RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive22

This is an archive page, last updated 25 June 2020. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, < List>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>

, (new)(back)

The previous discussion is over, discussion on what being a Tech entails is just beginning

In response to what Shabidoo said, I am a mature mod saying, "This discussion is over." No action is required against Oxyaena, Godless Raven or anyone else at this time. Further discussion about how Techs are appointed and what rules they have to abide by should continue somewhere else. Spud (talk) 11:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I've opened a discussion on RationalWiki talk:Community Standards#Reforming our Tech appointment process. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 12:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Request

I was promised my user rights would not be touched if I left Raven alone, which I have. Can I please get my tech rights back? I promise not to abuse them again, if I do I'll agree to be put into sysoprevoke. — Oxyaena ^Harass 23:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

My personal recommendation, FWIW, would be no.

1. First of all, we're in the middle of a debate on how tech rights should be allocated. This debate began by a user questioning why Oxyaena was even give tech rights to begin with.
2. Oxyaena's use of tech rights has been deemed highly questionable, at best
3. I personally am not inclined to do anything that would encourage Oxyaena to remain a member of the community, if only because they keep insisting that the community is toxic to them and that, by their own admission, they are only here as the result of some sort of compulsion. If that is indeed the case then if anything I believe we ought not to take actions that would lead to the deterioration of Oxyaena's mental health and well being

--Hastur! (talk) 23:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Tbh I find all of these points convincing. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 23:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I request that this not be handled without consensus. I'm traveling until Sunday, when I will have time to put together a justification for not returning Oxyaena's tech bit. In short, her record is riddled with overreaching (protecting and suppression to moderator level, etc.), self serving additions to edit filters, a general lack of competence, and a smug sense of authority. Her claim to fame is "helping" with the edit filters, but I am not overstating things but saying she has done very little if anything of value. Please give this at least a few days. She shouldn't have the right to block anymore either, but that requires more than inaction. Nutty Roux (talk) 00:06, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree that while we are discussing how Techs should be handled we shouldn’t be giving those rights to anyone at the moment. Ace^Moderator 00:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Also - I question Oxy’s motivation for having tech rights. Anyone who is so hard up to have them when they can edit and participate at RW regardless of tech rights or not is suspicious. Ace^Moderator 00:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ace McWicked It might just be as simple as being used to having those privileges. Just an alternate theory. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 00:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I don’t think Oxy has the maturity to be honest. A tech or moderator with those extended rights shouldn’t be quitting every second day then asking for the rights back each time they return. Also, as stated above, while we review how tech rights are handled and handed out we shouldn’t be giving those rights to anyone until resolved. Ace^Moderator 00:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh, on the the matter of whether to demote anyone to tech at this time we are in agreement. It would be simply asking for trouble later down the line to grant anyone tech rights while the the process itself is under review. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 00:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @Nutty Roux Self serving? I was being harassed daily you know, including people using my name. As for the "excessive blocking" part most of my blocks were justified, most of them being spammers and trolls, and that whole issue was solved ages ago anyways. — Oxyaena ^Harass 00:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

You’d get a lot more sympathy from people if you didn’t also abuse people in all caps (like calling users necrophiliacs) and leave every 15 mins when you don’t get your way. Ace^Moderator 00:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The ethics of modifying the edit filter for your own benefit is dubious at best. You'd have been better served to petition another user to do it for you. Much like cashiers are discouraged from processing their own personal transactions--Hastur! (talk) 00:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't know who made said promise to Oxy, nor what validity it could have. I am disinclined to return Oxy's tech rights at this point in time. And, given the highly likely outcome of the impending rule change regarding tech rights. It is unwise to return her tech rights under conditions contrary to the rule change. Bongolian (talk) 00:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Hint, it wasn't me who originally added my name to the filter. @Ace McWicked Raven is a necrophiliac, and is still acting like a douche even after I said I'd lay off them. — Oxyaena ^Harass 00:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Oxy, you are continuously calling this user a necrophiliac. This is not helping in your quest to have your rights reinstated. Stop being an abusive dick and just ignore them. Ace^Moderator 00:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Over the course of the past week alone, Oxyaena has not displayed anything like the level of maturity that I want to see in someone with Tech rights. I am opposed to restoring those rights now or ever. Spud (talk) 00:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I am leaning toward that conclusion myself. Ace^Moderator 01:00, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I recommend taking it a step further and banning Oxyaena for repeated abusiveness towards newbies. She can and probably will continue doing that even if sysoprevoked. 71.208.115.25 (talk) 10:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

