RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive9

This is an archive page, last updated 10 October 2014. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <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)

OK Then

People seem completely unable to ignore Dirk. I have no problem with him - I can ignore him easily enough and he doesn't bother me. But you're mods and can't really act without someone bringing it to your attention so I'll do it now. He is being bumped in and out of blocks, vandal bin etc etc. Now the vandal bin isn't relevant to Dirk as he isn't a vandal. Nor has he done anything, save for being irritating, to deserve a block. So what do you, as moderators, do? Being irritating isn't justification for a block and he isn't a vandal. Therefore DNFT applies. Ignore Dirk seems the most rational response....
Can everyone start doing that now? Aceⁱ⁹ 23:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

We can but hope, but there always seems to be someone who cannot resist the temptation. Генгис^{Gum disease} 23:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Moving his stuff to his own special forum probably breaks the spirit of the rules, but strikes me as a plausibly sensible response for the moment. He did ask to be blocked, but then if he asked to be unblocked that would reasonably follow. I suppose he's not going to be seeking to have his medication adjusted, after all. He's actually mostly harmless, just fucking annoying, but that's not, inexplicably, a crime. I dunno - David Gerard (talk) 23:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Rename the vandal bin to "burst limiter" or "spate gate" or "here's your hat, what's your hurry?" BAM problem solved. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Well then, there we go. Ignore him. Problem solved. Aceⁱ⁹ 01:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

We need another ninja Dealt with

Is this the right place to ask that Vox Humana be given ninja rights? A casual glance at RC will show you why. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 03:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah it might be a good idea. I tried doing the section header edits en masse but I kept getting lost and making mistakes, so my current method is the most reliable. But I'm also aware it completely jams up recent changes, for which I sincerely apologise. VOX^HUMANA 03:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Stop hitting the refresh button. 05:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

You want this website to be taken seriously as a resource for dealing with the anti-science crowd?

One good step would be to not let someone use it to store an annotated guide to their favorite foot-fetish material. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 22:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you take it to the talk subpage? Sounds like a pretty moderate and rational thing to do. Civic Cat    ^{Talk to Civic Cat}   22:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I did, Pinhead. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 23:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Well goodness me, if you ain't P-Foster. Yes. I remember them days when I was ganged up on and blocked for several hours before I had that hissyfit. Civic Cat    ^{Talk to Civic Cat}   23:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Delete the page - it is not on-mission, nor is it related to something which is remotely on mission. It is also ripe to be cited by people attempting to dispute our content on the basis of "these people support article like this!" VOX^HUMANA 23:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

VOXHUMANA, please go to the talk page of the SUB-page. You might find a decent explanation in sections 2 and can participate in 4. I don't think it's logical to go all over the varying talk pages save the one of the page in question, and that you too vapped. Civic Cat    ^{Talk to Civic Cat}   23:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

No, this is a moderator issue now. I read your explanation and it is garbage. VOX^HUMANA 23:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, VOXHUMANA, if you think it's garbage, then please go to the talk page, say so, and why it's garbage. Let's hash it out before you go running to the moderator, and if the moderator is reading this, I hope he/she note's that VOXHUMANA's case is that my SUB-page is off-mission (of course it is, it's a SUB-page) and he thinks it's garbage, (I can almost here him say "so nyeah, nyeah"). Civic Cat    ^{Talk to Civic Cat}   23:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

You don't seem to be making any sort of case for why it should be kept at RW; just dragging the discussion down into petty sniping. What is your rationale for posting this list at RW rather than somewhere more appropriate? ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Sniping or defending? Tell ya the truth Weaseloid, I can't find an alternative site. It didn't work in WP. I can think of no other wiki. The rules permit it here, and the outrage over it strikes me as somewhat lame and hypocritical. Civic Cat    ^{Talk to Civic Cat}   00:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

There are foot fetish sites out there. If you can't find one you like, make one. You can create a wiki with minimum effort at Wikia or any of its alternatives, or easily set up a blog on any number of sites. It just doesn't look like content that's aimed at the RW community, and using RW as miscellaneous hosting space for non-RW-related content is a problem. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Nah nah nah. I'm not looking for some ED-like site. I want a wiki format. I don't want ads, pop-ups, spam, have to use my real name. You also know how incompetent I am with internet stuff like codes. I'm probably worse than PJR. As for using RW as a host, I agree it's bad manners if all that is what one does, though again, not forbidden. The fussing I've had really hasn't helped in morale dept: that's one reason for a lack of contributions on my part.

