RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive4

This is an archive page, last updated 21 October 2012. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, < List>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <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)

Nx

As Nx is a mod I'll bring it up here instead of the rather farcical Coop.
yesterday during a pretty standard discussion Brx made a joke but i couldn't figure out what he was talking about so I asked "What the fuck are you talking about" which I think is a pretty standard response from me as well as many other RWians who speak in such a fashion...to everyone. But UHM decided to flame me and Brx followed suit. It seemed like pretty obvious trolling so I said "sure, I'll play" and blocked brx for 30 mins. I had in fact genuinlly forgotten Brx couldn't unblock himself. Brx then went on to air his grievances across RW which even other mods agreed Brx brought it on himself. Brx even took it to RWW. While this was going on several other users blocked Brx for longer times than I including 3 months from Bflat. Then it all settled down. Until Nx comes out of his hole, 10 hours later and revokes my sysopship as playing a game in reference to my comment to Brx that i would play his game also. I let that slide for a bit but then ask what authority he is revoking it under. As a moderator or as a user? Now, as a moderator I think Nx is beholden to answer that question - it is not unreasonable. If he is blocking me as a mod then I should be made aware of why considering the issue was all settled several hours previously. If as a user then he doesn't have the right to revoke my sysop power anyway. Nx never answer so I go service my wife and come back and he still hasn't answered. So I move his page because I got no response from him and he said he liked to play anyway - not really a big deal I would have thought. Nx's answer was to block me for 9 hours.
So my questions are:

Why did Nx feel it was necessary to restart the issue some 9 hours after it was resolved?

Why did Nx ignore other users who repeatedly blocked Brx, and for much longer than I did, and target me only?

If Nx was removing my sysopship as a mod why did he not answer me when I asked? Do mods not have to explain their actions anymore?

If Nx was not blocking me as a mod then he has abused his mod rights.

Why did Nx block me for 9 hours when he was the one that started the whole thing up again?

Why did Nx block me for 9 hours when he himself said he wanted to "play"

Is this appropriate behavior of a mod?

Does Nx disagree that Brx basically, once again, brought then entire thing down on his own head as agreed but most if not all who were involved?

Nx is going to call me a hypocrite however he destroys the force of the argument by acting in the exact same manner. I think these are pretty standard questions to ask under the circumstances. Ace^ace 20:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Addenum: Now Nx is retroactively blocking people after being shown his double-standard. Again, this behavior seems highly inappropriate for a mod. It is also in violation of the mod terms and responsibilities: actions such as rights removal, blocking or censure, should still be handled by the larger community. Ace^ace 20:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I just desysopped Bflat because, as you pointed out, he blocked Bricks for 3 months. I didn't want you to feel like you're being singled out. -- Nx / talk 20:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I've resysoped B♭maj7. He has had no case brought against him & mods do not have authority to punish users singlehandedly. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It is also in violation of the mod terms and responsibilities And blocking a user who cannot unblock themselves just for kicks is in violation of the community standards. -- Nx / talk 20:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant - I blocked him for 30mins for clear trolling - it was undone fairly quickly. the focus here is YOUR abuse of your mod rights. Ace^ace 20:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Nx is continuing to act in a manner totally inappropriate for a mod: blocking me for "trolling" because I have brought up these issues with his abuse of power. Ace^ace 20:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think you're clearly trolling, and since it's okay to block someone you think is clearly trolling, I've done just that. -- Nx / talk 20:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Quit dodging Nx - you're a mod and you are far beyond your remit. Ace^ace 20:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You don't have the right to do so. Ace^ace 20:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments

There was already a decision to remove your rights. Nx was merely enforcing it--User:Brxbrx/sig 20:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Show me the decision to remove my rights. Ace^ace 20:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Deny all you like, but the mods decided to remove your rights for repeatedly abusing them. [1] --User:Brxbrx/sig 21:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Brx, you idiot, I did lose my rights and they were reinstated after time served. Nx had no right to remove them a second time with no discussion. Ace^ace 21:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It was the same offense you committed then. No discussion was necessary. Your recidivism requires no investigation, since th evidence is in plain sight for all to see--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

No discussion was necessary says who? Nx had a) no authority b) should have answered when asked for an explanation. Ace^ace 21:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

As a moderator he has the authority. That's what they're for. He provided an explanation: you were trolling.--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

