon to be courtesy Human, NEEDS to be cut off. We cannot allow MC to continue editing here, as it is neither in good faith or actual interest in which he edits here, but merely through the sadistic joy of watching a community tear itself apart. Pure and simple, he is a troll, and should be dealt with as such. I WILL ban him if no consensus is reached, and, like Human, will continue to ban him until my rights are revoked.

I cannot and will not recant anything I have said above, for to go against my conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I can do no other, so help me Goat. Amen. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 15:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

So help you WHAT?!?!? RaoulDuke 15:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It's one of the most famous quotes of all time, said by Martin Luther when he refused to recant his teaching at the Diet of Worms. I altered it, but I missed that. Hang on a moment. That's better. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 15:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright, srsly, I see where you're coming from, and I'm torn--Human convinced me that we could live through this, and he might be right. But where was he on the "ban TK" debate, and if he was pro-banning TK, I'd like to know why the principals of RW are so important here, but they weren't there. And I recall Human was threatening to unilaterally promote CUR at one point, principals be damned. So when are principals principals, and when is Human--and the rest of us--just playing it fast and loose? RaoulDuke 15:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I find this whole conversation the most fucking stupid thing I've seen in a long time. I can't think of any forum that would have put up with someone this damaging for even half as long as we have, and when faced with some of the outright insane shit he's pulled still want to give him another chance (HE FUCKING FAKED HAVING A MENTAL ILLNESS, don't people remember that shit?), apparently all in the name of "not wanting to be like CP". Remember Einstein? Not being so open-minded your brain falls out? Well, there's a lot of gray matter on the floor here, and that ain't rational. --Kels 15:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe it either. There's an overarching policy that RW doesn't block people and several people seem to want to bend that for one user. It ain't gonna happen. I'm with Human on this - I will unblock MC as long as I am able to do so. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 15:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, not blocking people at all is stupid. Seriously, it's idiocy. Trying to block minimally, that I can support, and that's the whole point behind the vandal brake. But come on, you've got people here arguing that neither tool should be used in favour of "ignore him", which clearly doesn't work. --Kels 15:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

As BobM has pointed out above, the "Ignore" option has worked fine elsewhere. It simply hasn't been tried here because somebody always rises to the bait. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 15:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

There are always new users who don't know the people involved. There are users who think everyone is redeemable. There are users who apply "assume good faith" even when the other person doesn't. In a group as individualistic as this one, there will never be a united front. Therefore, he will always have someone to rise to the bait, which is why DNFTT doesn't work here. And then conversations are derailed, the experience of new users is poisoned, and the wiki suffers. If you're happy with that situation, then sure. "Do nothing" is your best option. It's so much easier than actually doing something about it. I reserve the right to see it as idiocy. --Kels 15:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This is amazing. Just because a few people don't like it when somebody dissents they think the best option is to remove the troublemaker. There certainly is an undercurrent of authoritarian thought here. I won't post on this thread anymore, anything I say will be counter productive, but either way the entire argument is lazy. Theemperor has proven time and time again that he is an inverse conservapedian in so many many ways. Jeeves has no sense of humour and I can't really grasp what Kels problem is. Either way, its an overreaction and its genuinely kinda funny to see you seriously consider drafting 'emergency legislation' for somebody who merely posts strongly worded comments on talk pages. MarcusCicero 16:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

(E/C)Yes, but the people pushing this agenda are regular contributors who should know better. If MC is reduced to trolling n00bs then s?he will have dug (his|her) own grave. At the moment, it is the actions by !n00bs that is causing the problem. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 16:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