I'll have to be going in a few minutes, but I'll be back, maybe tomorrow, and at least try to give some decent responses. Civic Cat    ^{Talk to Civic Cat}   00:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Community Standards

I don't really have an opinion one way or the other on this, but rather than getting into a tizz over it I think we should look at the relevant community standard, which is User Pages. Now the only way this could be deleted would seem to be if it is 'patently offensive'. Maybe it is, but I find that somewhat of a stretch given that they are generally mainstream videos with a particular feature. They are not, so far as I can tell, R-rated or pornographic under any sensible criteria. Certainly if it is then we would need to remove much of Psygremlin's Userpage amongst other things. Perhaps this sort of thing should be banned, but if so it will probably take a revision of the Community Standards. Damo^Hi 00:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Damo. As I said in the 4th section of the talk page, "You don't like the rules, change them." Civic Cat    ^{Talk to Civic Cat}   00:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Civic (and Damo) raise a good point - 'if you don't like the rules, change them'. I've got no issue with user subpages being collections of relevant (or even vaguely relevant) material, mine own is full of half developed ideas and incomplete projects. But is RW trying to be a social media site or a genuine resource for rational thought? If the former, then Civic Cat's stuff is fine. If the latter, then a laissez faire attitude to user pages can only be detrimental in the long run. VOX^HUMANA 00:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Damo is indeed sage. I wish he'd take a bigger role. Sure, this page is "patently offensive" if you're prude about feet, I guess. It's definitely grossly out of character for RW. However, I don't think user talk pages are indexed by Google (if they are, this needs to get deleted immediately, whether or not it takes consensus to get it done), and I've been occasionally making the point that readers who ever look at user talk pages or recent changes are outnumbered by many orders of magnitude by readers who come here for legit content. Trent or David can give current numbers. In short, nobody but us will ever have to even consider whether to give a shit about this weirdo's foot fetish. We've got bigger fish to fry. 00:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Userpages are indeed nolonger indexed by google. Peter ^mqzp 00:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Indexed by Google is one thing, but the fact is that most wiki devotees use Recent Changes as their home base, so a potential new user would easily see this and get the impression that this is a fetish site of some sort. I have no problem with fetishes, I have a few of my own. But i don't share them with every community I belong to. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 00:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

(EC) Search engine indexing isn't the only issue. If we host content that doesn't really have anything to do with the site (not only in this case but other cases where editors use essay/user space for oddball personal projects), it may get linked to from social media, blogs & other sites, bringing attention to embarrassing aspects of the site. Ideally I think essay/userspace pages should be nominatable for deletion like other pages. Obviously they wouldn't be subject to the same mission criteria as mainspace articles, but the community should still be able to veto unwanted content in other namespaces. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Weaseloid is spot on. No, a user page doesn't have to be rigidly on-mission, but there should be at least some tenuous connection to RW's objectives. VOX^HUMANA 00:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

So no more pictures of dicks or booze? 02:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

For me it just comes down to - what are we (RW) trying to achieve? Is the stated mission really our mission, or is this just a social media site? If the latter, then sure - dicks, booze and foot fetishism is all OK. VOX^HUMANA 03:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

This is not a moderator issue, it's community standards/mission. I remember one editor at TOW who basically catalogued all the commons porn images on his user page. If you really don't like it then get the site rules changed. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 07:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I've tried that. If you go to the Community Standards page, you will find my raising of the topic, along with a post from Wealeloid telling me off for forking the discussion from this thread. VOX^HUMANA 08:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The Community Standards aren't "rules" as everyone seems to be claiming these days; they are a summary of community practices. This is a community-driven website much more than it is a rule-driven one. We seem to be in wikilawyering territory here where Civic Cat's only argument seems to be "the rules say it's OK so nobody can touch it" which is really missing the point of the standards and their basis within the community. I do think we should look into updating the standards, as I suggested above, but really what's important here is what the community wants. If they want to get rid of that barefoot females page, that's what will happen. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm tempted to just take it out and shoot it myself. Any serious objection? - David Gerard (talk) 13:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

You mean besides from our resident sock-sniffer? Prolly not. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 13:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

It is vaporized. Loathe as I am to meddle with userspace, that page was just ridiculous. We don't have to host spankbanks under color of free commentary.--^talk 15:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the deletion record, I see the community has indeed expressed its opinion - David Gerard (talk) 16:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

A few notes:

