RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Marcus Cicero

Making a case

I believe this is where we can state our case. Very well the facts are:

• After MC's previous trolling spree, he was placed in the vandal bin - justifiably so - by Rationalizer. MC then took it upon himself to unbin himself, abusing the rights that should never have been restored to him in the first place.
• His reaction to this, was the usual - he engaged in blocking me, leaving insulting messages on my talk page and making unprovooke very negative personal remarks.
• As a result of his continued boorish attitude, I blocked him and remove the rights he was abusing.
• As has been said, this is the umpteenth time this troll has been allowed to carry on like this. Th moderators need to decide if RW needs an arrogant, boorish thug like this around or not.
• I also believe that MC has a personal agenda against myself and that he goes out of his way to provoke situations like this. --PsyGremlinSermā! 14:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Statement -> The Chain of Cause and Effect

Pys promises to leave and never come back

MC calls him out on it when he returns

Pys blocks MC

MC brings it to coop

The mob retaliate by being authoritarian and generally behaving like idiots. A few wise voices (Genghis Khant) stand out among the mass of hysteria, but generally the mob get their way.

Cooler heads prevail and the masses hysteria subsides.

Pys decides to be a dickhead again and bins MC for some reason.

MC defends himself, calls Pys a racist and an authoritarian (Although he mightn't be the former, he is certainly the latter)

Now MC will be permanantly banned by 'the elect'.

'Rational'wiki my hole. MarcusCicero (talk) 14:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

A response

• By referring to me as "Pys" you're not helping your case
• Ditto "Rational"wiki
• Answer one question: Upon what factual evidence do you base your claim that I am a racist. Please provide clear examples, include links and dates if you have them.

"MC calls him out on it when he returns" You mean this? As someone with a reputation for being abrasive, you should be less inclined to use that edit as evidence that you weren't trying to poke things with a stick. P-Foster_{Can't we talk about this, baby?} 14:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I will stick with "Puppies who shit on the carpet need to be contained where the nuisance is less bother." The vandal brake seems like an appropriate tool, MC's objection to the term "vandal" notwithstanding. Wikilawyering in defence of pompous uncivil vacuity is a disingenuous distraction. MC, you are a sick wanker who needs to be told firmly to fuck off. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

In addition, there are several other editors here who also LANCB who are back. The fact that MC is not targeting them, strengthens my case that he is deliberately going out of his way to provoke me.--PsyGremlin話しなさい 14:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

He still owes me a show. That I don't get anything but Psy does and reacts the way he reacts, is pretty much "case closed"-level evidence that MC is still mostly trolling. In my mind you can be an annoying little dick on RW, if you just do something else then only fucking with people for your own entertainment. And that's pretty much all I have. --uhm, t! 14:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

MC has proven time and again that he is only here to cause trouble. Let's be done with this. Ban/bin him, he'll make some socks and throw a tantrum for a week or so, then he'll get bored and move on.--User:Brxbrx/sig 14:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

MC, you're as paranoid as the most fearful Teapartier when it comes to your rights. Well, you would be if it wasn't an act and you weren't trolling. 20:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

This process is bullshit

Yeah, I've read enough rubbish here to make me want to puke until I reach my natural demise. I would just like to say that whatever decision/consensus is reached I will resist it in the strongest terms, and I will make it my mission to resist it, like I have in the past and like I certainly will in the future. This whole incident is a pathetic show trial, I haven't been afforded a proper defence at all. Oh, and the reason I 'deliberately targeted' Psy is because he is a particularly egregious wanker. Other virginal aspies have left and 'never come back', it is true, but those idiots are barely worthy of mention, never mind deeper thought. Pys dragged it to another level altogether by waging his petty hate war with Human and Eira. Frankly he is a twat, and I can only assume that the South African sun is affecting his cognition. As for Ace's foolish remark RE 'he's a white south african ergo he is racist' all I can say is that this is typical of a halfwit who pretends to live a libertine lifestyle; he doesn't see the bigger picture or indeed the clever logic behind the post. The fact that Pys comes across as a boorish apartheid era South African white policeman doesn't seem to occur to his tiny mind, and frankly it never will, for he will always be an idiot chomping at the heels of greater men.

Oh, I won't abide by the decisions of the 'moderators' (Please understand they are representatives of centralised political power in unworthy hands) because they are inherently biased and unjust. Ace is a great example of this idiocy. I will NEVER go away, I will always be here, and you ABSOLUTE CUNTS can do absolutely nothing about that. Make my day. Permanantly block me. Watch as I show complete and utter determination to resist the ruling. 86.46.182.237 (talk) 02:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

A Proposal RE: Marcus Cicero.

