RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive6

This is an archive page, last updated 5 February 2012. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <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)

Not quite pictorial summary

If I got this right, the main complaint is a sort of conversation that occurred, for some reason in a series of comments in the block log (everyone's favorite place to hash out differences) in which Ace at one point said to Nx "You think I am going to let a worthless, dateless, freak like yourself drive me off RW?" to which Nx responded with another 3 month block and the comment "We'll see". Ace took this as an admission that he is actively trying to drive him off RW, which it could be, or it could be just another throw away comment in the block log. Either way, the issue is not so much a two word comment but whether Nx is trying to harass Ace until he does a LANCB. To me the issue is more a series of 3 month blocks, which individually aren't a huge deal against someone who can unblock himself, but 10 of them in a day strikes me as harassment, especially if someone is trying to make productive edits which are constantly getting disrupted (no idea if this was the case, but it certainly could have been). However, since Ace has stated that the blocks don't bother him, there's really very little to be done about that. I'm not sure what (if anything) instigated this minor shitstorm, but if both parties could knock it off I think everyone else on the site would appreciate it. I was just thinking to myself how nice it was that we haven't been seeing much of this sort of drama of late. Don't shit on my contentness. DickTurpis (talk) 05:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

That's the clearest explanation I've heard so far of what the heck is going on. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 05:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Back in the good old days, multiple editors could have block wars without the Wiki going into constitutional crisis. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh they still can and do, but there is a difference between a block war in which everyone involved is a willing participant just having fun, and continuous blocking of a single user for months on end. In this case it seems Ace viewed it as the former, which is admirable, so it isn't a big deal, so nor should a single comment be, particularly since we've all seen much worse from multiple editors here. DickTurpis (talk) 13:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Fun blocks should require consent.--User:Brxbrx/sig 17:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

That's stupid. No one starts a block war with a "Hello, I am about to engage in a block war. Would it bother you to receive a series of 3 second blocks?" However, a series of long term blocks that aren't part of a friendly tussle we all enjoy here can be a different matter. DickTurpis (talk) 22:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I mean that people should be allowed to exclude themselves from block wars, as in "Don't block me for more than o seconds, it's annoying." Hardly unreasonable--User:Brxbrx/sig 00:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

And now...

....After first stating I was being purposely driven off the site the same moderator engages in a campaign of harassment. Rationalwiki - how far you have come. The moderators do a bang up job too. Ace^ace 23:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

And before someone comments "What do you want done" all i am trying to point out is that a Mod can go completely rouge and not have to face any penalization. The system is fucked and no one gives a fuck. Ace^ace 23:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The thing to do now would be to instigate the moderator removal procedure. Oh wait, there isn't one. DickTurpis (talk) 23:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, earlier you said blocks don't bother you. If you're changing your mind, fair enough. Shall we consider this a message to Nx that his antics are no longer appreciated? DickTurpis (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see how this has anything to do with my moderator rights. -- Nx / talk 23:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with being a moderator, therefore it's okey-dokey, eh? DickTurpis (talk) 23:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

No, but what would removing my moderator rights accomplish? -- Nx / talk 00:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

No blocks don't really bother me. But Nx being a hypocritical jerk does. Wait, aren't I being hypocritical? Maybe but does that give Nx a free pass? This also exposes a huge flaw in the moderating policy and exposes it for the farce cluster-fuck it really is. Ace^ace 00:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

So you are admitting to acting hypocritical but at the same time criticising somebody else fro being a hypocrite? Is that hypocrisy in the second degree or something? And no, maybe it's just that nobody really cares how you are treated. You see, that's why many people take part in that culture of thinking before doing something. --★uːʤɱ libertarian 00:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