1. Must it be an either an either-or thing? What if this year 1000 people joined RationalWiki and each made 1000 edits this year, and 80% were in userpages, subpages, and fun pages, lots of social networking stuff, but in the process also collectively made 200 000 decent edits on main articles. Would this be good or bad? As long as the main articles remain on mission—as many cuurently aren’t, as well as a perhaps sticking to rules on the still poorly defined fun pages, why can’t the rest be laissez faire? Either my article is a personal fetish dump as described—and as fetishes go a pretty frikin’ mild one, or it's of interest to those who might also be interested in RW.
2. How many times did I edit this page since creating it? Not many. How many pages do I have that are like it? No others. Now if allowed, there is the odd chance that someone will see it in the RC and be so disgusted that he or she will never come by again, or that if I get away with it, so will hordes of others, and we’ll have lots of freaks and perverts writing articles about their freakinessess and perversions on the sub-pages and occasional fun pages, and AGAIN helping out in the regular pages.
3. Ghengis. Yunno, if I made it a subpage on WP or added it to WP:Nudity in music videos, I just might have gotten away with it. But no, I had to make it an article, and this happened: WP:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of music videos featuring barefoot females. Boo hoo.  ;-)
4. Wikilawyering. It's not just the "the rules say it's OK so nobody can touch it" but also that if I violated standards and conventions, I'm far from being the only one. I also wonder if there isn't an element of tenure here. If I was a RW milord, I wonder if I'd be getting a fraction of the flack that I'm currently getting.
5. "our resident sock-sniffer" Ewwww! PowderSmokeAndLeather! That's disgusting!! You really got a dirty mind—and the wrong number!
6. For what it's worth Chances are, if nobody said anything and if so few were interested in this, it would have been forgotten, and maybe swept away in a few years.
7. "Looking at the deletion record, I see the community has indeed expressed its opinion." I see 3 vappers.
    Civic Cat    ^{Talk to Civic Cat}   19:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Go away - David Gerard (talk) 20:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

That's what Ty said before he blocked me for a few hours for no reason. Not too rational, huh? As it is, this will likely be my last post for a few days. Civic Cat    ^{Talk to Civic Cat}   20:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! C®ackeЯ

I would say that it is patently offensive, Damo. That he insists on keeping the page here indicates a component of his fetish is sharing it with others. I, for one, do not wished to be involved in Civic Cat's sex life. There are places on the internet where Civic Cat can talk about foot fetishism. I believe that there is even a wiki devoted to foot fetishism. Civic Cat does not need to be here to compile a list of music videos that cater to his sexual proclivities.--"Shut up, Brx." 03:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey Brx, aren't you glad there was a place on the internet for you to joke about a black man raping a white woman while laughing at her for being overweight? You must be relieved Encyclopedia Dramatica didn't disappear completely, right? In other words, I throw up a little when I see you concern troll as you've taken to doing. There is nothing sincere or good faith about you. Go away. 13:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Give it a rest, would you? --"Shut up, Brx." 17:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Nah, I think it needs to be brought up every time you concern troll - David Gerard (talk) 21:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

We're never going to come up with a perfect rule to decide what is acceptable and what is not acceptable in userspace, so I don't think anyone is interested (or fooled by) your attempt. As a general principle, though, I'd say that almost everything is acceptable in userspace or essays as long as it serves some reasonable purpose of commentary, even if that commentary is insane or wrong or whatever. But if someone were to fill up pages on their userspace with random numbers or whatnot, and it posed some kind of problem, then community judgment is going to come into play. And despite what you consider as the mildness of this pursuit, it's not something we're interested in. We're too small of a site right now: a much-linked and full page catering to a fetish stands a decent chance of tarring us with a reputation.

Nor, as I pointed out, do you need us. Create a wikia page.--^talk 15:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

There's no hope for consensus or hard and fast rules for something like this. Your proposal is overbroad in that there are certainly things in userspace that aren't commentary by any stretch of the imagination that it would frankly be community-destroying to see become the object of another purge. Over the last two years it's gotten to the point that most of these discussions are more disruptive than the problems they're poorly calculated to solve. I got no problem with you deleting that page by fiat. Does anyone, really? I leave it to y'all's good judgment and if I don't like it, I won't vote for you. *shrug* 17:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

First off, thanks to all for contributing to the discussion, particularly Nutty Roux. It's one thing to have a page deleted, and then deleted in another form, and when so many other at least apparent violations are going on in this wiki; but what really pisses me off is when people are afterwards terse with me and give me stupid explanations. I find it insulting, and when insulted, I sometimes get reactive and persistent for an explanation.

