RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive7

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 21 August 2012. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: , (new)(back)

Can someone with the superpowaz...[edit]

Go to the deletion log, see the item on TWIGOCP that was just deleted, and completely and totally scrub it from the database? As it is, "only" sysops--meaning a few hundred (?) people-- can see it. Thanks. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 21:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I think I've taken care of that. Redchuck.gif ГенгисevolvingModerator 22:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
You rock my world. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 22:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

17br3[edit]

17br3 has been engaging in intimidating behavior and little else since they showed up. I'd like to just block their ass for a year, but felt it best I get the community's consent and the moderators' blessing before doing so. The Symphony of Noise The official spikey-haired skeptical punk 15:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Not a mod, but R2D2 has 12 edits, could just be ignored. steriletalk 16:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I can't say I feel intimidated as I can only make out about half of what s/he is saying. I doubt they mean to intimidate - it's just that English clearly isn't their first language. Balaam (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Meh. Just another subliterate moron. Until he does something really out of line, let the ass bray. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 16:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
We should start off with a warning. I'll put something on his talk.--ADtalkModerator 05:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Done. If it persists, then we'll move further. Sound good?--ADtalkModerator 05:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
BLOCK HIM FOREVER. Nutty Rouxnever mind 06:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Abd[edit]

I have dropped an indefinite block on Abd, the ratio decidendi being for editing the talkpage comments of other editors but also because he's a Cold fusion crank and noted trouble maker. He has a long record at various other wikis for his contributions to the services of nuttery. I think he's a hopeless cause, a timesink and does nothing to further the Glory of the Goat. I submit that we're better off without him. I hope that the Goderators will look favourably upon my actions in this regard. If others decide that my actions should be undone then I take no issue with that. Ta fanx, --MtDPrematurely Indeterminate 10:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the spirit. Act unilaterally against the standards of the place and THEN bring the issue to moderation. Also, users have edited my talkpage comments in the past, but they were popular kids so it's okay. I suggest a new, more appropriate name be adopted for this page. "Dispatch" and "Railyard" spring to mind. LowKey (talk) 11:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
As you like it. I will not redo what has been undone. I stand by my decision and will wear any consequence which follows therefrom. May their Godships resolve this as they see fit. --MtDPrematurely Indeterminate 11:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Abd does rather seem to have attempted to rewrite a large section of the talkpage. As he consequence he both post-edited his own comments and overwrote some others. And both these things are not allowed. I remember that Jim Jast did the same thing when he started here but relented when we pointed out the rules. So perhaps this was more of a misunderstanding than a deliberate attempt to rewrite history CP-style. In any event this may be more of a case of the chicken coop.--BobSpring is sprung! 12:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
<zoidberg>Now there's a bird involved?</zoidberg> I thought we'd abandoned the coop in favour of this marlarkey. Whichever. May something be done. --MtDPrematurely Indeterminate 13:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree whole-heartedly that editing the comments of others is wandalism. Therefore, I completely agree that action is warranted, though I would've prefered throwing his ass in the vandal bin. And to LowKey, I don't know who changed your comments or the nature of that which you speak, but I don't think that was right either and they should've faced sanction also. The Symphony of Noise The official spikey-haired skeptical punk 13:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, at least you tried. Apparently when I make a mistake, it isn't funny. I'll have to remember to be unfunny when I'm determined to get promoted. Sounds like Really Stupid Vandalism should do the trick. --Abd (talk) 17:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

"May something be done." Nothing will be done[edit]

Nothing has been done about any of the other trolls, save MC. Rob is still allowed to derail multiple conversations with lies and base stupidity. Brx and Maratrean will be back eventually to spread their own brands of idiocy. Why should this guy get singled out when we basically allow anyone to do anything, community standards or the guidelines of basic common sense or civility be damned? P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 13:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