[EC] So each of you are accusing the other of hypocrisy. How very hypocritical of both of you. Oh dear, we seem to be entering a mobius strip of hypocrisy. How about both of you quit trying to get each others' goat for 10 or 15 minutes and see how that works out? And Nx, removing your mod rights might not accomplish anything, but perhaps moving block rights would. DickTurpis (talk) 00:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Right, so Ace not allowed. Nx, allowed. Glad that is settled. Ace^ace 00:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, what's allowed and what isn't now? DickTurpis (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I get vilified for blocking Brx repetitively in the past which sees me stripped of rights for a month but Nx (a moderator) wages a 2 day long blocking campaign and that is just fine according to some. If you look at my block log the last time I engaged in any sort uncool blockuing behavior was nearly a month ago. So what is Nx trying to prove here? Ace^ace 01:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Vilified? Stripped of rights? Hardly. -- Nx / talk 01:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

AD did it first then I complained about you doing it a second time. Don't you remember? The last time I brought you here for abuse? Ace^ace 01:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, and how long did that last? You agreed to have your sysopship removed for a month, and that's the only reason it happened. -- Nx / talk 01:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I wish you had gotten vilified for blocking me. You were pretty much untouched.--User:Brxbrx/sig 01:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

[multiple ECs] I admit I have no idea what kosher around here and what isn't, so my angle is to try to make sure whatever happens happens equally. As I recall, Ace, you voluntarily gave up your rights, and you were okay with Nx's blocks until a few minutes ago. Since you aren't anymore, it's time for Nx to knock it off. DickTurpis (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

A few minutes ago? Look at the top of the page dude, this bullshit from Nx has been going on for over 24 hours now. Ace^ace 01:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but you specifically said getting blocked didn't bother you before. You only recently reversed that, which is fine. DickTurpis (talk) 01:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Your words were In general it seems blocking people who have the ability to unblock themselves isn't seen as too much of a big deal, but a series of 3 month blocks like this is getting into harassment territory. When i said I wasn't worried about being blocked it was meant to be taken as agreement to what you had said, perhaps I should have been clearer. So now we are in a position where a moderator has indicated he would like to drive a particular user from the site and is using a series of harassing blocks to achieve it. Is it just me or is this something that should warrant a censure of some kind. And whether or not I gave up my rights voluntarily or not is immaterial - the result was the same. Ace^ace 01:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Whether you gave up rights voluntarily or not is significant, as one can chose to do what they want for themselves, but cannot impose that same criterion on others. Anyway, I'm not sure what censure on this site would look like, or what it would accomplish, but, hell, I'm game. What specifically would you like to see come out of all this? DickTurpis (talk) 01:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Nx shouldn't be a mod and there needs to be some further thought into the roles of mods and a process for them to be removed by the mods as oppposed to a community vote. Ace^ace 01:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a definiate abuse of block rights - any other user (like myself) would get a smack done for it. Nx did it to me (see my last complaint). Ace^ace 01:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's true. And what does "a smack done" consist of? DickTurpis (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

This is what happens when you set up a moderator system with, no guidlines, no powers to moderate, and the mandate of do as little as possible...

You get fuck all from it, because that is what it is. - π 23:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

If you ask me (which you didn't), we need more rules and clearer protocols for enforcing them. Maybe Trent could come down and do another one of those reform things.--User:Brxbrx/sig 01:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

which you didn't Exactly. So why are you butting in? -- Nx / talk 01:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Because I have an opinion and I'd like to see it enacted. Is this topic forbidden? Are we not allowed to edit beneath the four ='s?--User:Brxbrx/sig 01:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

This is why people don't like you. -- Nx / talk 01:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Blue (is useful) 01:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

You don't need an invitation to post your 2 cents here. DickTurpis (talk) 01:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Something like that. People don't like me because I'm the most vocal of new users that disapprove of the juvenile antics of some of the site's members, who like to think this is their own playground.--User:Brxbrx/sig 01:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