That's not an available remedy in this forum. You're free to start a coop, although I'll advocate archiving it if it's not strong enough to succeed. Please drop discussion of banning on this page. Things are already inflamed. Nutty Roux (talk) 11:10, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

We need to stop using the mod page to air grievances. It’s not what it’s for. Ace^Moderator 11:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Nutty Roux no I can’t because the coop is indefinitely protected courtesy of one of the wonderful tech cabal members, effectively allowing Oxyaena and anyone like her to block anyone as a “sock of (insert flavor of the month here)” unchallenged. She should at least be sysoprevoked, IMO, because she has abused the tools over and over again.. 71.208.115.25 (talk) 12:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Fuck off, Morris. — Oxyaena ^Harass 13:13, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘In my view, it is entirely reasonable to keep the coop permanently protected at the autopatrolled and above level. Calling for procedural matters should require at least a minimum of good-faith editing such as that. It keeps away trolls and drive-by BoNs from trying to stir up shit that most regular editors don't care about. Bongolian (talk) 17:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Spud (talk) 23:15, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Clarification about techs’ rights

Is it permissible for a tech like D to desysop another user without a coop case, as he has done to Oxyaena? 2607:FB90:1BC3:F93:50D3:AEB3:FE1B:C298 (talk) 16:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Per the community standards: A sysop can only be "promoted" back down to regular editor status if they request it, or if they are causing trouble through serious vandalism, troll behaviour, or abuse of sysop abilities such as blocking. Complaints of this kind should be raised at the chicken coop page, and the decision to "promote" the sysop should only be reached after a full discussion. Naturally this may be appealed but Oxyaena will find few voices in their favor.--Hastur! (talk) 16:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

And it's worth noting that desysoping isn't a Tech power. Any sysop can do it.--Hastur! (talk) 17:01, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

its legitimate to desysop temporarily if you think someone will undo a serious block, that's all that happened. EK (talk) 17:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Tucker Carlson

So I'm looking at the Tucker Carlson article and the "edit war" there and it seems odd to me. It began with Raven making some alterations to the article which involved removing an obscure insult from the first sentence. There was then a short dispute over the insult between Raven and Hairlesscat, which ended with Hairlesscat agreeing to remove the insult.

Raven then continued to edit other parts of the article, before LeftyGreenMario arrived and decided to remove the insult from the lede for some reason, then mod locked the page, despite the fact that the dispute had ended (see talk) which protected LGMs edit. After the protection had expired, Raven removed LGMs edit, and LGM reverted him, which was repeated, then LGM blocked Raven which had the affect of maintaining LGMs last revert.

The stated reason for the block was edit warring, yet no edit war had yet been reached (3RR not broken) and LGM who blocked Raven had reverted the same number of times, and thus by their own definition been edit warring. This seems curious, as the blocking Moderator is quite clearly involved in the situation and hardly neutral. Based on the above I will be unblocking Raven (in my capacity as a sysop I am entitled to do so) since I don't see how it's justified. EK (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. This website isn't completely lost. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 17:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

LGM put a short (3-hour) mod protection on the page two days ago. This is a rather moot point. Bongolian (talk) 17:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

LGM was editwarring. Will mods be held to the same standards or not? — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 17:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Mods are also Sysops. If you want to make a mountain out of a molehill, you can see how far it gets you. You are welcome to discuss with LGM the rationale for the protection and the editing. She's quite reasonable from my observations. Bongolian (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure, so explain this: https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Tucker_Carlson&action=history AND this https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&action=history @Bongolian Just so you know: LGM editwars with me cuz she wants to keep the insults on the Tucker page BUT not the ones on the Trump page, then abusing her mod powers to protect both of these and blocking me, silencing me without any way to defend my actions. You think that's totally fine? — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 17:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I didn't see Hairless cat as "agreeing" to remove the insult as the user came off as sarcastic and conceding to the standoff (while insulting Godless Raven as "birdboy". Also, since the page is protecteed, Godless Raven continued making the very edits that led to the conflict in the first place, told him to stop, ignored me and continued, and THEN I reverted which you claim as "edit warring". The mod lock doesn't "reset" the counter of reverts allowed.

