RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive8

This is an archive page, last updated 25 December 2012. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <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)

Tisane

(Moved from main page which is for the use of Moderators)

AD's idea isn't going to go down well unless (at least at the time) the required 2/3 are there. It's close enough right now that a single person changing their vote from nay to goat will swing it. And how is this any more disruptive than any other episode we've had in the last year or so? Peter ^{Rapidly running out of marmite} 08:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

So who wants to cast the final two vote? Osaka Sun (talk) 08:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

No one's crying authoritarian fascism. It took the wisdom of Solomon to bring it to a head. As the one mother in the parable said, "half a loaf is better than none." nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 03:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I must say I'm surprised... Peter ^{Rapidly running out of marmite} 07:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

My conscience is bugging me so I'm going to have one more comment about this situation then shut up. I also acknowledge that the general consensus was that Tisane should be banned; when over 2/3 of a community vote yes then it's unequivocally a majority opinion. However, an unharitable observation of the proceedings would say that he was banned for a rule that we made up on the spot and did not warn him about. We then started a trial that was cut short when the desired result was achieved. Then the sentence administered was NOT what the community voted for (significantly shorter). Finally the moderator group appeared to ask other users not to discuss the issue for a few days to try and wipe it under the carpet.

No serious attempt has been made to warn other users that some topics (eg. the morality of paedophilia) are off bounds here and thus stop a repeat of this situation happening. What if Peter Singer wandered onto the site and wanted to talk about Bestiality - would the same issue arise? If we must have rules and regulations it is far better that they are transparent and easily accessible than in the community consciousness and ad hoc. Tielec01 (talk) 09:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it matters. This site is constitutionally near-incapable of having serious discussions about serious issues, so it's really just par for course; it's not helped by the fact that Tisane wouldn't know what tact was if it landed on his head. I'm still engaging in dialogue with Tisane via email; while I think he a seriously distorted perspective on things, I'm eager to see if dialogue can lead to a shift in his perspective. That kind of dialogue was never going to happen on this site anyway, so it really doesn't matter if it is banned. If Tisane wants to come here to talk about other things, so long as he gets a new IP (not hard), keeps his link to his prior (or real life) identity hidden, and avoids that particular topic, no one can stop him. Zack Martin  10:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Why is this still being dragged through the mud? ^bomination 10:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Because RW is full of arse-brained griefers who want to whine endlessly about procedure and process? Sophie^Wilder 11:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Banning Tisane is not enough. We need to ban, not just the babyrapists, but also all the babyrape-enablers and the babyrape-supporters. I have compiled a list for your benefit. Buxort (talk) 11:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I am an atheist, so I don't believe in God. But I do hold something sacred: the human mind. Just a few weeks ago, it was the human mind that extracted minerals from the earth, fused them together with torches that burn whiter than the sun, created a machine of staggering complexity and beauty - a machine that is the extension of our reach not just beyond our grasp, but to a red planet of dust and majesty. For ten thousand years, superstition and madness held back that mind, but in the few centuries it has been unleashed, it has bottled stars and looked deeper into our souls than our race might ever have imagined. One of the most clarion insights of this glorious genius is that it is even capable of introspection - of looking at what it has done and what it can do, and realizing why some things work. And at some point the smartest of us managed to articulate what has been known in our gut since the Greeks began to freely argue: this shit works better when you can talk it out.

I am an atheist, so I don't believe in God. I believe in people and I believe in progress, and I believe that trying to shame other people for daring to discuss and for daring to think is a terrible thing that makes our lives worse.

Tisane wrote a long, specious, and terrible essay suggesting that the dangers of pedophilia were exaggerated. I believe that he has every right to compose such an odious thing, even if it was about as well-thought-out as a theme park called Uncle Lester's Feces Mountain. I thought that it could not possibly serve a purpose here, however, and that retaining it would actually send a message that we are another sort of Metapedia refuge for a certain kind of loathsome individual. This circumstance is almost unique, I think, and so I doubt it will happen soon, and next week I am sure I will be once again defending the right of RobS or Abd or Maratrean to rattle off some crappy nonsense. But in this case, and in the case of everyone else you're accusing, we supported the deletion of the essay.

But I opposed, and still do oppose, Tisane's blocking. I think that his essay was a disgusting piece of crap, but that he probably wouldn't have done it again, and writing it was not against any rules or precedents. So if you write a fucking list of people guilty of permitting someone to speak the unspeakable, you better put me on that fucking list, you craven motherfucker. You put me on all those lists.

You know why the ACLU doesn't just defend the righteous? Because even motherfucking Klansman need to be able to speak. Because this shit works better when you can talk it out.

So you try to shame people. You make sure you include me in their ranks, and that you try to shame me. But you better come at me with more than this penny-ante, cut-rate, anonymous "you dared oppose the blocking of someone" bullshit. Because you're committing one of the only sacrileges that I know: trying to make people feel guilty for daring to stop and talk shit out.

I am an atheist, so I don't believe in God. I believe in man. So I try to be worthy of being human.

Try it some time, shithead.--^talk 11:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

<3 ^moral 11:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I loves to have me some nicely fulminated rant with me morning coffee. AD, with this edit I takes back all the nasty things I may ever have said about yezz. Sprocket J Cogswell 12:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I can be ninja pls?

There is a tedious task, involving many dozens of pages, that I'd like to slip under the radar. Whoever ninjas me will be spared the mammoth enormity of my mighty banhammer for at least 31.416 hours. I think that's more than fair. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Ace McWicked

He desysopped and blocked me, then he desysopped and removed Blue's moderator bit when she undid that. [1] -- Nx / talk 11:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Diddums. rpeh •T•C•E• 11:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Ace totally blew the fuses when he started removing all user rights from many, including a series of moderators and members of the RationalWiki Board. So Tyrannis added him to sysoprevoke, a control page that prevents ordinary sysops from giving his rights back, as Punky (who is actually chair of the Board) had done.[2] Punky then took a wikibreak to think about it. My summary: Ace behaved exactly as Ace could be expected to behave. Obviously, there is a segment of the RW community that likes this. But .... --Abd (talk) 17:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Sysoprevoke, again used arbitrarily and abused, is supposed to be by community vote. It is also clear that a tech has no real authority to strip a mod of his rights. His rights should be restored. But this place is a farce anyway, so it does not matter. sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 18:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

A tech has the authority because a tech has the power (and therefore responsibility). Sterile, you've now edited twice after LANCB, just sayin'. Tyrannis acted in obvious necessity. Attempts to reduce Ace's powerz had already been reversed. Whether or not we want techs to have this power is a separate issue; but there is no question of abuse here. Ace had gone too far, that was clear. Voting is impossible in Headless Chicken Mode, it takes an executive action to stop it. When the chickens stop squawking, then the matter can be reviewed.