No, some people don't like you because you combine being profoundly annoying with providing contributions of marginal value to the project. "Maybe Trent could come down and do another one of those reform things." We just did one of those in, like, May. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 01:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm saying we should do another, but with concrete results--User:Brxbrx/sig 01:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Seriously. The moderator system was foisted upon us, and I maintain that RW was never the kind of site that could handle traditional moderation. So we stripped the foreign system of all its authority and made an environment even more toxic than the one from which it came. Blue (pester) 01:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It will never work. You want to entrust either total cowboys like Ace or total "my way or the highway" guys like Nx to run the place? Either one is a recipe for disaster. The site was born as a mobocracy, and trying to impose strong administrative structures will drive away the kind of editors that make it what it is. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 01:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The trouble (to me) is that mods really weren't any different that beurocrats, and brought all the same baggage. I guess the real question comes down to the users and what they really want. Course, I'm an elitist and think users in that context should be people who actually spend time editing - but hey, i like being elite. :-) Seriously, no system that looks like a few people with super user powers will work, cause they have always (as a collective, not any one mod or crat individuall) and will always abuse those rights. GodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage 01:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

(EC)There is a balance between strong administrative bureaucracy and mobocracy that we should strive for. The former is bad for the reasons you just mentioned. But mobocracy also has its downsides, like its petty tyrants, rampant cronyism, the potential for lack of fairness, little room for redress, etc. A cluocracy might approach that balance. Blue (pester) 01:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Doubtful. while i think many (and hope most) of us strive for that, Blue, we are a room full of egos, the wiki itself has a "POV" that gets in the way of good arguments, and we have a pantheon of trolls. The only way you have a Cluocracy is to have someone to enforce or decide what is "the best decision". right now, we sorta, kinda have a vote - but a vote (even if we followed it) is not cluo, it's democracy. the only way it works is to have some kind of disinterested jury. GodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage 02:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Why do I always end up agreeing with Blue? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

DELETE MARATREANISM

It seems to me that this user's sole reason for existence is to engage in (rather lame) attempts to abuse me. Can't we just block and delete them? I mean, if they were a user who had something else to contribute, but also took a disliking to me, fair enough, but this user seems to me to be little more than what Wikipedia calls a "special purpose account" (((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that you will need to show where this person has broken the community guidelines to such an extent that warrants expulsion. There isn't any presented here, and I haven't seen anything outrageous. By the way, I don't know that there are any restrictions on sockpuppeting, nor on accounts formed to make political points regarding the way the site is run. --Damo^Hi 08:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

U can't delete me Marafuck. But I'll delete u!!!!!!!! DELETE MARATREANISM (talk)

If I wanted to be a dick I would say if you didn't want people to make fun of your silly beliefs you shouldn't have such silly beliefs. But outside that there isn't really cause for blocking and deleting. Ace^{Ace For Mod!} 08:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

"They're saying mean things about me" is not, never has been, and never should be grounds for banning, or grounds for any official consequence, for that matter. The unofficial consequence of being treated like the asshole they are by the mob is kind of a given, though. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 09:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

If I wasn't a believer in needlessly complicating things, I'd say you guys are needlessly complicating things. The process is supposed to go somewhat this like:

Troll joins wiki --> troll trolls --> troll gets banned

But whatev. Fallacy (talk) 09:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Surely endless crap like this is enough to be banned??? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

No. Bad Faith (talk) 09:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Not in this dojo. Aside from spambots etc., we've only banned users very occasionally, & it's always been controversial. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 09:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Due to the founders' history with Conservapedia, we have always been reluctant to use banhammers here, even against vandals.

But in DELETE MARATREANISM's case, the moderators might take into account that (1) the editor is probably a sockpuppet of a regular user (who would do better to harass Maratrean openly), and (2) the editor has also gamed the moderator elections and vandalized mainspace. ListenerX^TalkerX 09:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I know some people have created socks to mock me (like the endless array of fake versions of my deities.) I don't really like that, but I suppose I've just got to live with it. But at least that is somewhat light-hearted mockery. Whoever this is is just being really mean-spirited, and not at all funny. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Why you? _{And why not me? D:} Fallacy (talk) 09:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

A number of editors, as I understand it, got their feelings hurt when Maratrean said some mean things about RationalWiki on aSK, and consequently have been making efforts to run him off. ListenerX^TalkerX 09:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

That's stupid, but unsurprisingly so. Fallacy (talk) 09:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