We should increase the border patrols, so that Foster doesn't have to deal with people that annoy him the trolling stops. --★uːʤɱ anti-communist 16:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
This website appears to have a very low tolerance for people disagreeing with them. Was this Abd doing anything else other than posting long rants that didn't make sense? P-Foster, you are overreacting--Tiberius Gracchus.jpg. 16:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
"Shut up, Brx." ArchieGoodwin (talk) 18:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Because changing the comments of others isn't trolling, it's wandalism. The Symphony of Noise The official spikey-haired skeptical punk 13:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Feh. I tried. --MtDPrematurely Indeterminate 14:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
His defense does seem reasonable, though. If it's actually the case, than it has happened before to many a good editor. The Symphony of Noise The official spikey-haired skeptical punk 14:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
If that actually is true, then I completely understand, as I've accidentally edited comments many a time. Also, I predict that P-Foster Abd will post immediately below me. GodothasArrived (super crazy fun time!) 14:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Okay, then what about this? Deliberately edited the comment of another. No excuse. Get out the pitchforks! --A Concerned User 14:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Pitchforks? Nah, I prefer using a pickaxe. Conservative Punk (talk) 14:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, so the editing of comments seems to have been an accident. I've had things like that happen to me too. As long as it's not repeated I don't see any punishment being warranted. As for being a crank, well, we've dealt with them before, and usually without infinite blocks. If he's being actually disruptive, rather than just annoying, I guess something might be warranted, but I don't think we generally do much about people we find annoying, except bitch and moan. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 15:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Some of us do more than bitch and moan when we are annoyed, and some even file complaints for moderator attention. Of course, here, when a user is a sysop, being blocked is a bit different than elsewhere. So my sysop bit was kindly lifted, so that my promotions were more real. Then I was demoted again. This place is completely unreliable. That's part of the appeal, right? --Abd (talk) 15:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, you're not blocked anymore, and you have your rights back. Anything else you want done? Turpis 3:16 (talk) 15:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I didn't ask for any of that, I'm just effing commenting. It's been enormously inconvenient, being unblocked and resysopped. I want my morning back. Can you arrange that? --Abd (talk) 16:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
That's the fate of any RW editor. You will get blocked and demoted at some point because somebody doesn't like you. If you don't like that, don't stay. --★uːʤɱ digital native 16:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Sir, that is nonsense. We are not barbarians, this is not Jack London's Call of the Wild; the Law of Club and Fang is not the law of the land. Are we not adults? Can we not resolve our differences like grown-ups? I thought this was supposed to be RationalWiki--Tiberius Gracchus.jpg. 18:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I suppose it's easier to dismiss people's comments out of hand like that. Perhaps you might consider reading what I said instead of treating it as a punchline? User:Abd made a mistake. Everyone jumped on him for his mistake and banned him. Why? Because he disagrees. Oh, he's wrong, quite obviously wrong, but censoring someone whose only crime is disagreeing with you- because he did not vandalize, or otherwise egregiously break the rules- is like something you see in China. Grow up and learn to tolerate different points of view (and before you get ahead of yourself and start talking about Hitler having a different point of view, or some crap like that, I said points of view, not genocides: talk is cheap). We don't censor the Tea Party of Occupy Wall Street, so we don't censor Abd. If you don't like what he has to say, ignore him--Tiberius Gracchus.jpg. 18:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I didn't say there were no consequences... --★uːʤɱ socialist 18:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Minor correction, I have not been banned, though it was tried. I was temporarily promoted, to infinite blocked, as before, and into the vandal bin for moment, but as a result of my trolling of MtD and others, I've been demoted again to sysop. This site sucks, I can't even get properly banned here. What's the matter with you? --Abd (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Cool. But we seem to be forgetting that going back to edit your own comments retrospectively in a conversation is also a no no. I can understand making an accidental mistake - but you can hardly go back and reedit your self "accidently".--BobSpring is sprung! 15:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Sure you can. I did, in effect. When I wrote the comment, I was not aware that you had replied, and it is normally allowed to edit comments where there has been no response to them, and often even later, if the editing doesn't alter the context of the comment. It's true that I noticed your response, in the process, but with all the confusion caused by the section headers being edited mid-stream this got lost in the noise. My apologies, but ... it was really irrelevant, because your comment did not at all refer to the pre-revision text, it was just a form of tl;dr. So this is another example of trying to find something wrong with someone else has done, regardless of the substance. --Abd (talk) 16:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
In point of fact we don't usually allow the subsequent re-editing of comments to make you look cleverer. Though, to be honest I don't know if that's what you did as it's just too much to work through at the moment to try to see what was going on.--BobSpring is sprung! 16:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
"we don't allow"? You're making it sound as if we have actual rules that we enforce. An American Fallacy (super crazy fun time!) 17:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
It seems that there are still users who believe that. I fixed the errors on that Talk page, there were two, the original error yesterday when a set of edit conflicts sufficiently confused me that I accidentally removed a whole conversation between Bob M and myself, and then, today, when I restored that conversation, then archived a super-long comment of mine to history, replacing it with a snarky reference, I accidentally omitted a line feed, causing one line of Bob's restored comment to go into the archive too. All fixed now.
As to editing my own comments, the tradition is not to edit comments in such a way as to destroy the context of responses. However, it's rather obvious, even with Serious Wikis, you can edit your own comments other than that, and people do it all the time. Comments are not indelible, except in history, and, even there .... When people simply complain about my long comments, I often do it, I collapse them or archive them to history, or whatever, always in a visible way. Welfare of the Wiki, and all that rot. --Abd 17:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay then[edit]