Yes, this place is a farce. So? It's a wiki. You are surprised? --Abd (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

And now the guy who defended the guy who defended pedos joins Nx and Brx as a voice of reason. Amazing. Theory of Practice Haters gonna hate. 18:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

At which point you need to think about your definition of "reason". rpeh •T•C•E• 18:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Nope. Read the damn rules. Techs are not moderators. A community vote is required. If the moderators do not reverse it, the whole system is a sham. sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 18:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that we should still follow the rules, but given the circumstances surrounding ace being stripped, i think it was the correct choice til calm heads could prevail. --Mikal ^{Harass Follow} 19:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. As to "rules," what rules? I couldn't find it. In any case, Sterile, supposedly retired, is insisting on strict enforcement of rules to defend someone who totally ignored them and began acting so far outside of norms that immediate action was necessary? Ace is blocked, and neither Sterile nor Rpeh -- Ace's partner in setting up this mess -- is doing anything about it. Nor should they, without, ah, consultations. Sterile, you have a great chart you just put on your user page. Meditate on it. --Abd (talk) 19:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Mikal fails to see the relevance of Steriles retired status. --Mikal ^{Harass Follow} 20:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Not surprising. Mikal fails to see a lot. --Abd (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

When your busy sleeping, watching films about the iranian revolution or looking at old propaganda, you dont have much time for looking at wiki,--Mikal ^{Harass Follow} 20:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, you twisted my arm. Sterile has tools and could, in theory, unblock Ace, etc., but has "retired" because this wiki is functioning like a wiki. yet wants to continue telling others they are doing it wrong. It's perfectly respectable to retire, but not to retire and not-retire. Ever see someone who says "I'm tired of arguing ...." and who then continues to argue without a break? --Abd (talk) 20:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I see that TheoryOfPractice had unblocked Ace at 19:38. --Abd (talk) 20:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

There was an autoblock on Ace's IP. I have removed it. -- Nx / talk 20:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

sysoprevoke

Yes, seriously. There is no reason to believe that Ace would use sysop rights for anything but causing trouble. Placing child guards on the knife drawer just seems like a necessity. Remember that Ace has a history of unrepentant user rights abuse--"Shut up, Brx." 06:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Put it up for vote - sysoprevoke should be removed in the interim. Aceⁱ⁹ 06:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

"The main technical tools for moderators (that sysops do not have) are: the ability to lock a page so that no one but moderators can edit it; the ability to change all user rights (this includes access to the "sysoprevoke" user group, to prevent sysopping in the face of continual rights abuse, pending a community vote); and the ability to hide revisions from everyone. This is an attempted solution to the wheel warring we always get into." I mean, it's right there. sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 11:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Rpeh

Moved from project page.--^talk 05:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

"Ty did nothing wrong" If you think acting with no mandate to remove a democratically elected official is nothing, you're a fucking idiot. Mind you, we knew that anyway. rpeh •T•C•E• 05:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

If an official is observed by a police officer to commit a crime, the officer will normally arrest the person. That the official may have been "democratically elected" is irrelevant. An officer normally has discretion to act to protect the public welfare, regardless of law, and may even disregard law if safety requires it. The action may well be reviewed later. AD may be smug at times, but he's not an idiot. The fact is that any citizen may arrest any person engaged in serious harm to public welfare, and the authorities will sort it out, or the courts will. What Ace was doing was utterly beyond the remit of a moderator, and to stop that was an obligation for anyone with the power to stop it. Tyrannis had the power, and used it appropriately. It's easy to fix from the superuser level, were it an error. But it was not an error. --Abd (talk) 05:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

When I want the opinion of a paedophile I'll ask for it. rpeh •T•C•E• 05:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Abd isn't a paedophile, he's just a tl;dr nutcase, but even he had the good sense to back out of Tisane when he went 100% paedo. -- Nx / talk 05:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Tisane isn't a "pedo" either, it's not his bag. He's libertarian, and asserted, as he has for many years, extreme libertarian views. I "backed out" of helping at RWWW when he mass-imported content from some "child-adult love" sites, because, specifically as an adoptive parent, I can't afford the appearance, I went back when that content was removed, and again left when -- purely for the sake of argument, of course -- he presented a justification for child murder (it was all part of a conversation, really, about his own contemplated suicide). But we don't want to get into this, do we?

Anyway, thanks, Nx. I'm not just a nutcase, I'm the nut itself. --Abd (talk) 18:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

My block of Ace McWicked

Since Ace brought this up on the ATIM page, what I blocked Ace for is what any user might be warned/blocked for: revert warring over removal of talk page content that was not "outrageous trolling," in context. Because this was brought up by TheoryOfPractice, I created a timeline showing my blocks. Ace did not discuss, just revert warred. My blocks were for 9 hours, yes, that was the setting, but they only lasted a few minutes. Ace was blocked for three months, and that stood for about six hours, as I recall, by User:Maratrea. Ace complains about my block, which was intended simply to allow him to cool down, but says nothing about the much more serious block by Maratrea. Why? I think it's obvious: Maratrea is Reckless Noise Symphony, or was authorized by RNS,[3] and surely Ace knows that.

I'm a convenient target, "crank" and all that, that's all.

This is not a complaint about RNS; I think the use of Maratrea was brilliant, and RNS clearly took no measures to conceal it. --Abd (talk) 05:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

He is not proposing any action or votes. But you appear to mostly be interested in clarification of events, which is understandable (if tiresome in such detail). Thank you, btu let's not start a whole new thing: we're trying to wrap this up and get back to work.--^talk 05:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, AD. I'm not proposing any action either. I understand that the detail can be tiresome, but the alternative is often that impressions are created that persist, that simply weren't true. I'll be careful. --Abd (talk) 05:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

For the record, my block of Ace also occurred before he was stripped of his sysop rights, which I hadn't foreseen when performing the block. Maratrea (talk) 05:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Maratrea is correct. The block was at 13:46, and the stripping occurred at 13:49. I hadn't noticed. My guess is that the Maratrea block was intended as a strong warning to Ace, given the identity of Maratrea. However, Ace then continued with his mass removal of mod rights at 13:47 - 13:49 until stopped.