That's not what they're for. Moderator action should be either short-term emergency action to stop things getting out of hand (such as a cool-down block or temporarily desysopping for somebody who is causing havoc), or enacting community decisions for long-term action (i.e the result of a Coop Case, or this page). Mods have no authority to make personal decisions about what rights a user deserves. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

That is your take.--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually know that is what is detailed on the mod page. Ace^ace 23:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Which, as detailed, is why Nx was totally out of line. Ace^ace 21:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

And its goddamn fucking tragedy that i have defend myself when clearly Nx was totally out of line and abusing he mod rights. Ace^ace 21:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

"It was the same offense you committed then. No discussion was necessary. Your recidivism requires no investigation, since th evidence is in plain sight for all to see" Holy shit... this is the most blatantly morally wrong statement that anyone could make. A convicted bank robber still needs a separate trial for a new bank robbery, even if all of the evidence is blatantly obvious, and the jury hearing the case would NOT be allowed to be told that he had committed any earlier bank robberies. The whole idea that once you're a convicted criminal that we could just jail you anytime someone suspects you of something is so fucked up, I can't believe that even Brx is the person saying it... --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 01:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Warning

The hypocrisy in the above section will melt your brain to jello. --★uːʤɱ digital native 21:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Mine or Nx's? Or both? Ace^ace 21:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Yours. Nx's is almost to small to notice. --★uːʤɱ digital native 21:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

i don't recall ever abusing my mod rights. Ace^ace 21:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Others. Also if anybody you don't like whines, you call it trolling. --★uːʤɱ sinner 21:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The issue here is Nx abusing his rights. You got a problem with me take it to the coop. Ace^ace 22:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Nice escape hatch, is that delivered with the overblown ego? --★uːʤɱ soviet 22:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The issue here is Nx abusing his rights. You got a problem with me take it to the coop. Ace^ace 22:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Not in this section. And we both know very well that you can do whatever you want here and you won't get prosecuted like others. --★uːʤɱ structuralist 22:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Sysoprevoke

Can we have a conversation about this? Or is Nx just able to handle the axe on his own? Do the other mods have this ability? Does anyone else have the ability to remove sysoprevoke? sterile^talk 20:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

See above. Ace^ace 20:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

What is sysoprevoke? Proxima Centauri (talk) 20:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Sysoprevoke was installed without community discussion. In this case it was meted out with discussion too. It means removal of sysop rights until the sysoprevoke is undone; & I think only Mods & Techs can do & undo them. If it's to be used at all, it should be either 1. short term action to prevent a situation getting out of hand (e.g. wheel warring) or 2. the outcome of a community decision. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

[2] [3] [4]

[5]

Ironic, really, that we spent weeks on how to vote on a site devoted to disputing authoritarianism, and this was slipped in. sterile^talk 20:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

So it was Brxbrx's idea? I am Jack's complete lack of surprise. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I propose we get rid of this feature. It's been used inappropriately two or three times now, & I can't see that it's helped us any. It's only justifiable at all if Moderators can be trusted to use it as a last resort, & since this is demonstrably not the case, I suggest we scrap it. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Might this be a policy vote you're proposing? Blue (is useful) 21:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

No, it's a policy discussion I'm proposing. I know voting is fun & all, but let's hear a few opinions first. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I know I'm beating a dead horse, but this is the problem with teh mod system. a few people **could** have too much power if they choose to use it. I do think that weaseloid and blue are right, it should be teh "first" (? i think) official new policy vote.GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 21:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Since it never existed in the first place, why not just get rid of it? sterile^talk 22:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Why did Nx single-handedly promote me?

Did we just not have a vote that set clear policy on how to have votes for punitive measures like promotion? If so, I don't recall "Nx is a special brand of mod who can single-handedly promote people" as being one of the winning options. Can we do something to reel this guy in a little bit? B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 20:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