I also questioned removing the insults on the Trump page too, but that's another subject matter. We kept insults on Fox News for the record (and it's consistent with our "snark" style). You *can* remove snark but you have to justify it besides "I don't like it" because otherwise, it's in the same category of trying to tone police we revert when BoNs attempt it. Also, the modlock was because you had sysop powers and to prevent edit warring, and I keep telling you to stop edit warring and I get met with "oh how many times do you have to tell me that advice?" as a comeback, yet you demonstrate you didn't consider the advice at all. Heck, you haven't acknowledged or even suggested that your repeat edit warring behavior is a built-up problem, attempted to deflect and equate to my actions of trying to stop your edits. I've banned you not for a simple edit war but for repeated edit wars over some of the pettiest content, despite being told to stop, and also having an attitude perceived as obnoxious and unnecessarily testy and dismissive (with the hasty "take me to the coop if you don't like me") when being told to stop. I don't know why Emblym (EK) decided to remop you and unban you, you don't deserve either. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 17:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Because I am allowed to at least talk on my own page? Hello? I wasn't trolling nor vandalizing anything. You just want to silence me. And Emblyn has the screenshots where you, GC, etc. plotted to remove me even before my first edit. You don't care, you just want to quash opposition. Also, you editwarred, but apparently it's okay. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 17:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Whatever that was, I didn't "plot" to remove you. If there was an indication of a plot, it's that I didn't trust you to be a collaborative, constructive user because you are a constant perpetual source of drama, like your mere presence just makes people want to yell at each other, as what happened on both RatWiki Support Discord channel AND on the bigger RatWiki Discord channel, and now on the wiki. Oxyaeana made it clear to try to combat you whatever you did, at least from the frequent reverts that seemed nonsensical, which I told Oxyaean to stop. If I had any intention to "quash" opposition, that's what Emblyn is reading from my messages, but the truth is that I'll let you provide what you can in the wiki, but I had low expectations you will provide without importing your troublesome behavior from those Discords. You've disappointed me, even with those expectations. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

So you are saying all my edits are garbage? You think I didn't provide any value at all? I actually fucking tried to help around here, I listened to advice, but you wanted from the start to get rid of me. That's a fact. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 18:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Re: Tucker Carlson

Me and @LeftyGreenMario resolved the issue amicably on Discord. I hope we can close the subject since we resolved our issues. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 20:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

mashallah. EK (talk) 20:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Good, thank you. Bongolian (talk) 20:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario, I don't like this - editorial agreements or edit warring resolutions should take place on the talkpages, not on discord. That way people who aren't on discord are able to see why certain edits were made and what the compromises were. Ace^Moderator 20:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, I meant the personal animosity and conflicts. Not the editorial disagreements. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 20:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

OK - that's OK then. Was just making sure that discussions about RW's editorial direction were available for all to see. Ace^Moderator 21:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I agree. Nevertheless, you should be checking the discords every now and then in case I come up with a new insult or something. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

So that I don't allow someone else to take the blame for something I did, I was the one who changed Godless Raven's block so that he couldn't edit his own talk page. I felt he was abusing that privilege with his repeated calls to coop him and that anything important he had to say could wait for two days. Spud (talk) 06:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I didn't want to restart this feud but I think I should be allowed to say anything on my own talk page as long as I am not breaking any community standards (which I wasn't). People can choose to engage me or not. If someone feels attacked by being pinged or mentioned, that's a different thing. But again, as long as someone is not breaking any community standards in their userspace, I think the block was illegitimate and unwarranted (see EK's comment above). — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 10:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Coop

I started a Coop if the mods want to weigh in. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

You probably shouldn't have never given up modship. — Oxyaena ^Harass 13:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

A request for arbitration

Firstly, I would ask the Mods to arbitrate as to whether it is appropriate to close the vote on the Talk:Anarchism page and implement the suggested changes. Secondly, I would ask the Mods to arbitrate as to whether the collapse template Raven has put over every single discussion on his talkpage, calling multiple good faith criticisms "drama" and "vandalism" are appropriate and also whether they should stay up. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Don't forget that you were harassing a 14 yo girl when she explicitly told you to stop. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:EK#Draft — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 16:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I was seeking a resolution. It's not my problem if EK tried to dodge the subject. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Calling every single thread on your talk page, apart from one you started, "vandalism" or "drama" and hiding them is most definitely wrong. It's only going to cause more drama ny further alienating the other users who tried to help you. And it's simply not the RationalWiki way. Hell, I've still got a message on my talk page in which I'm basically called a twat. And I'd never try to hide that. Keep your messages on display. Let everyone see how other users really perceive you. Spud (talk)