It is being proposed that Marcus Cicreo be penalized with promotion to editor, a one month block plus immediate vandal binning of any subsequent post by an ip. If it isn't MC posting and is just an imitator then it'll be necessary collateral damage without long term implication. Also anyone seen feeding the troll should be told to leave it alone and the trolltop template be used. P-Foster_{Can't we talk about this, baby?} 04:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

YEA

1. Ace^{of Spades} 02:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
2. --User:Brxbrx/sig 02:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
3. P-Foster_{Can't we talk about this, baby?} 02:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
4. ĵ₳¥ášÇ♠ʘ My computer has two mowses! 03:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
5. - π 03:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
6. -- Nx / talk 04:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
7. ----The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 04:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
8. Röstigraben (talk) 06:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
9. --^talk 07:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
10. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 08:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
11. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 09:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
12. --uhm, t! 09:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC) Ok, I'll even stop feeding him for you guys.
13. -- --PsyGremlin話しなさい 09:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
14. Real first name and last initial^{Talk, talk, talk skim my contributions} 10:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
15. RatMaster ^háblame 11:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
16. ADK^{...I'll feast your flap!} 11:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
17. TallMan (talk) 12:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
18. Anarcho Symphony Noise ^{Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living} 13:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
19. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
20. --Тy^Talk 15:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
21. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
22. --Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
23. --Aboriginal Noise ^{Theist, barely hanging by a nail} 20:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
24. DickTurpis (talk) 01:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC) - My initial complaints are addressed, Marcus has had ample time to defend himself, and instead has issued a declaration of war. Fuck it, let's do this.
25. --Gomer (talk) 11:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
26. The current escalation of the process into threats unless we do what he wants is reminiscent of the reasons we imposed bans on TK and cannot be accepted. --Damo^Hi 20:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

NAY

1. MC is a valued contributor. Why is the proposal unsigned? ħuman 04:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

   MC is harmless. His trolling is often amusing, does not (or at least should not) cause any HCM's or distract from the main point of the wiki and I believe that we can deal with any insults/nastiness that cross the line on a case by case basis. Plus I think that this action would cause him to just sock up even more and be more disruptive than he currently is. I don't think we can "defeat" him in this way - if defeat is the correct word. Damo^Hi 05:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

2. Naw, he's not that bad.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 01:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
3. Didn't see this before now. If there was a message about "community" voting on this, I missed it. MC is generally well within the spectrum of nastiness that is considered "acceptable" here (i.e. sub-HCM). The only difference is that he is a detractor and apparently thus "disruptive". This is setting a slippery - and hypocritical to boot - precedent. Or is disallowing naysayers only a problem if its some other wiki doing it? Tricksy (talk) 02:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

A bunch of stuff that isn't voting

By valued contributor I assume you mean swearing at and abusing the person you yourself are swearing at and abusing? - π 04:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

--PsyGremlinParla! 10:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh my, Psy, you are so embarrassed. You have made what I consider criminal accusations against me on your blog, and publicized them here. So facepalm your fucking self off to hell. Until you remove the accusations of financial impropriety you make against me, Gerwyn, you are on my blacklist. You are an asshole, and, well, a criminal yourself for making unfounded acusations. Now fuck off. Your opinion, in my opinion, is worth "zero". Please go away. ħuman 11:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I know this is off topic, but this is a serious claim you are making. Could you please point to me where he actually made this claim? By which I mean give me a link, not just say his blog and swear. - π 11:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

If this being considered as series, here's the link to the alleged "criminal" accusation I made against Human. I state for the record - I said he was unfit to be a Trustee, I never accused him of diddling funds, as he so claims. That exists in his mind. I notice he's gone very quiet since I first posted it. Hopefully, he's writing his apology letter. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 13:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to object on principle for the time being until this proposal gives its specific justification. I've voiced several times now my concern over accusations that merely state MarcusCicero is a troll without backing it up, and this is more of the same. I know, I know, it's sort of self-evident, and we've all seen his behavior from time to time, but I still think this is the sort of thing that needs to be done right. Pretend I never heard of the guy before, and convince me this is necessary. It probably needn't take much to make me change my mind, but if we're going to do this let's do it right. This is likely setting a precedent. DickTurpis (talk) 05:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Remvoing my nay vote now that a thorough case has been made below. Thanks for doing that, Pi; I think its important. I'm going to refrain from voting for the time being and let MC defend himself. I doubt he will, but I'll give him a day to have a chance. DickTurpis (talk) 13:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Dick but I am going call bullshit on your post. 3 years man, 3 fucking years of MC bullshit and you sit and say "Pretend I never heard of the guy before." Frankly it matters not whether you have heard of him before or not. Ace^{of Spades} 05:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec)They made a template for that: Template:MC If that isn't enough for you, check his last few contributions.--User:Brxbrx/sig 05:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Start here, with the edit comments. P-Foster_{Can't we talk about this, baby?} 05:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Ace, I did say "pretend". This is about process, and process is important in situations like this, especially as this will likely be a precedent for how we do things in the future. To be honest this "it's self evident" crap is reminding me of Schlafly. For Christ's sake just construct a brief argument with a few recent examples. Is that too much to ask? Yes, it's been three years, but honestly I've hardly encountered the guy, and have managed to ignore him by and large. I don't think I even knew who he was a year ago. Make a case, even a brief one, and there's a good chance I'll switch my vote. If you can't even do that then to hell with ya. It shouldn't be incumbent on those you're trying to convince to wade through dozens of diffs in edit histories; they should be supplied by those making the proposal. And I see the template, thanks Brxbrx, but most of those posts are nearly 2 years old, and they do lack context. Likewise P-Foster's link, again a good start, but to be honest it's not dissimilar from what I've seen from other editors here (even some of the people who were running for moderator). It is a start, though. DickTurpis (talk) 05:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Fuck it man, I am fucking done with arguing over this guy. The proposal is as it stands. Yay or Nay. Ace^{of Spades} 05:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I actually see Dick's point here. If this is our first moderation it will set the standards of all that follow, I would prefer a trial over a mob lynching. Unless someone else does it first I will try to compile a case later this evening, in say 5 to 6 hours time. - π 05:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Pi. I'm glad my vote trickled down to you. Or maybe it didn't, actually - it was close though. Fuck it, STV is still damn confusing. DickTurpis (talk) 05:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