So...your solution to obvious (and admitted at times) trolling is...blame the people getting trolled? What? Wow, and here I thought the purpose of having sysops was to work in the interests of the users at large, rather than the trolls and vandals, I had that whole concept backwards! --Kels 16:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I blame people making unnecessary responses to "obvious (and admitted at times) trolling" posts, yes. If it wasn't for the huge sounding board MC gets by banging his drum here, he'd be just one more anonymous prick on the Internet. With the attention many people give him, he now has minor celebrity status. A bit like teh Assfly really. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 16:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I don't want to give him another chance. However I do not believe he deserves any kind of special treatment or a change in policy. And suggesting that this should be one-time thing only, so it's okay, is absurd. Oh, but now he's editing using socks. Let's install Checkuser so we can block his IPs forever. It's okay, because it's just a one-time thing, we won't make it policy. Let's also do a rangeblock on his IPs. It's just a one-time thing, it's okay.
And regarding the Reform Society debate: He raised valid points. Whether he was sincere or not is irrelevant. So he points out flaws in RationalWiki - and our response is to call him a troll and ban him?
As for the vote: Do not block wins. Theemperor I'd suggest you stay away from MarcusCicero. The last time you picked a fight with him it didn't turn out so well. -- Nx / talk 16:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Please join me in trying to make this page longer

This page isn't long enough, or whiny enough. Please post long, long, LONG winded paragraphs about anything at all here, so we can try and make this page the longest page on RW> That's about the only use for this page. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 16:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Right, where's my spam generator? --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 16:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

"Anonymous User" (obviously your parents were atheists to give you such a pagan name so you're probably obese), liberals are sooooo predictable. I've analyzed your unconcise replies and you seem to believe that the Romans had the concept of "truth", so regardless, I'm so confident that you're not here to glorify the Lord Jesus Christ. Furthermore, you deny that faith prevents moral decay. I repeat: there are about 40 Counterexamples to Evolution. If merely one of those is correct, then evolution is false. --Andy Schlafly 13:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I like the spam generator.... It almost had me fooled.... OpalHonors 20:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

DP, I've been working hard on adding as many reasonable non-sequiturs to this page as I can, and I see many others have, as well. Considering the original topic was whether or not I should ditch the "pink smear" signature, that the conversation morphed into some stuff about blocking policy and eating stuffed troll for brekkies, wow. Nice work, everyone! ħuman 22:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I personally am not in favour of your pink smushy signature. It is the worst kind of showy nouveau riche style and by posting you are performing the visual equivalent of running around with your hair on fire shouting "Look at me! Look at me!". DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 23:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, well, do you at least adore the little green image I made for my talk page link? ħuman 23:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

No. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 23:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it is funny. Too many people have no sense of humor, and as such, this little bit is just a nice colorful blob. It makes you jump out at people. Then again, I babysit toddlers, so maybe I'm somewhat biasedOpalHonors 23:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Consider the source..

Good point, but I wasn't aware of that. I just thought it was interesting..OpalHonors 14:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

A Brazen Proposal

Taking SuspectedReplicant and others to heart, I propose that we don't do anything at all to MC (maybe give him an award or a cookie for being so wonderful and spiffy), and instead punish anyone who replies to him, since it's clearly their fault that any trolling takes place. Therefore, my proposal is that all people who reply to inflammatory comments by MC (or TK, or CUR, or whoever the troll-of-the-day is) be put in the Vandal Bin, so they can't produce nearly as much fodder for the trolling. It's the right thing to do, and if you don't agree then you're just like CP.

Who's with me? --Kels 16:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You should realise at this point that you are trolling just as much as MC. And yes, I realise I'm feeding that meta-troll with this reply.

I'm getting too involved in this so I'm going away again for a while. I suggest others do the same. There is no need for any action at this point and I can't believe this debate has already escalated to the point of name-calling and sarcasm. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 16:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

As it happens I was thinking of making the same proposal. Two hours in the VB for anybody who replies to MC.--Bob^{Not Jim} 17:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

What a fucking stupid idea. Ace McWicked^{The Liquid Room} 19:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I like the first part, let's give MC a cookie. But then I think everyone who responds to him should also get a cookie. And warm milk. ħuman 22:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The people who respond to him shouldn't get cookies, because they're Bad People. That's been made clear to me, it's not MC's fault people get trolled, it's the people who answer him. So they don't deserve it. --Kels 22:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

A Modest Proposal

I say we eat the troll. ^{Stu the Foo'} 17:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

What, all of them? Broccoli 17:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, we could eat until we're full, then process the rest of the meat for sale to rich business-folk. ^{Stu the Foo'} 17:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice to see someone knows their Swift. Totnesmartin 17:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't help it when I saw "A Brazen Proposal". ^{Stu the Foo'} 17:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

What will his blocking achieve?