Is it against the rules to collapse them? — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 16:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Godless Raven Well... You might actually have a case for one being drama. This one, specifically, is arguably drama. Vandalism would look like this. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

It's not against the rules. But it is against the unwritten rules. And when you've got loads of quotes on your user page bigging you up, and you're even prepared to include a few negative quotes, I think it then sits very badly to have a talk page that's almost entirely hidden. Spud (talk) 17:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

It's not hidden, they are still there. I want them collapsed for the sake of clarity (that those are rather futile spats than anything interesting). I will keep them collapsed unless you tell me it's against the rules or there is a policy vote on it. I think that's fair. Also, tell GC to stop harassing EK. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:EK#Draft — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 17:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Again, GC is not harassing EK. — Oxyaena ^Harass 17:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I haven't edited her talkpage since we both agreed to seek out arbitration. And given the contention between us, I'd hardly call seeking a resolution "harassment". ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

You know what @Godless Raven, I think you're only making yourself looking bad by collapsing all those threads, and thereby hiding them. To have received one nasty message in your 11 days here would have been unfortunate. To have received six threads worth of nasty messages in just 11 days is the sign of someone who is deliberately rubbing other users up the wrong way. Spud (talk) 17:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Thank you. Now, can you tell GC to stop harassing EK? @Spud — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 17:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Spud on this. The mass collapsing on Godless Raven's talk page is effectively an attempted circumventing of the rule, "Your talk:user page, however, can be edited by anyone and you may not delete items from this page, obvious trolling or spam excepted." (RationalWiki:Newcomers#What can I do with my user page?). Unless there is a good reason (trolling, harassment, spam, porn, etc.), it should not be hidden or removed. Bongolian (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Nothing is being removed. It's still there. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 17:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I archived it. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 17:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

You did not archive it; you removed it. Do you not understand how archiving is done on other talk pages? Bongolian (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Bongolian He archived them, but he did it poorly. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Fixed it. Bongolian (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Now that the second matter is resolved, could the Mods assist with the first? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Honestly? I don't know what to make of it. The collapse template is intended to not remove discussion but to inconvenience it. I see it as a way to compress trite, unconstructive arguments and to indicate what's inside is not worth reading. It's a bit of a tag, too, that within it is a bad faith troll. Using it to compress other people constantly giving advice, I wouldn't try it as it leaves a sour impression, but other people can still easily view it (if section header is helpful) and still interact with the user. Premature archive is something I don't think is a good idea though, since that gan actually force close a discussion and make recent messages more difficult to view. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Do you not understand how archiving is done on other talk pages?

No, but I wouldn't have asked either cuz almost everyone here just wants to be an asshole to me. So I just decide to find out on my own. Also, the archive list is somehow fucked since it shows 1 and toolbar, which shouldnt be there. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 18:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Archive list doesn't really work for me (as moving pages breaks the numbering and you're supposed to move your talk to archive) so you can just have a simple bulleted list of the archives instead. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

A request for mod protection

Would the mods please lock the template for the anarchism Navbar, due to Raven edit warring, again. And refusing to engage with others. AGAIN. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 21:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Ey, why didn't you take it to the talk page either? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Promoting

Oxyaena promoted two sysops unilaterally; check https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Log/rights Not only that, but also editwarred with a new user (Ary). I don't want to deal with Oxy, but y'all are not giving me any other way to handle this. Any resolution? — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 19:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

New user Ary should not have been a sysop. But promoting you was out of line. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 19:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Ary is a new person with zero substantial edits, and you already have a coop case on your hands. I'd suggest not doing anything stupid for the time being. EK promoted GC as well, and the community standards allow for unilateral promotions during times of trouble. — Oxyaena ^Harass 19:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Why do you think Raven should be promoted? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@DuceMoosolini To be clear, I read the guidelines and the guidelines allow sysops to depromote at their own discretion.

Sysops may demote users to sysop at their individual discretion.