HAHAHA MARAFUCK U HAVE BEEN PWNED!!!! U CANT BAN ME BUT I WILL BAN U!!! DELETE MARATREANISM (talk) 09:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Seriously? "User hasn't broken the guidelines?" What a bunch of limp-wristed pussies you all are. Hang on a second. It's not like we're dealing with a long-time member of the wiki here. This is clearly an account set up with one aim in mind - to attack a member of this wiki. This is hardly a productive member of RW. MC was banned for doing exactly the same. Now whatever you think of our resident prophet, the fact remains that this account is nothing more than a troll and as such can be safely blocked and told to fuck off. Or to we value trolls more than members of this wiki? --PsyGremlinTal! 09:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I like your style, but I have a nitpick about your language.

Also: "Or to we value trolls more than members of this wiki?"

Aren't most members trolls anyways? Fallacy (talk) 09:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I love ya Psy...but who fucking cares? Ace^{Ace For Mod!} 09:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Trolls cannot be blocked without due process, but vandals can, and this editor is a vandal. ListenerX^TalkerX 09:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

@Psygremlin: They've already waited for multi-hour blocks to expire so they could continue their harassment. That level of dedication suggests they'll just make another account if we ban them outright. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 09:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

(EC)But hey, if we start blocking vandals, we're on a slippery slope to becoming exactly like Conservapedia. Ace has a really good point, though. Fallacy (talk) 09:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

(EC) If they start circumventing a block, we can invoke the "no troll sanctuaries" provision and burn everything they post. ListenerX^TalkerX 09:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

How about we just burn everything posted about Maratreanism by anybody. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 11:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Good point. (Weaseloid and ListenerX in the same room. Goodness, there should be an explosion of sensible solutions already!) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 09:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: DELETE MARATREANISM

That account is now disabled. The dude gave away his password on his userpage, and I logged in to the account and scrambled the password. The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 12:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I confirm this. DELETE MARATREANISM (talk) 13:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Will you still be standing in the moderator election? Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I will be. But you can scratch DELETE MARATREANISM off the list. I have no interest from moderating from a former troll account. The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 13:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Everything seems to be in order, then. Blue (is useful) 21:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Need to send intercom message

A notification needs to be sent out on the intercom that nominations are open for the 2012 board of trustees election, but I lack the rights to send an intercom message to the "Site wide (urgent)" group. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

About to send it out. Presumably we're pushing back the nomination deadline to the 15th of January... Blue (is useful) 04:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I hardly see why; it is not like this is being sprung on the mob suddenly, and any nomination that actually matters will be in within three days anyway. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

For form's sake, I would say keep to the full 14 days... though this is obviously a Board decision and my opinion matters little. Blue (is useful) 06:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

Trolling is a bannable offense, with trolling defined as an action with the sole or primary intent of harassing, annoying, or otherwise being a jerk to another user. Intentions and motives would be derived from arbitration, possibly from moderators, possibly the mob. Suggestions and amendments to this proposal are of course welcome. Be proactive.--User:Brxbrx/sig 19:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Would result in blocking half the site, including you, if followed to the letter. In reality, would only result in blocking of unpopular people, i.e. you. -- Nx / talk 19:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Ace^{Ace For Mod!} 19:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've always said that I'd face disciplining if my desired reforms were to come in place. And I hardly mean infinite blocks. And you are welcome to word it better. "Kritik without alternative is nihilistic," as my debate coach used to say.--User:Brxbrx/sig 19:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Policy proposals would best be delivered to the community standards discussion or a forum. However, while I disagree with Brxbrx's idea, I do believe that the fact that nobody on RW is empowered to arbitrate conflicts might become more detrimental than it has been. And when we are ready for a more structured approach to conflict resolution I will certainly be at the table. However, that moment has not yet come, and such reforms are enforceable and untenable in the short term. Blue (pester) 20:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

"mod only" warning

I'm a bit bothered by the "mod only" warning, if the page is meant to discuss things like "rogue moderators". It seems to me, discussions should include the community, regardless of the fact that they are about issues that will be ultimately dealt with by mods, just cause that "do not post here" increases the sense that mods are different from the rest of the wiki. GodotDear god, fucking grow up 23:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