From what I understand, Abd was accused of tampering with comments, and then the discussion was derailed by accusations of trolling and whatnot. Are we done with this issue for now? Blue (pester) 18:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

We'll never be done with it, for as long as there has been internet, there has been serious business and the trolling. GodothasArrived (super crazy fun time!) 19:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm ready to call this concluded, with a "be cautious when editing comments in the future" for Abd. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Query[edit]

Dammit, why doesn't this page automagically email us when it is time to misapply our sense of glory? - Human. 22:58, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

Should I e-mail that to you? steriletalk 14:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Jesus H Christ[edit]

Let's take a breather and actually try to solve an issue in a forum that isn't random comments in the motherfucking block log. So what's going on here? I've been off wiki most of the day. It seems we got hit by a very committed goatse attack, correct? Some blame it on Brx. Very well. What makes anyone think it's him? I really have no idea what's going on but I don't think highly of 3 month blocks without some sort of review. Make a logical case or shut up. I though this was supposed to be RationalWiki. (Fuck it, I'm drinking either way; might as well make it count.) Turpis 3:16 (talk) 02:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

RW and RWW were hit by an 8 hour long goatse attack. The initial pages targeted were the various holydaze, Nutty Roux's signature, and the "shut up brx" template on rw. Brx protested his treatment some time later on RWW, where he has been permently banned he was banned for his troubles. Almost immediatly, the vandalism resumed. ArchieGoodwin (talk) 02:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Also, read this for more evidence. Peter tanquam ex ungue leonem 02:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Hah I've never seen such a cut and dried case. Hang him high your honour. Pathetic. Tielec01 (talk) 02:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Who the fuck are you? ArchieGoodwin (talk) 02:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Alright. Now we're getting somewhere. But, I do have to admit that the evidence so far is circumstantial, is it not? Turpis 3:16 (talk) 03:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
The evidence showing that it must be a person quite familiar with the site is strong. Who else are we left with aside from brx, do you know? Take a look (if you dare) at the methods as well as the targets. Peter tanquam ex ungue leonem 03:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
...Maratrean? :P Osaka Sun (talk) 03:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Only if Maratrean is secretly a sock of brx (because of his opposition to such images). And anyway, even Maratrean wouldn't be that dedicated...surely? Peter tanquam ex ungue leonem 03:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh I don't disagree, but I do love playing Devil's Advocate, and the fact remains, "a person quite familiar with the site" does not exactly narrow it down to one or two people. If I were a conspiracy theorist I'd easily postulate that there are users here who would go to substantial lengths to get Brx banned from this site for good. In any case, I do believe in giving the accused a chance to defend themselves before we hand down a months long block. We did it for MC and we should do it for anyone else. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 03:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Brx has defended himself, he said ED would not do this, that he isnt good enough to do it and then accussed several people of doing it instead. Even if the "ability" part isnt narrow, the "target and timeframe" are still against him--il'Dictator Mikal 03:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
And if you take a look at, again, the targets and methods (which included at one point the 'sexy ace' picture) it is clear that it's either brx or somebody trying to make it look like brx (and doing a fairly good job of it, I might add), so that does narrow it down a bit by this point. Other people who were there at the start may have more specific stuff for you. Peter tanquam ex ungue leonem 03:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Even if we do hang Bricks for this, we need to follow a coherent procedure. That means a vote. There is no need to ban Bricks' username during the intervening time, so don't do it until we've had a goddamn vote. Blue (is useful) 04:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that a procedure is needed, but I think Brxbrx has caused enough trouble by now that the moderators would be justified in an emergency block for the interim. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Blocking Brx as a waste of server space and a flashpoint for bad vibes is something I will fully support. An emergency block in the interim won't mitigate the kind of nonsense we had to put up with this afternoon. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 04:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
So shall we have the 'goddamn vote' before or after his IP block expires? Peter tanquam ex ungue leonem 04:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Obviously his IP block hasn't kept him from posting, so it doesnt matter much.--il'Dictator Mikal 04:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Can we get this shit done now? ТyNo 04:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I think this is one for the moderators. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Not really, anyone can take him to the coop. Permaban anyone, or is that setting too high of a precedent? Peter tanquam ex ungue leonem 04:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I think it's still a community-wide vote to ban someone. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 04:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Of course the moderators have no permaban authority. What I meant was that I think the moderators ought to initiate and direct this procedure to prevent a repeat of certain past nastiness. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I am blocked[edit]

My IP address is blocked, and my account is blocked. All based on some flimsy evidence that I'm the one vandalizing and DDoSing. Unblock me. This is what I posted over on RWW in my defense, copied and pasted here. Ty and Mikalos don't seem interested in allowing me to defend myself, and they reverted me and blocked the Tor node I was using.