I'm not thoroughly convinced by the explanations. It basically comes done to many don't like having the page on this wiki because they don't like it. Still, as many of you have invested far more effort on this wiki than I have (or likely will), and you have given me your time, I will in turn give time in consideration. Therefore, I will will refrain from pursuing this, with 3 minor exceptions. First, I will restore the article in the future for a few minutes for a screen shot and then vapourize it. Next, if I start a wiki—I'm not really interested in foot fetish sites—I will announce it in the SB. I promise not to mention the word "foot" in the post, much less "barefoot females." Third, I ask if there would be any objections to me making a user sub-page with a list of videos and links—stuff I often listen to. I'll likely include a few videos in the list we've talked about, because after all, some are good irrespective of lack of footwear; but much will be of stuff like this:Iggy Pop, JMC Sloan, and Jane's Addiction. Many people have embedded YouTube videos on their user pages. I prefer links.

As for Brx's comments. No, the intention wasn't to share, save for both ways. I post stuff, others post stuff, to mutual benefit—typical wiki thing. If few are interested—say 1%, that's good enough for me; and again, the idea was also to possibly attract new users. The E.D. comments are quite appropriate. Brx seems to have a problem with, say, a video of mine featuring a barefoot Mediæval Bæbe, otherwise clothed, taking a bath with granny smith apples, whereas in E.D. we have pics of naked women defecating on themselves. Gee. Brx, I hope you'll recover from the trauma of seeing the former. It's also nice that David Gerard said something intelligent in this discussion for once. You you don't want to see the page, Brx, just don't click. By the way Brx, where is this wiki you talk about? Anyone objecting to Brx giving me a link here or in my talk page?

Again, I'm not really convinced by the arguments, at least for now, but I'll let it be. Thanks for the effort here. Hope it wasn't too taxing and may it be requited. Civic Cat    ^{Talk to Civic Cat}   21:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

If you want to view it you don't actually have to restore it. If you click here and then press "show preview" you should see what you need for a screenshot. Peter ^mqzp 21:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, very well. Thanks for the tip. Civic Cat    ^{Talk to Civic Cat}   22:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Vox Humana is stuck being a bot

See RationalWiki:Technical_support#Ninja_flag. Needs a mod to fix it. Thanks, Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 01:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Promptly fixed. Thanks, Nutty. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 11:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Np 13:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

"even by anyone else"

In the Tools section it says: "those actions should not be undone by anyone else." does anyone else mean anyone who is not a moderator, or anyone else even if they are a moderator? the second leads us into CPish NOYB terrory, so this should be made clear. Sophie^Wilder 15:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

It means by anyone who is not a moderator - although certainly mods shouldn't wheel-war, so a chat and working out agreement is probably the best course if a mod has done something you don't like.--^talk 15:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Any chance the last comment at Talk:Douglas Weller could be deleted?

I just discovered the last comment when someone at Wikipedia used it to attack me. If not, no real problem, there's worse out there. Dougweller (talk) 06:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

If it's true (ie, you have no relevant credentials and you edit articles to remove information you don't like) then there's no chance at all of it being removed. Sophie^Wilder 11:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Which comment, Dougweller? That looks like a drive by if there ever was one. It's not relevant to the article. I'm not inclined to say RW should be a dumping ground for that kind of thing, but I'm just a plebe. 14:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm inclined to get rid of it because: 1. There's no way of knowing the BoN who made the edit is really the IRL person it claims to be, and the edit could therefore be a problem for the IRL person, and. 2. Bad enough we're a forum for Rome Vaharo and his detractors to engage in their stupid e-peen contests. we don't need this new crop of losers hashing out their little quarrels here, too. PowderSmokeAndLeather (talk) 14:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I, too, agree we should not be hosting that kind of crap. Unless there are any real objections, I see no reason to keep that around in any form. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 16:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Plebean approbation is what you'll get from me, about that. The offending text is still visible by viewing some diffs. I'm going to try to fix that. Wish me luck. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Supporters of pseudoscience and my particular bugbear, pseudoarchaeology(anyone ever see my website?) can get very hot under the collar when exposed. One of them even made up fake Facebook and G+ pages pretending to be my pages. Dougweller (talk) 09:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Muted and Deoped by Miekal

This discussion has been closed, please do not modify it. The outcome was: "Yeah, no."