See above - Nx is way out of line. Ace^ace 20:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I don't understand, but did either of them (Ace or b-flat) block in such a way that someone like myself could not have easily reverted? Cause truthfully, what is the difference between a 1 minute, a 1 hour and a 1 year block if any other editor can undo the block. game playing may or may not be an issue with you, but ANYONE can unblock it, it's hardly a serious offense. Taht no one wanted to unblock bricks is a different issue entirely, and might merit it's own chicken coop. but what the fuck do I know. --GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 21:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It was a regular old block that anyone could undo. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 21:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It was a regular old block that anyone could undo. The hypocrisy is making my blood boil.--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You are in sysoprevoke now. You do know that, right? Special:ListUsers/sysoprevoke sterile^talk 21:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I've undone it. See my comment further up (I just unticked the wrong box by mistake first time, which I've now corrected). ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I more concerned that when I asked for what authority he was removing my rights he never borthered to respond. As a mod he a) had no authority and b) should have answered for his actions. Ace^ace 21:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Well technically the policies set were how to have votes, not when to have votes. And the standards only require a discussion, not a vote, for promoting users. Blue (is useful) 21:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Who's the last guy that lost his rights because he abused his blocking privileges? Oh yeah, it was me. Who was leading the bandwagon? Nutty and Ace. This is a simple case of cronyism, with Weaseloid and Nutty unwilling to see their chum go down. The term "circle jerk" comes to mind--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Raise your hand if you anticipate Brx adding anything meaningful to this discussion. I told Ace not to bring this up because I correctly predicted Nx would begin with his typical tack of attempting to absolve himself by turning the accusation around to call Ace a hypocrit and then escalate by implementing some kind of draconian policy all on his own as a point making exercise. I also correctly predicted that Brx would jump in to spread shit as widely as he can by impugning his enemies' motives, even those who aren't remotely involved in this dispute, and lie about the progress of the prior proceedings against Ace. Brx, I beseech you to stop trying to make trouble and let the adults handle this. This is one instance in which I can absolutely promise you beyond a shadow of doubt that continuing to play the victim will backfire badly for you. 22:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't bullshit me. Ace breaks the same rules I broke and now he must pay the consequences as I did.--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

"You are in sysoprevoke now." Why? On whose say-so? Who can undo that? B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 21:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Weaseloid just undid it. Blue (is useful) 21:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Awesome. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 21:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Policy Votes I Would Like to See

Please feel free to tweak the wording of these before starting an official vote.

Issue 1. The "sysoprevoke group" has been a colossal failure. It should be killed off ASAP.

Issue 2. Techs should not be moderators/moderators should not be techs. Too much power in one pair of hands. Anyone holding both offices should be asked to resign from one.

Issue 3. Under no circumstances should a user be promoted unless they are using their powers in an abusive way at that very moment. Unilateral promotion should be seen as an emergency measure to prevent ongoing damage to the wiki, not an ex post facto punishment for breaking some rule. The penalty for a mod abusing her/his powers in such a way will be to demand their resignation. for sysops, a X-month promotion to editor.

B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 22:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I totally I agree and why won't one fucker actually address the issue with Nx above? Ace^ace 22:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

We already have mod guidelines and Nx was outside them without us having to make new policy. Ace^ace 22:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Sysoprevoke was made so jackasses like you two can't keep cronying up when one of you breaks the rules--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Who are you referring to? 22:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Who do you think?--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Me? 22:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with some of this. Point 1 I get, but I don't see "X-month promotion to editor" sticking when everyone and their cousin can re-demote back to admin on a whim. Sysoprevoke was meant to prevent this. There should be some way to keep a punitive removal of rights from being easily reversed if it is supposed to ever be a punishment. Point 2 I agree with. I was even going to suggest this in the discussion on how techs are appointed. You know, the discussion that never happened. I generally agree with point 3 as well. I've been saying for a while that there should be accountability for mods, and some process for removing them, if it should become necessary. No one seemed eager for that either. DickTurpis (talk) 22:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, I just made Brx a sysop again so he can now unblock himself. That should hopefully curtail drama. DickTurpis (talk) 22:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I've repeatedly refused to become a sysop again because I don't want any of the drama associated with it--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