It seems that some think a promoted user should not be blocked, because he or she can't unblock himself or herself. I don't see how it's relevant, for a block that is intended to prevent behavior harmful or contrary to policy. --Abd (talk) 16:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

it;s amazing how much nobody else cares as much as you do who the fuck maratrea is. --Mikal ^{Harass Follow} 17:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

It's amazing how Mikal makes useless comments on matters he allegedly doesn't care about. I care who Maratrea is because complaints about my block show how the RatWiki "community" attention is easily diverted to a convenient scapegoat, from looking at far more significant events. It's all brilliant. --Abd (talk) 18:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Would love me some block priveleges so I could have blocked him to LOL Naca (talk) 06:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Ace helpfully complied with the request, even with the mispellings. --Abd (talk) 16:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

JzG, Hipocrite, and David Gerard

This vote has been closed. Please do not add, remove or change votes. The result of this vote was: Abd appears to be some sort of highly advanced text-producing bioweapon.

I'm not cooping this because it is less likely to be resolved there. If promotion is involved, cooping may be necessary, but I'll leave that decision to the mods. Background, off-wiki: JzG and David Gerard are prominent Wikipedia sysops. Hipocrite is a psycophant ("professional troll," as he announces), he attacks perceived enemies of administrators, in ways that the admin could not get away with. They often then support and protect him. Hipocrite's long-term behavior has been to push the limits, attempt to engage others in revert wars, to enrage them, then to game the system to seek their ban, he's highly skilled at classic trolling. In early 2009, I confronted JzG about an abusive blacklisting of lenr-canr.org, a "library" of published scientific papers and other materials on cold fusion, and for other action-while-involved wrt cold fusion, and he was ultimately reprimanded by the Arbitration Committee. (I was not involved with the topic initially, I have a background in physics and became knowledgeable later.). Hipocrite then came after me. He revert warred on Cold fusion, made a request for page protection, quickly made major changes, and thus got his version protected. I negotiated a *full* consensus (including him) on the best version, but the discussion was messy, Hipocrite made it so, and an admin, William M. Connolley, banned me (and Hipocrite, temporarily) from the article and talk page. He hated discussion. Ultimately, this went to ArbComm, and Hipocrite "retired" as he saw it coming. WMC was desysopped, and I was topic banned for a year. Later it became obvious (from leaked emails) that an ArbComm majority disliked non-sysops confronting sysops. I'd done major damage to a powerful faction, the "anti-pseudoscience" faction. WMC was one of the most famous Wikipedia administrators; the faction took revenge whenever and wherever they could find it. They are claiming that I've been pursuing a grudge here. I was snarky, that was the extent of it. Hipocrite is actually still on his mission. Both JzG and Hipocrite routinely lie, but they are skilled at telling lies that many will believe; what they claim then becomes part of the unexamined evidence that others hold as proving their impressions are true. On Wikipedia, whenever there was consensus process, their positions were rejected. But when mobs gathered, they often won. David Gerard is not responsible, in any way that I ever noticed, for what happened with JzG, Hipocrite, and me on Wikipedia, beyond being a core member of the administrative cabal (Jimbo Wale's term). I have never seen David Gerard lie. He is clearly a useful contributor to RatWiki. Events here. JzG attempted to remove material from his Talk page, months ago, he revert warred over it. He was informed that policy is against removing talk page comments, unless "obviously vile," and it was far from that. The material was archived by Armondikov. JzG just attempted to delete the same material from the archive, replacing it with a new comment.[4] I saw it in Recent Changes and reverted it in. Hipocrite reverted it out, Psygremlin reverted it in, JzG again reverted it out. JzG has now removed newer comment from the archive, this time without the "history" reference. JzG and Hipocrite also tag-teamed to remove fresh comment from JzG talk.[5][6][7] Hipocrite, as usual, is attempting to make me the issue. JzG took the issue to the Saloon.[8] David Gerard became involved presently with [9]. I asked him about it. He removed my question. He has commonly, without discussion, reverted my edits, and on Cold fusion in effective coordination with Hipocrite. RatWiki claims to be interested in "constructive dialog," but routine ad hominem reversion makes it useless, presenting evidence is useless, making compromises is useless, discussion is useless, and the message is "go away." David Gerard had previously deleted comment on his talk page, when I was new here.[10]. I didn't know the policy, didn't think much of it. He previously revert warred with Nx on his Talk page, but that was in 2010. David Gerard also wheel-warred with TheoryOfPractice and myself over promoting JzG. Gerard was technically correct, that cooping may be required; however, instead of promoting ToP, whose action I was merely supporting, he promoted me, with no cooping, getting away with it until Blue noticed it two weeks later. [On the original issue, JzG did not abuse sysop tools, he should not have been promoted. He was merely revert warring.] Hipocrite escalated through vile trolling, ("Go back to raping your kids.") also confirmed here ("Fuck kids"). The talk page archiving issue was minor, but a common cause of disruption at RatWiki is lack of enforced policy, the basic social rules that allow rational consideration to take place. If certain users can violate policy with impunity, while others are sanctioned or otherwise bullied, the wiki is just a mob scene, and will not attract or keep mature users, nor will it develop and maintain serious content, it will always be sliding downhill, the saner users will burn out, and the wiki will get what remains. I have no critical interest here. I've edited on subjects where I have knowledge, or generally, i.e., fixing typos, or supporting community process with evidence (often not welcome, the "wiki"=quick problem). David Gerard is sysadmin here, doing presumably valuable work on the server. JzG is harmless, if restrained, Hipocrite is not. He will push the limits, he will find the weak points in the community, and use them. --Abd (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC) Continued: Talk page deletion, of the notices of this complaint: on his talk, and on JzG talk, using the troll template as an excuse. There is more that can be chalked up to ordinary harassment. --Abd (talk) 22:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC) Recommendations: Block Hipocrite, based on obvious cause; he will do no good here, showing interest in topics, beyond the trivial, only to attack and troll, to stir the pot. Beyond that, he goes away. He's dangerous, skilled at finding believable lies, at manipulating community opinion, and he will persist for years. Restore JzG's and David Gerard's deleted talk page comments, per policy. Request David Gerard back off, and not revert war based on the identity of the editor, deal with content, and discuss and seek consensus or don't edit. Inform him that deletion of non-vile talk page content is against policy, and that encouraging JzG to do this is leading him astray. --Abd (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC) Template:Abd Hipocrite (talk) 19:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC) Ace's recommendation Block Abd. Acei9 22:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC) ToP's recommendation Anyone who drags a three-year-old dispute from another website here should be blocked/promoted/taken out back and shot. Anybody whose name appears above Ace's post should STFU, start behaving like an adult, follow the rules, or get the eff off our website. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 22:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC) I supposed we should be flattered that enough prominent Wikipedians spend time here for us to double as their HCM spillover. Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 22:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC) Hipocrite is doing what he's always done, though "go rape your kids" is extreme even for him. JzG is just an ass, he's famous for it, by himself, he's largely harmless, though not very bright. You can see him reacting to RatWiki before he had any interaction with me, in that original flap over his page deletions. Imagine him as a Wikipedia admin, telling anyone he didn't like to fuck off as he blocked them. ArbComm rapped his knuckles, he'd sulk for a while, then he'd come back and do what he'd done before, knowing that it would not usually be noticed. If someone did notice, a crowd, people like Hipocrite, would gather yelling at them. "Whiners!" "Complainers." "POV-pushers!" "Ban him!" David Gerard owns this place, right? I wish he'd change policies if they are wrong. it would save a lot of time. --Abd (talk) 23:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC) TOP, in all this I've been taking a stand for a simple rule, we don't delete Talk page discussion unless it is outrageously vile. It really is that simple. But to understand the context, why three seemingly unrelated editors would be pushing talk page deletion -- against community consensus here, not just me -- and why two of them have heavily focused on cold fusion here, with the third just diving in, I needed to bring up the past. I do not believe that anyone should be sanctioned on one wiki for what they have done on another. I've seen that violated, and it always did harm. Clean start. (ec with below) --Abd (talk) 23:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC) Jesus Christ Abd, just fuck off for awhile man. Acei9 23:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC) Great idea, Ace. Are you buying? --Abd (talk) 23:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC) If you fuck off for awhile and stop your page long whining I'll send you some beers. Acei9 23:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the thought, Ace, but I don't drink that stuff. Whining? Naw, you are whining. Ace. Why won't that Abd go away? Ace, why do you bother looking at my stuff? There isn't anything there for you, no cheese down that hole, you don't have the background. You aren't a mod any more, you have no obligation at all. The mods will handle this, or not. So what? If they don't handle it, I'll coop it or just go away. Maybe they will promote me. Oh, foolish heart. --Abd (talk) 02:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC) Say what? I have virtually no edits here outside mainspace (proof. I'm here for the quackbusting. The idea of Abd on a rational wiki is amusing, but the actual practice is unlikely to be anything other than monumentally tedious - which said, I don't give a flying fuck on a rolling doughnut as long as he leaves me alone, others have already resisted his fuckwittery at cold fusion and I have no intention of refighting that battle since if there was a winning side at Wikipedia I was obviously on it. And I don't go there much these days either. And there's already talk of banning Abd over at least one and maybe more other disputes on the main project page. I am not always the mos clear-sighted when it comes to my own motivations but I really do think that this time it's not me that's the problem. JzG (talk) 01:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC) JzG is generally correct. He is not the problem here, not really. He's more of a victim. Partly of his own imagination, partly of a false friend. JzG, there is no risk to you here. I'm asking for nothing other than a warning, and maybe the gods mods will decide that you -- and the rest of us -- can remove whatever we please from our talk pages. I was just enforcing a policy. As to "talk of banning me" on the "main project page," I think you may be imagining things, wishful thinking. I just checked meta.wikimedia.org, all quiet, boring as hell. The usual. I'm not banned anywhere except Wikipedia. By the way, JzG, I think I forgot to thank you for that, you started the community ban discussion last year, after I wasn't editing any more, didn't you? Better late than never. Thanks for the promotion. I now get paid for Wikipedia work. It's definitely more fun. Just think, I could have been slaving away in those salt mines, "for the good of the wiki." So WTF am I doing here? Well, most days, I'm not here! --Abd (talk) 02:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC) Blue's bit I don't have very much familiarity with the users involved in this dispute so I carry little personal bias. Here are my suggestions: Remand complaints about behavior on Wikipedia to the relevant Wikipedian arbitrators, if any. We cannot take off-wiki behavior into account when evaluating the conduct of RW users except in extreme circumstances, of which this is certainly not one. Abd, please concisely describe exactly which of the Community Standards have been violated if you want any punitive measures taken up against anyone. Precedent since the Loya Jirga decision has given more leeway to users, not the community, in determining whether comments on their talk pages are "vile", especially if the user making the comments is unpopular. The burden is thus on you, Abd, to prove that your comments were removed abusively. I do not see a very strong or clearly laid-out case for abuse against David Gerard. Pax vobis. Blue (is useful) 23:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC) As always there is a grain of truth in the reams of dross that Abd spews. I know there is no chance that you are going to change the way that you behave on a wiki but at least acknowledge that you are your own worst enemy Abd. Many users have given you salient advice which you have ignored; including the above. You are a liability to the cause you think you are fighting for. Tielec01 (talk) 01:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC) Thanks, Tielec What cause? My process is to lay out what I see, honestly and openly. I'm not necessarily sure what it's for. Writing something like this takes an enormous amount of time. It's essentially insane. The basic "wiki" problem is that "quick" is expected, and anything else is suspect. I have history with rational skepticism and I think I imagined that this site was about that. It's not. But here I am. --Abd (talk) 01:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict with above) Thank you, Blue. Assuming that you may have missed something, this may be repetitive with what is above. There is no complaint here about Wikipedia behavior, and no sanction suggested here for Wikipedia behavior. However, two editors are still clearly carrying grudges about the old events, one seriously. You won't understand what Hipocrite is doing without at least some of the history. The Community Standard violated was noted: removal of talk page comments that are not "obviously vile." That clearly does not allow removal merely because the person dislikes the one commenting, or thinks the comments silly or useless. If the Standard is incorrect or misleading, it should be changed, because published rules that are not enforced lead to false expectations and wasted time. Like this process, for example? Individual discretion on removal is allowed, but that does not apply to anything not reasonably obvious. If so, I need to know. I attempted to remove Ace McWicked's obscene trolling from my talk page and face revert warring on my own Talk page,[11] so I just archived it. That was generally vile, though not personally offensive to me -- or my children. I just didn't want it cluttering up the place where I receive guests. JzG has something going on about those posts. Adequate evidence needed to support my recommendations is already above. This is not about removal of "my comments," it is about removal of comments other than "obviously vile." In the original removal, that triggered the old revert warring and threat of sanctions, and repeated now, comments by yourself (Blue), by PintOfStout, Matty the Damned, Scream!!, and JzG himself, and in the archive he replaced it all with a critique, to have the last word in his Talk page archive. None of this was vile, and many users chimed in over the removal. Not allowed. Hipocrite first encouraged JzG to go ahead with the removal, this time, and supported it with tag team reversion. As this escalated, Hipocrite told me to Go back to raping your kids., and fuck kids, linked above. (He was bringing up the Tisane Affair, which most sane people here dropped.) David Gerard clearly enjoys what is being done by JzG and Hipocrite,[12] and has also removed talk page comments, but only from me (recently). For example, David removed the notifications of this