Nothing. He'll just switch to a proxy and we'll have to work out which are his socks and ban them too, and range block the proxies, and that's too like CP for my liking. There's only a social solution to this - ignore him. Starve the troll to death, though this page alone probably provides him with a month's worth of food. EddyP 18:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm boycotting this BS

With due respect to this community, I am boycotting this whole debate. MarcusCicero has gotten our goats, big deal. While it is true he hasn't gone after me here, I also don't really feed him. Ignoring his BS is, in my opinion, the ONLY way he will go away. But, as of late, people have only been feeding the hungry troll, so, naturally, he's been more energized. If he annoys you, then ignore him and revert any bullshit he attempts. But permabanning a troll is, in my opinion, not how this community should function. And, if permabanning is our solution to trolls, I will voluntarily surrender my blocking power here. The thing I enjoy about MC is that he is actually seems to take himself seriously, and so this community takes him seriously. But we shouldn't. If he starts hurling insults, we should be doing what we do best and laugh along to eliminate his power over us. If he says, for example, that I am no better than TK, then I will laugh along and say "you have no idea how much like TK I am." AnarchoGoon ^{Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living} 19:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You heartless, evil bastard! Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 19:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I know I'm a heartless evil bastard. The question is, just how evil and heartless?The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 19:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I am in full agreement with Goonie here. Be sure to revert ONLY the bullshit, though, as he has made good edits as well. Punx Unite! Aboriginal Noise ^{What the hell is that thing?} 20:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha Hilarious!

This page is great! None of you hysterical twats can pull it together. RWatcher 19:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

if by "pull" you mean liberate and by "it" you mean calculator, then yes.The Goonie Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 20:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Aloofaloofaloof

I too am entirely above conflict, and find you all foolish! Oh ho, you puny mortals with your squabbling! Everyone is dumb and I am not, and I make a new section to declare it to be so. I sat alone at lunch.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 21:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I am so above you all

I, like Tom Moore above, am so above you all in intellect and superiority. My phone doesn't ring anymore and no one comes to my parties because they know there is no point because I am just so above it all. Even on the internet people realise I am much better than them which is why they act with scorn towards me but its actually them that are stupid. Ace McWicked^{The Liquid Room} 21:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

In this matter you would be incorrect Mr.McWicked. For it is I who is unassailably great. You are merely the trough for my slops. That is all. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 23:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I demand that someone summarize this for me.

Now. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 14:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Marcus Cicero called us nasty names and told us to stop having fun, and we went round making up stupid rules and bitching at each other. It's not called Headless Chicken Mode for nothing. We're our own worst enemy sometimes. Totnesmartin 14:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Martin. Are there any other pages we can simultaneously take this discussion to? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 15:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I know this talk page has its own talk page somewhere. Somewhere... Totnesmartin 15:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

here you go. Totnesmartin 15:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, all of these places have some bearing on this. Broccoli 15:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It's like one of those huge Marvel crossovers. Totnesmartin 15:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Im just a bunch of numbers that has forgotten how to work wikis even it's been so long, so im posting this here. Could someone please post some examples of trolling by MC? I have no power over the decision but I want to decide where I stand. 70.91.248.249 15:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

No, please just let this page die quietly at last. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

daft

indeed. --127․0․0․1 18:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Move to fun?

While I think this is ridiculous as policy, it is at least hilarious. Shall we move it? ħuman 21:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I hope you turn the tide of authoritarianism like you have before, comrade. Most people agree with your perception of how this site should be run, but they are cowed by the authoritarian minority. The kind of people who will always drag mankind down to the lowest common denominator. 86.40.110.220 (talk) 23:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)