That argument falls flat when all the drama is a result of you not being a sysop. You don't have to use any of the rights; you can pretend you don't have them, but right now it looks like you're using your status as lowly editor as a license to bitch when you get blocked. Not a lot of sympathy there. DickTurpis (talk) 22:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Look, these people know I can't unblock myself. So why are they blocking me? I'm not doing anything wrong. Ace is. P-Foster is. Not me. Not anymore. There aren't too many rules I can break without my use rights and I'm fine with that.--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You CANNOT desyop yourself and then bitch about being unable to unblock yourself five minutes later, fool. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 22:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I can, because you're not supposed to be blocking me in the first place; not if I can't unblock myself--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You've just proved, as if i hadn't already guessed, that your existence is to troll. I'm choosing to be weak so I can fuck with you and when you fuck back, i'll whine that you're picking one me. Like Christians complaining that gays are taking away their right to be bigoted jerks. love it.--GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 22:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trolling. I'm not doing anything that warrants a block, and you're not supposed to fuck with me--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Brx, take your sysopship and call it done. All you're offering is a hassle. I'm offering a solution. DickTurpis (talk) 23:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not a solution. Let's say my rights are still down because of a community decision, and I get a 3 month block. What then?--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Be Flat, but this section is going nowhere. Taking points your out of order: Techs aren't moderators and only have access to moderator level functions because of the way the MediaWiki rights hierarchy is set up. But I don't see how the tech role was implicated here. Help me out. Nx is a moderator and as far as I know resigned from his tech role. Whether he was acting as a moderator is another issue. We already have adequate policy and a strong ethos around unilateral rights removal. Finally, none of us has the authority to get rid of the sysoprevoke user group. It was created by or at the behest of Trent and he's the final word. I'm sure he's open to discussing it, but asking him how to proceed and making reasonable suggestions is what we got. 22:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with A#maj7 re the sysop/tech thing, but as Nutty points out that was irrelevant here. Nx wasn't acting as a moderator should, but he was certainly acting as a moderator in using an ability that only mods have access to (sysoprevoke). But we're hardly short of examples of Nx showing off that he can do stuff other users can't. Re sysoprevoke, none of us individually has the authority to get rid of it, but collectively we do. I don't like the idea that Trent's word is law on this. There are practical reasons why he has a lot more say in admin, financial & technical aspects of site maintenance, but sysop/moderator abilities should be a community issue. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

We can definitely ask him for clarification or anything else we want, and should is should, but the RWF granted Trent sole authority to decide things like that. I don't know why anyone would have a problem with it considering his long record of excellent leadership. The main issue is whether we have the authority to even use the bit. We've definitely got no protocol for it so prudence would dictate that we at least get that sorted. 23:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

This is giant fucking farce.

Nx either acted as a mod and abused his rights and never even offered an explanation or he acted as user in which he shouldn't have had those rights in the first place. In either case he abused his mod tools. Now it has turned into a farcical mess. What a fucking joke. Ace^ace 23:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, everything's back to normal now, eh? No harm no foul. No need to reopen old wounds. God is in his heaven; All is right with the world. DickTurpis (talk) 23:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

EC Alright. Let's focus. Given that Nx hasn't chimed in yet--he's probably out in the yard stomping on kittens again--what should we do? A vote to de-mod him? Other suggestions? B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 23:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion: stop being a dick and don't block Bricks just for kicks. He should not be forced to be a sysop just so he can unblock himself because you're abusing your sysop rights; rather you should lose them. -- Nx / talk 23:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty comfortable with Nx being the one who decides these kinds of things. 00:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Eh, no villains here. Brx seeking attention, Ace bullying him at his request, Nx bullying back, and so on. Pretty boring. Weirdly, the solution is to give Brx a mop - whether he wants one or not - because he's so unpopular (and is begging for this treatment) and Ace is so popular that the more standard approach (of just asking Ace to stop blocking someone who can't unblock himself) won't work. The only result of this should be that someone words and proposes a vote on approval or disapproval of sysoprevoke. I will vote in favor of it.--^talk 23:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

He should not be forced to be a sysop just so he can unblock himself because you're abusing your sysop rights; rather you should lose them

Nx, Ace is a good wiki-friend of mine, and I love the guy. So it may come as a surprise, but I agree with you, in principle. Ace and a few others, including myself, have not been treating Brx in a way commensurate with the community standards. I will leave aside the fact that Brx has been begging for it, and just own my part in the whole situation. That said, what you did was wrong. There are procedures in place for removing someone's rights, and as a mod, it really, really matters that you not crap all over those procedures. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 00:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

B-flat. It's fine that someone choses to desysop themselves (that is their right), but the second they do, they have no right at all what so ever (like the redundancy) to say "don't play with me, cause i can't de ban myself". If you are pissed enough at me, you ban me for 3 months. I roll my eyes and un ban myself. If John Smith is pissed enough at Brx, he should still be able to ban him for 3 months, cause brx (or whoever) CHOSE to give up their rights. If you choose to give up your right to vote, then you cant say "I hate the guy you voted in". If you choose to give up your right to an attorney, you can't say "wait, but an attonry would have stopped me from saying that". it's really that simple. --GodotGet over it!. 00:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

If you chose to not carry a gun, it's okay to rape you. -- Nx / talk 00:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear. & I thought Brxbrx's Cordova 1391 analogy was tasteless enough. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