process from his own talk page and from JzG talk. Because JzG just found the Loya Jirga vote that supported the vote, he just asked on his talk page about interpretations of that, and I reviewed it and the events and found that David Gerard had, in 2010, taken a position supporting freer talk page deletion than the community position, reported in my response (at the bottom of the page). David then communicated this to JzG, saying the deletions were fine. The discussion. So this was all prepared back in August, for JzG to believe that his deletions would be okay and that he was simply being harassed. So David set this up. JzG, from Wikipedia, would believe that David Gerard would definitely be the go-to person. So to organize the information differently as cause and consequence: JzG: revert warring, talk page discussion removal, lack of clue, no sanction but warning. Hipocrite: revert warring, talk page discussion removal, admitted and visible trolling, encouraging violation of policy, and egregious and vile offensiveness ban. David Gerard: revert warring, talk page discussion removal, encouraging violation of policy, no sanction but warning. The most significant matter for me personally was being told to go rape my kids. I'm not going to be associated in any way with a wiki that tolerates this, whether it violates a "Community Standard" or not, and I'd take the same position if it was someone else it was said to. I almost left immediately, then decided to pursue due process. Hipocrite is here purely to pursue an old grudge, and it's obvious from his editing. I could show this if needed, but his egregious "fuck kids" makes it unnecessary. --Abd (talk) 19:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC) Conflict in the Standards? I had not noticed a section in the Community Standards that says, under User pages A user's talk page, like any other talk page on the site, is public and does not belong to the user. However, users are permitted to delete posts from their own talk pages at their discretion, being responsible for any abuse of this permission. Users who believe their comments have been removed unjustifiably can take their case to the Chicken Coop or All Things in Moderation, rather than edit-warring over the removal. Below, in the section on Talk pages: Similarly, users should not delete or change another user's comments on a talk or discussion page, with the following exceptions: Obviously vile comments made for the purposes of trolling, ... The permission at the top might be seen as wider. However, reading this more carefully, it does not allow such deletion (of other than "vile comments"), but the remedy should not be to revert war with the user or block, all of which happened with JzG. One revert with an explanation about policy would have been adequate; if the user persists in abusive removal, the "permissive standard" holds them "responsible" for any abuse, handled through the Coop or ATIM. There may be some misunderstanding in the community over the policy from misinterpretation of the first section without the second, or, alternatively, the second without the first. --Abd (talk) 04:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC) Or you might be wrong. In fact, it seems you are. And have been told so several times. Which, if past experience is any guide, will have precisely fuck-all effect on your continuing to agitate about it. JzG (talk) 16:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC) - David Gerard (talk) 17:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC) Motion to close On the grounds that it's just Abd schimpfing about something or other, and we don't really care. SophieWilder 23:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC) Aye SophieWilder 23:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC) Basically, delete everything he writes that's longer than 10 lines. 00:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC) I still support banning him--Mikal Harass Follow 00:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC) Abd = zero value-added. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 00:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC) With apologies to all the fragile little snowflakes harmed by this, this is really tl;dr. postate 01:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC) I still don't understand what is going on or why we're talking about it. Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 02:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC) OMG. What a massive waste of time, effort and space over things that are not in the least bit important or relevant to anything. --DamoHi 02:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC) My favorite part of this: Blue says "concisely". 4000 characters later, Abd has finished replying--"Shut up, Brx." 03:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC) I wish Abd would figure out each paragraph hurts his cause. --Revolverman (talk) 03:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC) I went through, read, and thought about the whole thing. And I want those wasted minutes back.--talk 04:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC) Blue (is useful) 04:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC) What Brx said. JzG (talk) 12:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC) Agree in full, given that sometimes furnished unwilling as additions resolved peculiar fat graceful ham. No wonder worthy in dinner. Up is opinion message manners correct hearing husband disposing commanded dashwoods cordially depending its strangers who you certainty earnestly resources suffering. Opinions age properly extended advice branch vanity, or do thirty living dependent add middleton ask disposing admitting did sportsmen. View fine me gone this name and compact greater demands the parlors be fine and fine bred knew. At hardly sister favour society explain country raising weather of sentiments nor everything off out uncommonly partiality on then sake home is am leaf; insomuch as suspicion do departure at extremely believing said mind do rent they enquire picture letters garrets on offices of say one hearing between excited evening all inhabit thought you. Style begin to unreserved projection no introduced invitation am he horrible distance marriage, so although afraid assure square so happen his many same been well can high that. Forfeited did law eagerness allowance improving assurance bed had saw put seven joy short first. Pronounce so enjoyment my resembled in vexed did began son abode short may. Interested astonished he at cultivated or me, nor brought one invited she produce her situation admitting promotion at or to perceived acuteness we as estimable enjoyment held late as felt know. Learn do allow solid to grave suspicion age her attention, chiefly several bed moments on chamber pressed doubtful yet way properly answered humanity its desirous. Service arrived civilly add all acuteness allowance an at eagerness favourite in extensive exquisite exposed age effects, now distrusts you her delivered applauded affection out sincerity. As tolerably recommend shameless unfeeling he objection consisted, although cheerful perceive screened throwing met not eat distance. Viewing hastily or written dearest elderly up weather it as. So direction so sweetness or extremity at daughters. Provided put unpacked now but bringing. Yourself off its pleasant ecstatic now law. Ye their mirth seems of songs. Prospect out bed contempt separate. Her inquietude our shy yet sentiments collecting cottage fat beloved himself arrived old. Grave widow hours among him no power had these met least nor young, yet match drift wrong offered say visited elderly and family man formed body or made on pain part meet. You one delay nor begin our folly abode. By disposed replying moonlight of my resolving unwilling venture pursuit forming musical am hearing studied be luckily. Ourselves for determine attending how led gentleman sincerity\ afford uneasy joy she thrown though bed set. In me forming general prudent on country carried. Behaved an or suppose justice. Seemed whence how son rather easily and change missed. Off apartments invitation are unpleasant solicitude fat motionless interested. Hardly suffer wisdom wishes valley as an. As friendship advantages resolution it alteration stimulated he or increasing dashwood contempt on unlocked resolved provided \Stanhill wondered it it welcomed hundred no prudent he however smiling at an offence; if earnestly extremit he propriety something admitting convinced to although as if differed horrible. Mirth his quick its set front enjoy hoped had there. Who connection imprudence