---

At 17:44 on User talk:Father Vivian O'Blivion User:Miekal reverted my post to User:Father Vivian O'Blivion, deleting my part of the conversation. When I reverted his edit explaining that you can't revert on talk page, he reverted it back and wrote "you can, if its trolling/vile". The content of my edit was in reference to a edit war I was attempting to resolve with User:Father Vivian O'Blivion. I would like it noted that the discussion page content was neither trolling or vile, and was in fact a genuine response with no personal slanders of discriminatory arguments. I was then blocked and removed from both autopatrolled and Sysop by User:Miekal with the explanation of "im going to say you dont deserve either of those". Aside from the fact that the reasons given for the deletion of my material from User talk:Father Vivian O'Blivion were not true, they are also not part of the community guidelines which state the possible reasons to remove talk page material as "patently offensive material, copyright violations or spam". This is also NOT the talk page of User:Miekal giving him even less authority on the matter. Finally, I would like to refer to "Permanent removal of rights or censure" which I believe User:Miekal is in direct violation of.

I would like to request the reinstatement of my privileges and the reversion of User:Miekal's deletion of my conversation with User talk:Father Vivian O'Blivion. I don't want anyone to be blamed etcetera, I'm just looking for a fair system to voice my opinion without being blocked, called a troll and silenced.

Many Thanks Hobby (talk) 20:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain somebody else put the comments back in, if i remember right. As for your rights, permanent removing them would be putting you on sysoprevoke. or just banning you, somebody else if fine to put them back on if they think you should have them. But im saying messiah jumped the gun by giving you both of them and it was easier to remove your rights to stop the edit war then it was to protect it at moderator level--Miekal 20:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I had no problem with Miekal removing your shit from my talk page, as, for the record, I had previously removed it myself as I think you are were trolling, so the first part of your complaint can be dismissed without further consideration. As for removing your rights, I think you were given them prematurely. I would not have given the keys to someone who holds toxic viewpoints about feminism, much as I would not give them to someone with toxic viewpoints about racial equality. Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 20:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

It has been restored but not by you Miekal. I also don't see how removing the material in any way stops an edit war. In fact I was hoping to resolve the conflict, yet neither of you seem to keep on having an honest and open discussion on the topic.

As I've explained, I wasn't trolling. You also have no right to remove someone for trolling as according to the community guidelines this is not grounds for removal. It must be "patently offensive material, copyright violations or spam". As you have not sited any of these reasons you had no grounds to remove it. Hobby (talk) 21:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

"an honest and open discussion on the topic" is one of my favorite things wrong people like to say.--Miekal 21:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Umm, if we define trolling as "anything that you don't agree with", then it's probably trolling. But if you define trolling as "wants to provoke you in a dishonest fashion", then maybe it wasn't trolling. Just sayin'. Nullahnung (talk) 00:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the trolling comes into it when you consider the scale of his edits. Saying there are issues with one or two articles relating to the men's rights movement is one thing. Trying to change our coverage of it across the board is probably missing the point as to why the articles are like that in the first place here and could fairly be considered trolling --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:35, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Sufficiently advanced fuckwittery makes intent irrelevant - David Gerard (talk)

(edit conflict) Umm, no. We regularly get people, some of them cranks, who are unhappy with RW's coverage of certain subject(s) and wish to change it (or more stupidly, to have it changed). That's par for the course for such a place. It turns into trolling on when they change from "I want X to be changed" to disruptive behavior because their demands/requests were not met. A milder example would be someone starting to play the "I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki" spiel all over the site. A worse example was the racial supremacist blockhead who operated an IP-morphing vandalism bot.--ZooGuard (talk) 12:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Zooguard, though I think there's a danger to labeling the "this was supposed to be a rational site!" as a dishonest spiel, because let's be honest, the name "RationalWiki" practically is begging for anyone who sees it to get into the "a place for rational discussion" mindset. Nullahnung (talk) 12:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I used that as a placeholder for a more general "you people suck" attitude. I don't think that the "RATIONAL" complaint is dishonest in itself, it's just misguided, and can be easily abused.--ZooGuard (talk) 13:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, this discussion properly belongs in the chicken coop. Placeholder (talk) 13:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

It properly belongs in redspace - David Gerard (talk) 14:08, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, no - David Gerard (talk) 22:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

After you have been trolled by MC everything else just seems like pale imitation. Tielec01 (talk) 03:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Collecting tears subroutine almost complete... ·Femilisk™ 14:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

This is not Facebook.--ZooGuard (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Aw, such party-poop. ·Femilisk™ 14:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Obviously a case of parallel devolution - David Gerard (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide denial edit to Armenia article.