EC I agree with Godot entirely. What I'm trying to focus on is Nx's decision that Ace (..and I) should lose our rights. Maybe we should. But that's not for Nx to decide unilaterally. He crapped all over the standards he purports to be protecting. Nx, are you gonna respond to this, or are you , as a mod, going to ignore a community member calling you out for doing a crappy job? B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 00:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

You mean the standards everyone craps on all the time? -- Nx / talk 00:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Hardly an equal analogy. If I choose not to carry a gun, you should not be able to spit in my face. Nothing about a 3 month ban that ANYONE can change, is damaging. that he chooses not to take the steps to rectify that, is his problem. It's a game here, we all play it. It's not life or death, or rape. (should I say "as a rape victim i find that analogy offensive... nah, it's hard to offend me. heh)GodotGet over it!. 00:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC) (ec)

I mean the standards that you volunteered to uphold/protect/promote. Why, exactly are you a mod? What's your motivation? B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 00:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Am I not protecting them? It says there clearly that you should block for an hour at most for vandalism, and discuss longer blocks. -- Nx / talk 00:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

While you're on that page, what does it say about removing someone's rights? B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 00:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

To me, the primary reason NX was out of line is that his ban is something only 10ish people can change. A ban to someone at our level (and this is why i asked if there was anything special about the ban on Brx) is something ANY OF US can do or undo in seconds. It's not lasting, you don't need any special permissions, you just reset their banhammer lenght. but what NX did was something that only Mods can undo - the punishment didn't in any way shape or form fit the crime. GodotGet over it!. 00:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

That wasn't a ban, it was merely a removal of sysop rights. -- Nx / talk 00:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

And what are the rules surrounding how that should happen? Please answer the question. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 00:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

We have a huge HCM over at the coop and nothing happens because Ace is popular and Bricks isn't. Also, I didn't expect the promotion to last. -- Nx / talk 01:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Might I also point out that I asked Nx what/why he was doing what he was doing he never responded. Shouldn't mods actually need to explain their actions? Ace^ace 00:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

You might do so. How about it, Nx; why did you do nothing more than leave an edit comment in the block log when you unilaterally promoted us? Do you think that a drive-by de-sysopping with no attempt at dialog is acceptable behavior for a mod? B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 00:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Dialog? I tried dialog. Plenty of times. It didn't work. -- Nx / talk 01:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

You are avoiding the most important question. please tell me what the community standards are regarding the promotion of users from sysop. Are there procedures that are supposed to be followed? B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 01:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I've answered it. -- Nx / talk 01:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

No, you have not. Please tell me exactly what the rules say about how it should come to be that a user should be promoted. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 01:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok.

"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 Administrative Abuse page, and the decision to "promote" the sysop should only be reached after a full discussion.

In some extreme cases, where a sysop is being particularly disruptive, a bureaucrat may need to "promote" them as soon as possible to prevent further vandalism or abuse, but they must then discuss their decision with others at the Administrative Abuse page, to determine whether the user should remain de-sysoped."

What's a bureaucrat and where's the Administrative Abuse page? -- Nx / talk 01:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear that "bureaucrat" = "moderator" and "AAP" = here or the Coop. While the letter of the law might be outdated, there's no doubt you violated the spirit of the law. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 01:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Wait a fucking second, Nx is a mod and he violated his mod rules. Ace^ace 01:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

More to the point, "rights removal, blocking or censure, should still be handled by the larger community. Moderators can help establish the rules of discussion, and the structure for arriving at a decision, but it should still be the community that is empowered to act on long term issues both in dealing with our fellow community members and site policy." Nx, will you admit that you totally violated that aspect of the Moderators' role and commit to not doing so in the future? B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 01:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

NX, that is even more my point. You removed someone's rights because they did something that isn't permanent, that can be changed by virtually everyone around (including this person's socks - if he has any, don't know that he does). Then, to be ballanced, you removed someone else's rights for something they did earlier. That's so over the top. I get that many people get frustrated with "the game" around here - whatever that is, but the over the top reaction isn't helping. GodotGet over it!. 00:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC) (ec)

It's not "merely" de-sysoping. It's de-sysopping with a bite. sterile^talk 00:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's sorta ironic. People spent so much time dismantling the 'crat system, just to have you reinvent it. But in the hands of a much smaller group of people. For better or worse. sterile^talk 00:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

In which Pi moderates based on precedent

I cite the precedent of what usually happens when someone does something like this. It is all back to normal, everyone has their rights back and no one is blocked, so shut the fuck up and get on with refuting pseudoscience. - π 00:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

You mean until Nx abuses his mod rights again? Ace^ace 00:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like standard procedure to me. DickTurpis (talk) 01:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Jesus, I have to fucking do this again...