That is my fault - I posted it there instead of here. Ace^Moderator 23:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It appears that this transition of power hasn't gone over well. Maybe we should reconsider the "mod" thing if this is what results?--Colonel Sanders (talk) 23:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh good god, i would never want to be in real politics if the world is like this. It's been 2 days, CS, with one incident by someone who shouldn't have done what he or she did, and was taken to task. it is, as far as I can tell, resolved as far as the action, though not (as Ace is suggesting) any kind of discipline. there would be no difference no matter what system is in place. someone will mis judge what they should have done, and act inappropriately. we need a way to deal with it, but not a "new system" or an old system... you deal with things as they come up. --GodotDear god, fucking grow up 23:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

This is damn better than how the by-election went, at least so far as I remember. Peter^{Quasniki 2012!} 23:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Godot, you have a point. However, not everyone thinks like you do. You reference "real politics", and an important part of "real politics" is accountability. If the system is broke, fix it. Rules and policies need to be more clearly defined, so stuff like that doesn't happen. --Colonel Sanders (talk) 23:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but we are not mindreaders, us humans. you cannot make a rule till someone does something that people say "oh snap" to. I think it's going to work out, CS. I just think too much "oh my god, the sky is falling" won't help get it fixed. My own two cents, of course. GodotDear god, fucking grow up 02:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we humans aren't mindreaders, and I'm glad we aren't. And that won't help get it fixed. I just was making the point that abuse of power is not right. However, it would benefit this community as a whole if we knew what the role of a "moderator" is. If it's to keep order and only to use power when needed, in the midst of conflict, say so. If it's a Stalinist group to tell lesser users what to do at every instance, say so. I don't know to which extreme this group is; it's not clearly defined. Unless you want moar drama, policies and rules need to be clearly defined.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 02:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

A minor spat went down as two mods came into conflict. It was curtailed by others, discussed civilly, and dealt with within the day. What just happened was a shining example of the system working. Our standard can't be "no conflict," but rather "conflict peacefully and swiftly resolved."--^talk 02:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

While I understand you are not trying to make more problems, when have you ever seen mods "tell other lesser users what to do". I find that characterization to be a bit of baiting, don't you?GodotDear god, fucking grow up 02:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't really suggesting that; I was asking if that was the intent. If the system is working, fine. I'm just one who likes everything detailed in policy and stuff. Forgive my "baiting" or whatever you wanna call it.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 02:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

RobSmith

Since last May I think it's generally accepted we don't unilaterally remove people's rights and block them for more than trivial periods simply because we don't like them. Will someone please keep an eye on RobSmith's account? 20:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Blue (pester) 20:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds fine. I don't see any need for him to be blocked. He's amusingly dishonest and thick. Ace^Moderator 20:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I block him in full knowledge that my 2024/6 blocks will be undone in a few minutes anyways, either by him or somebody else. but whatever. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 21:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Well then stop it. 23:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I promise not to do it again until next time. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 23:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Stop antagonizing a grievance collector. He carries this kind of mistreatment, and it is mistreatment, around like a badge of honor. 00:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Me and Rob are just chatting. Ace^Moderator 00:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me just include, we're all on the same level now at CP, those Ratwikians with accounts. Some even have more rights than I do. And we seriously need discussions here, in Rationalwiki, for information being vetted for content there, where discussions are routinely disrupted, deleted, and oversighted by sysops. Here we should be able to exchange ideas freely. nobs^Moderated 00:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

If you want to discuss Conservapedia content do it at Conservapedia. Unless you are scared Ken will spank you again. Ace^Moderator 00:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

No, this is serious. We are discussing on my talk page material for the Gingrich article, who may incidentally be the next President of the United States. Some of the this input is most helpful, truly. And I know how difficult it is to collaborate at CP. nobs^Moderated 01:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a moderator page, take it to talkcp. Ace^Moderator 01:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Start a forum elsewhere if you want to thrash out content at CP, RationalWiki is not the place. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 07:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussions regarding proposed changes to CP pages should, in general, be on CP. I am well aware that there are difficulties with free and open communication at CP, but it is not fair to other good faith users at CP to keep the discussions offsite. In any case, this site is not for improving the article content at CP. Damo^Hi 08:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