I just reverted this edit to the Armenia article, which denied the Armenian Genocide. That edit was made in 2012 but it apparently slipped through the cracks until now. I'm not an editor here, I don't know what if anything you guys would want to do with the person who made the edit (especially considering that the edit was made two years ago), I'm just letting you guys know about this. 96.241.169.252 (talk) 10:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Brxbrx

Somebody posted potentially libelous information on the talkpage for the Kevin Martin article. Nutty erased the information, and then Brxbrx proceeded to edit war with him over that fact. David Gerard proceeded to revision delete the posts in question under his authority as trustee, but Brxbrx seems to still think it was acceptable to have such information posted on the site and, worse, seems to be assuming there was bad faith in removing the information in spite of what a number of current and former RationalMedia Foundation officers have told him. I consider this conduct unbecoming a sysop and have removed his sysop rights pending a decision by the moderators. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 00:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Brxbrx seems to still think it was acceptable to have such information posted on the site and, worse, seems to be assuming there was bad faith in removing the information Oh, for fuck's sake, I've never said anything of the sort. David Gerard explained to me why Nutty Removed the information and why it should be removed, and I agreed. The proof is right here. Feel free to have a look.

I consider this conduct unbecoming a sysop What conduct? Giving you a 0 second block telling you that I disagreed with you? Then, when you blocked me for one day in order to reply, leaving another message disagreeing with you while unblocking myself? Doing this both times you blocked me?

That's conduct you find unbecoming of a sysop? Of all the shit that's ever gone on here, that's what you find objectionable? Disagreeing with you? Jesus Christ, I left you that message (top item here) because I thought you might have some sense in you. Because I figured even though you disliked me, you might be willing to recognize that "Hey, Nutty Roux has given brx a lot of grief. It's possible brx saw Nutty Roux's actions as something other than they were." Well, I was wrong. Disappointing.--"Shut up, Brx." 01:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

RNS' allegations that I'm very naughty

Someone posted some discussion on Talk:Kevin Martin. Unaware of any taboo regarding the topic, I joined in the discussion and offered some commentary of my own (please note that this was before User:David Gerard made this post to the page). Nutty Roux came along and removed the discussion, by both the original poster (can't remember his name, and it's since been oversighted), without saying that he was doing for legal reasons on behalf of the Foundation (which, as far as I knew, he had resigned from). So I reverted him, twice (Nutty Roux has a history of removing talk page content either because he didn't like it or because I was involved- [1][2][3][4][5][6]- I figured this was the case). At some point David Gerard came to my talk page and explained what was happening. I accepted David Gerard's explanation and agreed to do what he said. That would have been the end of it, except that RNS couldn't handle a block log comment. To be clear: I have no objection towards removing content that could result in legal action towards the RMF. I was unaware that the discussion Nutty Roux removed was problematic (especially given that the rest of the talk page contained discussions in a similar vein that Nutty Roux did not remove). Had I known, well, I wouldn't have participated in the first place, and I wouldn't have reverted Nutty Roux.--"Shut up, Brx." 01:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Why I should be remade a sysop

1. I use my sysop powers to do things like block spammers, bin vandals, delete spam, and protect pages from vandalism or spam
2. I need the ability to unblock myself. Nutty Roux has a grudge against me, and has repeatedly tried to permanently ban me from the site[7] While this may not be an issue for other users, I need my sysop powers simply to be an ordinary editor, because otherwise Nutty Roux would try and ban me again. He's quite fixated.
3. For unknown reasons, I am unable to use the "Email this user" function. I try emailing people, and they don't get my emails. Until this is resolved (and it won't be resolved tomorrow. David Gerard and Trent Toulouse have more important things to do than fix a problem that affects a single user), it is much more difficult for me to notify someone if Nutty Roux has blocked me.

That's it. Figured it was important

Moderators

We haven't had moderator elections for some time, now. The rationale behind this was that there hadn't been any HCM for a while, so moderators were obsolete. See here. Reckless Noise Symphony's appeal to the moderators lacks a certain amount of relevance. Shall the current moderators take care of this? I'd love to hear what MarcusCicero has to say--"Shut up, Brx." 01:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Resolution

It seems that after Brx issued his groveling apology [8] that RNS, in his magnanimity, has decided not to pursue this further [9]. Although I can't be sure, not being able to read minds, I think this highly important and possibly ground-breaking case of Brx acting silly can be dropped. Let's celebrate the wiki not descending into HCM; who needs moderators? Tielec01 (talk) 02:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)