I don't think I did anything wrong? The user didn't seem like a troll either. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 19:13, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

We usually wait a bit to make really sure that a new user isn't some kind of deep-cover troll account like Mike or Morris like to make. You didn't do anything wrong, but I'd advise holding off for a bit. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 19:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Oxyaena Fucking stop harrassing every newcomer to the site who you dislike, this is at the very least the 6th time you have flagrantly broken the fucking site polices on changing user rights, for your own personal reasons. — Dysk (contribs) 19:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

It's not harassment? Wrong word? I do think demotion to sysop was premature. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Telling newbies to fuck off causes them to just not edit, it's a bad idea, blatantly against policy, and a repeat pattern. Removing userrights, blocking, undoing valid edits etc etc. And y'all wonder why this site is dead nowadays with people like Oxy hammering every newbie until they leave. — Dysk (contribs) 19:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, can you show me a link or log that Oxy was telling off this particular new user? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

This ain't a one time incident, Oxy handled this situation by desysoping said user, twice, telling them their edits were worthless, reverting said edits several times in an edit war. On past occasions Oxy has pernamently blocked innocent users, told newbies to fuck off, edit warred, and so forth. Dozens of incidents, over months even years. — Dysk (contribs) 19:44, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Everything Oxy does displays immaturity. She's not fit to hold any kind of responsibility IMHO. Scream!! (talk) 19:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I see, Dysk. I'm aware of prior record but I just don't see how this individual incident is particularly bad. Nevertheless, prior record does magnify these infractions. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

It’s time to remove all of Oxy’s rights back down autopatrol. Ace^Moderator 21:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah. If somebody unjustly blocks her we'll just undo it in the morning--Hastur! (talk) 21:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

The only thing I did that was conceivably "wrong" here was promote them for having no edits, @Ace McWicked, @Scream!!, @Hastur, @LeftyGreenMario. Their edits consisted of nothing but blase strawmen, Dysk is not telling the truth here, and there's more to the story than that I "permanently blocked innocent users, told newbies to fuck off, edit warred etc." — Oxyaena ^Harass 21:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Oxyaena you have a history of being terrible and stripping you of rights would save this community a lot of headache.--Hastur! (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Petitioning the mods to put Oxyaena in sysoprevoke

Makes about as much sense to put this here as in the coop

Aye

1. --Hastur! (talk) 21:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
2. this shit with Oxy has been going too long now. Ace^Moderator 21:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
3. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 21:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
4. Too much trouble. Often at the center of a conflict. Advice doesn't appear to work, and how long, how many chances have we given Oxyaena? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
5. Scream!! (talk) 21:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
6. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 21:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
7. Nutty Roux (talk) 22:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
8. Spud (talk) 03:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
9. For the ratio & great justice. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 13:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
10. [1] EK (talk) 14:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

    That was a revert, not an edit war. John McCain is most certainly not "right of reason." — Oxyaena ^Harass 18:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

    you committed a breach of promises, I told you more in DMs. EK (talk) 20:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

11. Bongolian (talk) 19:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Nay

1. There's more context, a lot more context, than merely "Oxy bad." I was being seriously harassed when those blocks of innocent people took place, but you people don't care about that. I always rectified the situation when I realized I made a mistake. — Oxyaena ^Harass 21:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
2. For a while easily one of the wiki's most destructive and incompetent users. Loose cannons make this wiki great. Trump 2020 (talk) 15:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Goat

Can we close the vote? Oxyaena did a lancb again. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

No because she’ll be back to keep the vote going. Ace^Moderator 22:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I say put them in sysoprevoke anyways.--Hastur! (talk) 22:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

The Ayes have it

I’m sysoprevoking now. If anyone wants to undo it please give a reason. Ace^Moderator 05:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I want this to stick, but I'm concerned both that moderators don't have the authority to permanently desysop without a community vote and that, if what is happening in this section is a community vote even though it's outside the coop, penalty votes have to go for two weeks. Your thoughts? Nutty Roux (talk) 12:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I think that was a community vote. It was certainly open to everybody. Eight people voted for the sysoprevoke. Four moderators and four non-moderators. And given all the drama that Oxyaena has been at the centre of recently, I have a feeling that anyone who thinks she should be allowed off on a technicality is going to keep quiet about it. Spud (talk) 13:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

We can leave it open for a bit see if anybody objects--Hastur! (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