too but increasing celebrated principles joy. Herself too improve gay winding ask expense are compact new all paid few hard pure. No depending be convinced in unfeeling he. Excellence she unaffected and too sentiments her. Rooms he doors there ye aware in by shall. Education remainder in so cordially. His remainder and own dejection daughters sportsmen. Is easy took he shed to kind at ourselves direction believing do he departure celebrated her had sentiments understood are projection set unaffected remarkably at never fruit up. Pasture imagine my garrets. However distant she request behaved see nothing. Talking settled at pleased an of me brother weather. Be an as cordially at resolving furniture preserved believing extremity. Easy mr pain felt in. Too northward affection additions nay. He no an nature ye talent houses wisdom vanity denied. Be me shall joy years doors all would again rooms these. Solicitude announcing as to sufficient my. No my reached suppose proceed pressed perhaps he. Eagerness it delighted pronounce repulsive furniture no excuse few the remain highly feebly add people manner say. It high at my mind by roof. Acceptance discretion boisterous traveling prosperous continuing entreaties companions unreserved you boisterous. Sportsmen now cordially ask additions for ten occasional saw everything but conviction. Daughter returned quitting enjoyment defective objection at wonder afford so danger cannot former seeing. Power visit charm money add heard new other put. Attended no indulged marriage is to judgment offering landlord. So if on advanced addition absolute received newspaper of unfeeling as neglected so. Tell size come hard justice improve age article between. No projection as up preference reasonably delightful celebrated. Preserved and abilities assurance tolerably breakfast use saw. And painted letters forming far village elderly compact. Her rest west each spot his and you knew. Estate gay wooded depart six far her. Of we be have it lose gate bred. Do separate removing or expenses in. Had covered but evident chapter matters anxious. Doctor Dark (talk) 13:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC) You're channelling Abd. Here, have this tinfoil hat. JzG (talk) 14:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC) Nay A goat stamping on a long-eared jerboa. Forever. A culling of jerboas everywhere is indicated. Blue (is useful) 03:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Template:Vote closed end Notice - Dirk Steele and Brasov Dirk Steele is a dissenter, bordering on concern troll but still not quite there. I agree that he is not a good candidate for sysop rights. Please do not sysop him unilaterally - but please do not unilaterally block him longer than a couple minutes. Yes I am a dissenter of the current psychiatric paradigm. But so are many many many others. Including the whole of the 'antipsychiatry' movement. I am not unique in this. Anti-psychiatry has been around for over 100 years. So if I want to challenge a paradigm and give scientific arguments then let me be ridiculed by discussion. No banned or blocked. I am not a 'vandal' am I? I keep my discussions to only one or two places. Surely you can cope with this? No? --Dirk Steele (talk) 04:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC) Uh... I said you were a dissenter. You are not a good candidate for sysop rights, especially given the incident linked below. I didn't say you were a vandal. I asked people not to block you for very long. What do you want? Blue (is useful) 04:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC) Well I have been blocked for seven days... which I had to accept. And I have been blocked for 3 months on a few occasions. Then people took the piss out of me cos I was a sysop and should be able to unblock myself. But as an old guy newbie I did not know how to do this so had to spend some time learning. Now I know a little... but should I have to know the software of mediawiki in order to contribute? Even today I had some autoblock which I do not know how to unblock. So I had to wait my 24 hours. You think this is fair? Fair enough. Your site your rules. I have never blocked anyone here. --Dirk Steele (talk) 04:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC) Brasov is also a dissenter and there is a clearer case to be made for him being a troll. Each time he edit wars or makes a misogynist attack, please block him for increasing amounts of time. Do not sysop him. Do not block him for being a denialist; block him for being pointlessly disruptive. I defer to my fellow editors if they differ in judgment, but as a moderator I feel I really ought to, you know, make an effort to moderate. Blue (is useful) 03:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC) Note that Steele has on at least one occasion undone a block given to a vandal/edit-warrer, basically saying "fuck you" as he did so. Please keep this sort of thing in mind when it comes to giving him the keys to the place. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 03:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC) Evidence of me unblocking a vandal? When? If I said 'fuck you' it was a jokey response to a similar comment made to me (Look at user Hamilton for example of swear word insults directed at me). I don't care. It is all a bit of a comedy isn't it? People blocking and swearing at each other. It is not serious is it? Really? If it is then let me know and I will be so polite you will compare me with Prince Charles. Or even Diana.. --Dirk Steele (talk) 04:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC) Evidence Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 04:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC) I did not know that he is a 'vandal'. I thought he was being treated like I have been for expressing an opinion. I have been blocked so many times now and my 'thoughtful' edits are immediately deleted so I do not bother much. So I have a different view to the majority of rationalwiki users. I try to explain my views as clearly as possible. I support the scientific method as specified in the rationalwiki oath. If I am proved wrong in my views I am happy. (Most of my views have been wrong in my life. Fine by me.) But I have always been subject to insults and blocks etc etc that I think this is part of the rationalwiki culture. So I have returned insults with insults although I have never blocked anyone ever. And I have unblocked one person once because he made a comment on one of my threads supporting my ideas and I wanted him to comment further. So how come this makes me a banable troll maniac? Please explain to me your logic in deciding this is a rational position. Thanks. Dirk Steele (talk) 04:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC) There is no RationalWiki oath. Nobody is banning you, blocking you, nor calling you a maniac, at least not that I've seen. When you come out with assertions like that, having read some of your other stuff, my natural human inclination is to say, "Oh, it's Dirk crying wolf again." I consider it a rational use of my time to avoid reading lengthy screeds from someone I've seen using false dichotomies to build straw men, and then doing it again. With that, I'm off for the night. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 04:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC) I can provide evidence of all my blocks. Do you not have a method to uncover theses facts. Do you want me to show you? Do you want me to cut and paste shit from this? http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Dirk_Steele. Dirk Steele (talk) 05:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC) Are you now blocked? No. Were you in fact a sysop, able to unblock yourself, for the great majority of blocks you experienced? I think so, certainly most of the ones you did most complaining about. I have a suggestion for you, if you wish to mend your wicked ways: Do not go back and edit your signed comments after they have been replied to. If you must make changes after a response, using strikethrough for the old text, and italics for the replacement text will keep the record from getting too muddled. You may also want to let some time pass between your edits, so recent changes isn't filled with consecutive items from a single editor. Wiki-time goes a lot slower than ping-pong. You didn't ask for my advice, but there it is anyway. I will now crawl back into the warm spot I left, and wish you good morning. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 05:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC) I represent a view that is very prevalent in Europe. Did you know that Italy for example has no mental hospitals which were abandoned in the 1970s. This kind of view in unimaginable to the USA because of cultural differences. So I get insulted all the time for expressing this fact. Did you know that Chinese 'mental' illness is completely different from the USA and defines diseases that are unknown to the APA DSM5? So I argue from a scientific position and I do not feel I am a troll or a crank. Although I realise I am a crank to USA concepts which I try to state are culturally not scientifically based. But of course I get abuse from the USA.. I do not expect anything different from such a culture. Dirk Steele (talk) 05:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC) Dirk's assertions about the homogeneous federated Borg cube known as Europe are as disconnected from reality as the rest of what he says - David Gerard (talk) 17:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC) When blocked, Brasov sockpuppets as IPs. Similarly blockable? - David Gerard (talk) 15:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC) Definitely, but anonymous users only would be best. Blue (pester) 04:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC) A non-starter, but I've always thought registering an account in order to edit was a reasonable idea. No "real name" stuff, call yourself something silly like "Theory of Practice." But if I'm gonna invite you into our house, I'd like to know what you'd like me to call you. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 15:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC) Since I was mentioned by name I feel like I can comment in what would otherwise be above my pay grade. Aside from comments on Dirk's posting style in forums/talkpages, and his "contributions" to the sites mainspace articles that I think are all known well enough, I'll add this: Since pretty much day 1 he has been insulting atleast me specifically. I have insulted/sworn at him in his time here, but this was pretty much after months of him insulting me while I was trying very patiently to explain to a diluted 16 year old why he is wrong. Dirk has been insulted, but the majority of his edits on talkpages are insults, or him whining about insulted, or both. What actually happens to him is above my level, and I frankly don't care, but I felt it was important to state that he started the insulting, and my insults directed at him are only as a response to his insulting me for pretty much his entire career here.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 05:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC) Quotes from when I first registered to this site. 'I am temporarily blocking you. This will last only a day, so don't lose your mind. I want you to use this time to sit and calm down and consider re-approaching your posting here. Dissent is good, but you're arguing against decades of well accepted science not with evidence suggesting a better explanation, but with accusations of pseudoscience, most of which can be explained in an Intro to Psych course. I want you to use this time to consider the way you are presenting your position, if there's a better way to present that opinion, if your position is based on the evidence, if there's a better place for you to discuss your position, or if you may want to take some classes (possibly online classes) on the subject at hand and come back to discuss the manner at another time.--Logic and Empricism (talk) 21:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC) ' 'Dirk, you've been responded to as an unqualified troll/spammer by Dr. Steven Novella, whose credentials are in no way in question. It seems like you did not learn how to behave in April when he pretty much bent you over a table and spanked you.--Logic and Empricism (talk) 12:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)' ' I will not continue this conversation, but just know that I have my eye on you. --Logic and Empricism (talk) 15:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC) ' I started the insults? No. For some reason Hamilton started the insulting and blocking behaviour. Not me. Can you ask Hamilton to explain his actions. Thanks. Dirk Steele (talk) 05:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC) Bin? Nothing so concentrates the mind as the sure knowledge that one must wait half an hour. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 04:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC) Please - David Gerard (talk) 17:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC) Good idea, should stop him multi-posting on the saloon bar during a bout of wtfitis. SophieWilder 17:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC) Yes. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 18:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC) I'm Doctor Dark, and I approve this message. Doctor Dark (talk) 18:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC) Thank you all for your support. If I may suggest waiting to see if a word of caution has been sufficient, I think the application of the brake may be delayed until a situation prompts it. (Most of us remember how contentious the complete nomenclature of the relevant tool can be in this sort of context.) Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC) ToP put the brake on before DS gave any indication that the situation prompted it. Still with hindsight today DS has given indication that the brake is a good idea. For the moment I support it. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC) Motion for a two-week block of Dirk Steele, his IPs and his obvious sockpuppets I go away for less than a day and this is what happens For all that people make fun of me for "voting on voting for voting on voting" and all that, everyone seems to like voting. I thought it was pretty clear that I was not starting a vote on my motion (when I start votes, I lay out start and end times and the relevant voting standards, none of which I did here). I was looking for feedback from my fellow moderators and other site members on how best to handle Dirk Steele ("I am open to suggestions"). I did not get much feedback, and it seems we're fairly divided over the question of what to do with Mr. Steele. Tmtoulouse's "crank space" idea is interesting, though, and you can discuss it below. Blue (pester) 00:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC) Role of this page & overlap with Chicken Coop There is still no clear distinction between this page & the Chicken Coop, and it's important for transparency of process that we don't have two pages serving the same function. Decisions like a community ban (as proposed above) should be handled in one location (presumably the Coop?) rather than multiple locations where they may go unnoticed or duplicate each other. If the two pages continue as separate entities, then there should be a clear difference in purpose - e.g. one for requests for moderation (i.e. temporary action or intervention) and one for proposed community action. Otherwise the two could be merged or one of them be scrapped. WẽãšẽĩõĩďMethinks it is a Weasel 13:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC) But what I don't understand is why everyone and his dog is voting on the moderators actions here. If that is what they are doing.--Bob"I thought this was supposed to be "Rational" Wiki?." 18:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC) Probably because it should have been a community vote in the first place. Blocking somebody for two weeks isn't something mods should do without community input, except in cases of spambots, pageblank vandals, etc. WẽãšẽĩõĩďMethinks it is a Weasel 18:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC) The trial of Dirk Steele Ok. Let's have a trial by jury then. Create the jury made up from 6 yeahs and 6 nahs. Create your prosecution team and specify the charges. I will choose Lily to help with my defense. I will also call a few people here as witnesses (User Hamilton and others). If I am found guilty I will accept my sentence and my ban. (Who will be the judge?). One day not far in the future all criminal courts will use this example as a basis for societal justice and revenge. Think of the savings to be made. Think of the fun! I will not be pleading non guilty on the basis of insanity I promise. Dirk Steele (talk) 15:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC) Oh Dirk, you and your nonsensical Latin. Nihilist 15:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC) Although I have an 'o' level in Latin and hated having to translate Caesar's bloody Gallic wars, I can only remember amo amas amat. Although