RachelW & I had a very constructive conversation on my talk page in RW in which she persuaded me to her position about CP's Newt Gingrich entry. Both of us ran the risk of 90/10 violations at CP, so I don't see where the problem is on user pages. And don't forget, I was able to win the repeal of the blocking violation, "member of a vandal site" which has helped open editing for good faith editors of both sites. Let's not be hostile to progress which has been made on issues which have affected many users over many years. nobs^Moderated 04:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Take it to CP, this page is not for CP content discussion. Ace^Moderator 04:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

RobSmith

Since last May I think it's generally accepted we don't unilaterally remove people's rights and block them for more than trivial periods simply because we don't like them. Will someone please keep an eye on RobSmith's account? 20:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Blue (is useful) 20:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds fine. I don't see any need for him to be blocked. He's amusingly dishonest and thick. Ace^Moderator 20:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I block him in full knowledge that my 2024/6 blocks will be undone in a few minutes anyways, either by him or somebody else. but whatever. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 21:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Well then stop it. 23:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I promise not to do it again until next time. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 23:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Stop antagonizing a grievance collector. He carries this kind of mistreatment, and it is mistreatment, around like a badge of honor. 00:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Me and Rob are just chatting. Ace^Moderator 00:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me just include, we're all on the same level now at CP, those Ratwikians with accounts. Some even have more rights than I do. And we seriously need discussions here, in Rationalwiki, for information being vetted for content there, where discussions are routinely disrupted, deleted, and oversighted by sysops. Here we should be able to exchange ideas freely. nobs^Moderated 00:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

If you want to discuss Conservapedia content do it at Conservapedia. Unless you are scared Ken will spank you again. Ace^Moderator 00:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

No, this is serious. We are discussing on my talk page material for the Gingrich article, who may incidentally be the next President of the United States. Some of the this input is most helpful, truly. And I know how difficult it is to collaborate at CP. nobs^Moderated 01:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a moderator page, take it to talkcp. Ace^Moderator 01:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Start a forum elsewhere if you want to thrash out content at CP, RationalWiki is not the place. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 07:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussions regarding proposed changes to CP pages should, in general, be on CP. I am well aware that there are difficulties with free and open communication at CP, but it is not fair to other good faith users at CP to keep the discussions offsite. In any case, this site is not for improving the article content at CP. Damo^Hi 08:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

RachelW & I had a very constructive conversation on my talk page in RW in which she persuaded me to her position about CP's Newt Gingrich entry. Both of us ran the risk of 90/10 violations at CP, so I don't see where the problem is on user pages. And don't forget, I was able to win the repeal of the blocking violation, "member of a vandal site" which has helped open editing for good faith editors of both sites. Let's not be hostile to progress which has been made on issues which have affected many users over many years. nobs^Moderated 04:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Ace's comment

I took away Rob's sysop bits and blocked him for an hour. His comments were getting pretty close to the bone when it came to civility, he was acting in an extremely jingoistic manner towards other editors and basically being an all round troll and pain in the ass. While I can understand some my blame me for partially feeding him some of his comments were getting borderline. Feel free to revert and/or challenge me (I won't dispute if overruled) but it is only an hour and he can have his rights restored when it is up. I just felt this course of action the best at the time. Ace^Moderator 04:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

To the extent that i have any clue what I'm doing, I tried to restore them. Ace, Be Have! --GodotGrow a vagina 04:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Considering everything Ace has been. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 04:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Fuck you all, I'm hungry. Ace^Moderator 04:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Just feed him some Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Godot, you undid the block, but didn't restore his sysop bit. Blue (is useful) 04:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree vehemently. To see you talk of civility standards is almost laughable considering your treatment of editors with whom you disagree. Tielec01 (talk) 04:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, disagreement has been carried and I won't protest. What's the problem? Ace^Moderator 04:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem at all. Tielec01 (talk) 05:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)