After one day? Almost all old guards with an active vendetta against me. — Oxyaena ^Harass 17:39, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Oxy, it’s not a vendetta. Own your behaviour. Ace^Moderator 17:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I thought we won and you were retired? — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 18:03, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Some self-reflection is needed, Oxyeana. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:33, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I know I'm not eligible to vote here, but as a long time registered lurker (who has read through the coop a couple of times and then some), I think I'm allowed to give my opinion. When you've lost LGM, you've lost the RW. Hell, when you're the only nay vote on this, you don't get to complain about "old guards" being the majority to vote against you. Just take a serious break Oxy, you'll feel better for it. Maybe after a while you can actually demonstrate good faith and the mob will vote to restore some of your privileges.Coigreach (talk) 21:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I have to note

that my desysopping of Ary was supported by @DuceMoosolini, and @RWRW has made statements before to the effect of new users should not be given automatic sysop. I've given sysopship to users before, only to have that reverted by people like LGM. So this latest bout of persecution is just a hobby horse to demonize me when I didn't really do anything wrong. — Oxyaena ^Harass 18:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The policy is that any sysop can give any other editor sysop rights at their discretion, there is no requirement for them to have edited. tho some editors prefer to give sysop quicker than others that's personal preference, there is no set prerequisites. Once given, sysop can only be removed if there is evidence of abuse of the tools, this is generally confirmed by the community unless it's extremely obvious abuse or a temporary emergency. There is no basis for you to pernamently desysop users who did nothing wrong. EK (talk) 20:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Question

When I desysopped newbie Ary for questionable edits I got sysoprevoked, but when LGM did the same thing to Misc245, she didn't even get a "stern talking to." What gives? — Oxyaena ^Harass 17:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

You didn't desysop Ary for questionable edits, you desysoped them twice for "no substantial edits" (not a valid desysop reason) because you were mad over the capitalism article (again). You are entitled to complain if other people have desysoped others out of process, but it doesn't make your actions correct, so nothing gives. EK (talk) 18:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

You did it more than once, Oxy. Also there’s your questionable blocking’s. Ace^Moderator 18:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@EK Their edits were a fucking strawman, and yes, sorry for not clarifying, but "no substantial edits" = "questionable edits". The two are not mutually exclusive. — Oxyaena ^Harass 18:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ace McWicked I acknowledge the questionable blocking decisions I've made, but I had long since shaped up on that front prior to being cooped and sysoprevoked. Do you not remember congratulating me on that? — Oxyaena ^Harass 18:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Except you didn't have the right to promote them nonetheless, as the guidelines specify. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 18:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I`m pointing out the double standards, whether or not what I had done was against policy is irrelevant. I did so specifically because of the example set by LGM and others. — Oxyaena ^Harass 18:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Oxy you still were wrong to desysop them, even if you think their edits were annoying it's not a valid reason. If you think LGM has done something wrong like you imply then I suggest you talk to her directly. EK (talk) 18:16, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Again, that's irrelevant. I`m not justifying anything, I`m pointing out the double standard. This seems as good a place as any to post about. — Oxyaena ^Harass 18:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I mean LGMs talk page is still the best place to bring up stuff you want LGM to explain or change. EK (talk) 18:42, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

On one hand, I would've waited longer to demote Ary myself, but I'd just let that demote stand. Ary's initial edits and attitude were seemingly not that great (perhaps frustrated), but had a chance to explain, and I and Ary reached a common understanding of what Ary wanted to do. On the other hand. Misc544's edits are poor quality all-around (check the talk page; user appears far from competent in any aspect). I believe I made the right call when user attempted to abuse warning privileges or made an entirely inappropriate page move. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ With that settled, let's get on to my second big complaint. People here often point out my blocking record as a reason I should not have sysop, but as I frequently endeavor to point out, only to get ignored, I have substantially improved my blocking record over the past few months, from previously permabanning individuals for mere vandalism to blocking 3.6 days and, in the case of users, blocking 3.6 days and/or putting them in the vandal log. I may be a toxic individual, but I am not a bad sysop. I hereby request that I be placed out of sysoprevoke, and, if anyone sees fit, to have my sysopship restored. I have an edit warring problem, yes, so an alternative solution is that I be given a temp ban from sysopship, maybe a month, and then have it restored after that date, depending on if I have stopped edit warring or not. @LeftyGreenMario @Ace McWicked @Bongolian @Spud — Oxyaena ^Harass 19:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Paging @Nutty Roux here since he's been running statistics on the blocks and he might be able to provide statistical evidence for this. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 19:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Well I've seen two recent blocks (April) where you assumed Morris. It's not as much as last time. You also blocked this user for a disapproving edit? This one is highly excessive (even if user is a bit of a jerk). Those are back in April 2020, but I figure there's quite a bit of justified blocks. Jury's still out whenever that's a noticeable improvement, however. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