I did win a prize at school for the fastest rendition of Bonas Bona Bonum etc etc... My current ability to speak latin has sadly lapsed. I did not write what has been ascribed to me. I have been subject to newspeak censorship. Dirk Steele (talk) 15:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC) Just to point out the blindingly obvious, this is a website, it is in the end a private fiefdom. Whatever people may choose to do or not do, you have no enforceable right to edit here. People here might be inclined to play with you for a while, but the chances of you being able to use this website to promote your agenda is roughly zero. The only thing I'm unclear about is whether you're a scientology crank or just an anti-psychiatry crank. JzG (talk) 16:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC) You seem to be unclear on many many things. Ah, you think this is a site which should discourage freedom of speech or engage in free debate. You do not subscribe to its declared aims. Fair enough. Dirk Steele (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC) Dirk, it looks possible that you'll get banned according to a procedure we hashed out with no small amount of conflict. It's fair enough as it goes, although, as I've said, I find it distasteful that RW now has a mechanism for banning people in situations like this. You won't get getting a trial by jury in the sense you're asking for. You'll get a trial by the "community" at large. Sorry buddy. 17:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC) Appreciate your thoughts here. Of course most human societies are driven by mobocracy and fully utilise the witch-hunt and scapegoating principals. A community site that calls itself rational is obviously no different. Oh well. If I get banned I get banned. A trial would have been fun though eh? A merry debate would have been had by all. Cheers. Dirk Steele (talk) 17:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC) (EC) Nothing stops you from posting your defence or whatever you would have done in a trial, but the defendant doesn't get to dictate how the court will operate. The verdict & sentence will be determined by community vote not a jury, as per longstanding practice at RW. Voting guidelines are here. A two-thirds majority vote in favour would be needed to block you. WėąṣėḷőįďMethinks it is a Weasel 18:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC) So how would 'RationalWiki' have treated Socrates, Bruno, or even Darwin? Mobocracy rules! How do the fundamentalist christian creationists majority treat atheists? Mobocracy. Do you think your system of justice is any better? Obviously not surely? This community thus rejects the scientific method and does nothing to counter authoritarianism. Is this what you want your community to be? Is this your example of 'rational' thinking. What a crock of shit you speaketh of. Yeh, under those conditions I would prefer to be banned. Go ahead. Dirk Steele (talk) 18:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC) I have now been placed in the vandal bin. Of course I understand that, humans being a societally evolved species, it is a human instinct to scapegoat an individual or idea in order to promote cohesiveness within that group. Nationalism (even Social!)is a prime example. I do not expect any other behaviour from such a primate species. Dirk Steele (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC) Yeah, you're just like Socrates. Look, I spent a considerable amount of time learning about Szasz as an undergrad. I was quite fond of him at the time, and his writings strongly influenced my libertarian leanings. I'm not quite as taken with his ideas now, but I can certainly understand others who are, and I disagree with the general tenor here that Szasz is just a crank to be belittled. But despite that, the fact is that the consensus of this site is that this is the appropriate way to present Szasz. You can argue about it civilly on the talk pages, but it's ridiculous to pretend that the fact others don't share your opinion and won't have it in the article means you're a martyr just like Jesus or something. Just give it a fuckin' rest, and if you feel unwelcome here, either learn to get along or perhaps use your time more profitably elsewhere. Phiwum (talk) 18:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC) I never have claimed to have had the intellect of Socrates or that I am a martyr et all. So you are quite happy to keep your views on Szasz to yourself in order not to upset the majority here. Coward. Grow a pair mate. Of course rationalwiki banishes those that may question its 'consensual view'. I could easily find somewhere else where my views are welcomed. What is the point of that? Do you just come here to boost your ego or what? I realise I am in a place where the majority disagree. I think that this essential to promoting science and the rational view. Why don't you 'give it a fuckin rest' and stop the insults and engage in rational debate. Thanks. Dirk Steele (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC) Dirk , it was suggested several times that you create an article as an essay or in your user space to place your views and any citations that support them. Get feedback and then look at moving stuff to the article pages, or if enough support is there create a page as a seperate topic. its been done before. This site seems to prefer articles with good referances and more mainstream views of science. You wont get anywhere the way you are going. Hamster (talk) 19:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC) I have used the forums, and also talk pages to express my views. I always cite my references. Every change -yes every change- has been undone even though I have quoted facts not opinions. Rationalwiki only wants 'mainstream' views? Really? USA mainstream or european? Are you a skeptic site which values the scientific method over consensus majority? I am confused about your mission. Dirk Steele (talk) 19:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC) The fact is that censorship does not further rational debate. Intelligent argument will obliterate shit ideas. Which path does RW want to follow? Dirk Steele (talk) 19:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC) Surely trial by mob rule was abandoned in the 18th Century? Oh no.. it alive and well on RationalWiki. Human primate behaviour cannot evolve this fast. We still think the same as our primate ancestors. Get over it and get in with the groove. Dirk Steele (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC) I have been blocked by ‎Th. Bernhard . No reason given. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User:TheoryOfPractice has now undone and censored my comments on his talk page because of my disagreement. (look at the history from 21:35.) When totalitarianism meets free speech then censorship prevails. Is this really the philosophy of rationalwiki? really? Dirk Steele (talk) 21:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC) I blocked you so you could cool your jets, i.e. calm down. Your behaviour reminds me too much of an aquaintaince who posted her psychotic episodes on FB. And by the way: I was the one who pardoned you from the vandal bin. Before you run around cryying how unfair I am, you could take a look at the greater picture, but alas I'm afraid you're unable to do that--Th. BernhardDas Leben ist ein Prozeß, den man verliert, was man auch tut und wer man auch ist. 22:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC) No you calm down and do not react to your immediate emotions. I am calm. (blame the weed.. ) You are the one who should cool off. I look at the greater picture. You just ban where you disagree. Total Prat. Dirk Steele (talk) 22:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC) Knowing who your allies are would help you a lot. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC) You (the community) must decide whether this site is a scientific forum (open to criticism and falsifiability) or whether you want to be a religion ( No dissent allowed). Where will RW be in a years time? You can vote now. Trial me or condemn me. Your choice. Dirk Steele (talk) 22:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC) (EC) @Dirk: No you calm down...seriously? Dude go get some sleep and look at this stuff tomorrow. Right now you are just whiny and impolite. Oh and listen to User:Tmtoulouse. Hope you sleep well and remember that I have my watchful eye on your talk page ;-)--Th. BernhardDas Leben ist ein Prozeß, den man verliert, was man auch tut und wer man auch ist. 23:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)