Brx was trolling, there was a block war and a war of words surrounding it. It was all settled, Nx discovered it some 9 hours after everything had settled down (the actual event being nothing more than usual RW shits and giggles anyway). Nx abuses his mod rights to sysop-revoke me, without explanation despite me asking twice, and blocks me for 9 hours which is against mod rules. That is the issue. Can this be addressed? Ace^ace 02:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

What do you want done, Ace? An apology and commitment from Nx that it won't happen again? A vote to de-mod him? You'll get better traction if you propose something instead of simply repeating the grievance. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 02:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't want an apology - but I do want Nx to admit he was well outside his mod rights and to not abuse said rights again. But this also point to a hole in the mod community wherein there is no procedure if a mod abuses their rights (I think because no one thought it'd happen). Ace^ace 02:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Nx, can you do that? (...also, do you see what I'm doing here? i'm trying to moderate this situation so that it can get resolved. That's what moderators should do.) B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 02:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't even know why we are here though bflat - I already asked questions of Nx in my very first posting so why am I clarifying it again? Look at the top of the page....Ace^ace 02:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

It's really funny to watch you two guys act like you give a fuck about the rules. You almost fooled me for a moment. Anyway, I'm only going to "abuse" my moderator rights if you abuse your sysop rights. Didn't your momma say "if you play with the big guys, you're gonna get hurt"? -- Nx / talk 02:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

So mods are allowed to abuse their mod rights? I call Nx be stripped if he thinks that is the case. Ace^ace 02:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

It's real hard to care about this. You bully Brx sometimes, Nx bullies you sometimes. Isn't the whole point that he's playing the same game you're playing?--^talk 02:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

yeah, but Nx is a mod for fucks sake. You know - I actually genuinely forgot Brx couldn't unblock himself. If you look at it, I stopped blocking him almost immediately when I realized he couldn't unblock himself. But that isn't the point. Forget who Nx is and think of it this way - 9 hours after the event a mod appears and abuses his position as detailed in the mod rules. What the fuck? Why the fuck do we even have them? At least I resigned from being a mod before causing problems. Ace^ace 02:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

If what you have done with Brx (and I'm pretty sure this wasn't the only time) isn't a big deal - and I don't think it is - then I don't see Nx's promotion of you as a big deal, either. You guys have been tusslin'. If you really think it's serious, though, then you can start a vote in the Coop about it. I think it's best to keep votes off this page - it's for requesting mod intervention. And then you can make your case about Nx, and he can make his case that he was just playing your game. It'll be fair, and everyone can vote.--^talk 02:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Fuck it all. I have no fucking faith in any of you fucking stupid mods. And you guys supposed to, you know, not be complete fuckwits who break your own rules. Go fuck yourselves. Ace^ace 02:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

We had the same thing with you, and I said the same thing about you: if people thought you were abusing your rights, then they should have a vote in the Coop about it. I'm sorry if it now seems unfair when it's someone else.--^talk 02:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I never abused my mod rights. I quit remember. Ace^ace 02:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I remember very well what happened.--^talk 02:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

You'll have to remind me because I don't believe I abused my mod rights. Ace^ace 02:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

When Maratrean cooped you and then Brx for messing with people while you were a moderator. I guess the distinguishing factor you're pointing to is that you didn't do it with your moderator powers?--^talk 03:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

That's not a meaningful distinction. Slam Ace's nuts in a drawer until justice comes out. This is a fucking outrage. 03:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Motion to recall Nx from position of moderator.

When confronted with complaints about his unilateral promotion of Ace and myself, Nx's final word was that he would continue to act contrary to established guidelines for moderators. Given his decision to not respect the office I no longer have confidence in Nx's willingness or ability to hold the office,and am calling a vote on the matter. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 02:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead and go to the Coop, set up a vote with the diffs, and everyone can vote.--^talk 02:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Fuck man I am starting to think that the whole fucking thing is a fucking sham. Ace^ace 02:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Mod's poll on Nx's behavior

If I were a mod and a majority of my peers voted that I had done something wrong, I would at the very least make a public declaration saying that I would not repeat the action in question. I would not double down and say I would do it again. Just saying. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 00:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The main problem for me was that I asked Nx for an explanation twice and he didn't answer. he could have said, "I am taking action as a mod to what you did to brx several hours ago". But he didn't do that - he didn't respond at all. Ace^ace 00:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)