In fact, if you see by his statistics, I rank only third in number of infinite bans, third again in long bans (well, what Nutty defines as "long bans"), second in ban evasion blocks, and third in IP blockers. I think my sysopship should be restored on basis of these findings, if we're gonna allow GC, cosmikdebris, and Bongolian to have sysop, despite the fact they rank higher than me in every category except Morris bans, then why can't I? Matters of temperament are a different issue, and I believe that was solved when I deteched myself. — Oxyaena ^Harass 19:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

The best advice is to give it a rest, let tempers cool and self-reflect. Make some non-controversial edits here an there if you like. Hastur waited years before appealing the promotion.[2] Bongolian (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

The thing is I may not find myself able to spell things out clearly again, I've said many times before I`m not good at explaining myself or documenting things, but those always get brushed away as excuses. One more thing, an argument used against promoting GC was that he contributed a lot to the wiki, but that was brushed aside when I brought that up, it was deemed "irrelevant," since I too have contributed a lot to the wiki. There we go with these double standards again. — Oxyaena ^Harass 20:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing. I rank third again when it comes to number of total rollbacks. Seeing a pattern here? — Oxyaena ^Harass 20:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

If you're not good at explaining yourself, please make that clear if your confidence wavers in any part of your comment and be cooperative (however I understand that the other party also must be cooperative to keep your mind clear when you're explaining). I usually indicate where something is not clear to me or my interpretation of a post/event can be inconsistent. While you and GC overlap quite a bit in some attitude and being a bit too keen on tossing insults, I think how you've dealt with stress is noticeably more impulsive? You LANCB more. You edit war a lot more. Anyway, a quick question, before I proceed to evaluate you more: do you now understand the distinction between the disparity of my judgement call and yours? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I don't deal with stress well. I am a very impulsive person. I also understand the disparity between our respective judgements. I must stress that me voluntarily deteching myself already solved this issue, and being placed into sysoprevoke is just out of spite. Me writing all this down is because I`m trying to be cooperative, so yes, I understand. — Oxyaena ^Harass 20:16, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@Oxyaena, I appeal to you to please give it a rest. Your punishment was a community decision. Please accept it and move on. You have often spoken about your edits to mainspace and to WIGO. You can still make those. I strongly advise you to keep a low profile as far as possible. Cut the dramatics. Please stop announcing that you're leaving and never coming back. Please try to avoid conflict with other users. When you feel angry, don't immediately type an angry response. Take a few minutes to calm down before deciding if it's worth typing anything at all. It's going to take a long time for you to regain the trust of the community. But you can do that if you continue to make quality edits and walk away from trouble if you can. I'm afraid that continuing to complain about a punishment you believe to be unjust isn't going to do you any good at all. Spud (talk) 23:42, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

being placed into sysoprevoke is just out of spite. Do you really have so little ability to reflect on your own behaviour. You were placed into sysoprevoke because of you shitty behaviour. It went to a vote by the community and you lost. It had nothing to do with spite and you'd do well to remember that. It was your fault. Not the fault of anyone else. Ace^Moderator 01:01, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Can we now archive this shit now?

I think so - it’s been fully hashed out. Ace^Moderator 08:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I think so. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 11:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Please! Spud (talk) 11:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Mass attack

I am being attacked by the usual suspects in Talk:Fascism. I request mod input, please. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 20:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Why? Just put things up to a vote. It all seems pretty tame to me. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 20:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

They were proven to be factually incorrect and they dont relent. there isnt much I can do, unfortunately. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 20:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Jesus Christ man. Mods are a last resort. Try work it out yourself like Duce says. Ace^Moderator 20:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

(as an aside - can we change the picture from a cat to something a little more villainous? The cat is too cute and friendly.) Ace^Moderator 20:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Maybe Skeletor? Thunderclapper (talk) 20:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I always thought the cat was supposed to represent the people complaining and asking for a moderator. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 20:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

have you never seen cats Fight lol. EK (talk) 20:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I have five cats, it's fucking terrible. — Oxyaena ^Harass 20:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

my cat never really fought. He'd instead sneak under the resting position for my arm when I'm typing so he could bite my fingers when I stopped typing and moved my arms back.Vorarchivist (talk) 20:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Crow wasted time on this.

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘For the moderation teams concern, I present to you Skeletor Cat Moderator. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 20:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Since the mods won't act, i guess you can archive this. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 20:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)