FFS, it's not me. Unblock me. Yeah, Ace, I vandalized your user page on ED, but not like this. On ED I used Template:Kittens, which consists of an autoplay of someone screaming and a collage of images known as "the pain series." As for it being somebody else on ED, I haven't so much as visited the site since they changed domains, and I know that interest in RationalWiki over there is nil. @Mikalos: Yesterday I was quite frustrated by the constant blocks, and I made a complaint to the three good moderators. Around that time the blockers seemed to cower away, if only for a brief moment, and I was more or less satisfied with the end of the situation. @Ty: I don't know what's crawled up your ass, but again, it's not me.

I spent the morning playing Europa Universalis and honestly, I don't have the patience to do nothing but slap mosaics of goatse on every RW page. I have ADHD, and that's the sort of activity I have issues with. I am also unable to DDoS, since I don't have access to a botnet, and even if I did I wouldn't know how to use it. I may have LOIC somewhere on my computer, but that wouldn't be able to even slow RW down if it's just me using it. And it's not someone from ED. There is a concept over at ED, that of NYPA (Not Your Personal Army). It means that anyone trying to organize something on ED automatically makes themselves a target. So I wouldn't have any luck trying to rally EDiots, and would more likely face retaliation for being presumptive. The same concept is common on 4chan and anon circles, so I wouldn't be able to get any help there either.

I, too, have a theory. Who is EricR? He showed up at about the same time and seems to have it in for me. I suspect he's a sockpuppet of SuspectedReplicant. This is his style. And it's Ace McWicked and Nutty Roux who point fingers at me every time there's a wave of vandalism. Isn't it just as likely that it's one of them? There is, of course, no evidence to accuse anyone. So I suggest you unblock me and put some sort of brake on IP editing. --CamilleT (talk) 22:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

"Shut up, Brx."--il'Dictator Mikal 22:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Is there any evidence that it wasn't Elvis Presley who did it? DamoHi 22:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I blame the Masons, myself. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 22:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
The International Jewish conspiracy is my bet.il'Dictator Mikal 22:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
No, it's the evil libtard media, making sure their immoral values propagate faster than MLP fans. Osaka Sun (talk) 01:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
You can shove your suspicions up your ass, bricks. I'm SR's only sockpuppet and in fact I was here first. rpeh •T•C•E• 10:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

So lie low until the IP monsters are done with their escapade. The fact that you were implicated can be resolved at a later date, but does seem to have some traction right now. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Assuming you are correct[edit]

that would mean we just got hit, for absolutely no reason, by somebody who had impeccable timing, attack choice and targets such as to make it look like they came from ED in relation to you brx.--il'Dictator Mikal 01:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Brx[edit]

Vote on the banning of Brx moved from this page to the Chicken Coop, as it is a community vote and not a request for actual mod action.--ADtalkModerator 07:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I've been put in the Vandal Bin for "Page Blanking," and I don't even know what that is.[edit]

I'm new to Rational Wiki. I was labeled a vandal for page blanking. I don't even know what that means. If I did anything wrong, I'm sorry. I didn't do anything bad on purpose. Can you help, if I did something wrong, I will make sure I never do it again. Thank you.

Looks like it was a transposition error, I removed the binning let me us know if there are further issues. Tmtoulouse (talk) 05:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay[edit]

Thank you — Unsigned, by: CriticalDragon1177 / talk / contribs

Timestamp'd. Blue (is useful) 22:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Abd et al[edit]

Just checking to see if any of you lot are awake... Peter This is not my first temporal anomaly 03:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have to do a lot of writing today, and don't have time to sort through the Abd thing. Hopefully someone else can do it; it doesn't seem immediately urgent or in danger of spinning out of control since he doesn't abuse his powers much. As long as no one blocks him in frustration - and looking at the names of participants (Vox, Gerard, et al) that doesn't seem likely - then he can just drone on annoyingly for a while until I get around to a fiery speech about how terrible he is.--ADtalkModerator 03:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I see ToP promoted him. Problem solved. He's too boring to make anyone angry, I think, so yeah, hopefully no one will prove him right by blocking him. Given how well the discussion has been going, it would be a shame if someone indulged in a petty one day "go take a break" abuse of their own power on him.--ADtalkModerator 03:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=RationalWiki_talk:All_things_in_moderation/Archive7&oldid=1070005"