So basically the moderators can do fuck all. Nothing has changed. What a fucking sham. Ace^{of Spades} 05:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Confused. What's this about now? Sure, the role of moderator is still kind of vague, but it seems that's by design. Some of us wanted more specifics laid out before the election, but it didn't much happen. It's pretty well established that mods aren't a ruling cabal, and the community is still in charge, and that's what's happening here. The vote is on, the yeas are winning, including 3 mod votes (all the ones who have voted as yet). The nays have 3 votes total, at least one of them a very weak nay, which can very possibly be switched to neutral or yea. Is the system not working? What do you want to the mods to do? DickTurpis (talk) 06:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The mods need to take action damnit. What is the point otherwise? Yeah we have mods but the disfunctional community must OK everything the mods do. Action man, fucking action. Ace^{of Spades} 06:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there some sort of dire situation here I'm not aware of? If so that's exactly the sort of specific I'm looking for. As you say, it's been 3 years; what's another week? I believe he's currently under a short ban anyway, and I binned him earlier. I have no idea if it stuck; binning doesn't show up in the block log and I don't remember how to see who's currently in the bin. I prefer bin over ban, as I'd like to give MC the opportunity to defend himself (I'd like to hear him on this edit in particular). But if he's going to use the opportunity to defend himself to complain that he doesn't have an opportunity to defend himself, as he's said above, then I'm more inclined to change my vote to yea. The rant above this section is actually the best case for a prolonged block I've seen yet. DickTurpis (talk) 06:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Time and time again MC has "put his case" and demanded this that and the other thing. It is fucking useless to have mods unless they can act. This is going fucking nowhere. Ace^{of Spades} 07:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Has he? See, I don't know because no one's linked to anything. Honestly, I've paid little attention to Marcus (and if everyone else did likewise we might not have such a problem). Now how can you say this is going nowhere? We have a specific proposal, an organized vote (for once!) and one that is clearly going your way. It's a bit premature to call this a failure; it has the potential to set the standard for how we handle troublesome editors in the future. What about the system isn't working in this case? I've stated my gripe: that this appears (as Pi put it) more of a lynch mob than a trial, and Pi looks to be remedying that this very night, so my qualms will hopefully be put to rest soon. I don't get this "going nowhere" claim. DickTurpis (talk) 07:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

No offence Dick, we're friends and all, but this is the fucking problem that mods were created to sort out. Something happens and a vote is talked about but some dude who has no fucking idea what the issue is comes in and throws the whole thing out of whack. Ace^{of Spades} 07:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I mean, for fucks sake, the entire community is beholden to a single person who doesn't agree (usually Human) and then we wheel war over it for days. Block, unblock, I don't agree, evidence, I didn't know, etc etc ad fucking infinitum. Why have mods if its going to be business as usual. If this is the case its going to be a nonstarter like the LJ and some other fucker can be a mod because I don't want fucking do it. Ace^{of Spades} 07:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

It's nine to three; I don't think it's even going to be close. And there will be no wheelwar. If someone refuses to abide by the vote - unblocking him repeatedly, for example - we'll just have to take away their sysop powers (assuming they won't discuss it, which is preferable). That would seem just and reasonable, because we would be operating minimally to enforce the community's decision, but it would also end the cycle. So just relax a little.--^talk 08:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I know, I know. You are right in that I should relax but I am just aghast that we go through such a protracted process only to have the same issues over the same fucking person. Its damned ridiculous. Ace^{of Spades} 08:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

[EC] None taken, Ace, but I thought it was pretty well established that the community is still in charge. Mods oversee, certify, and enforce (maybe I'm not using the best words, but they'll do) the community's decision, but it is still their decision, which is why we have this vote right now, and non-mods are participating. Look, the vote's going your way, and as a mod you get to take point when the result needs to be enforced, so you're in quite good shape here. Though, in the very unlikely even that a sudden deluge of legit "nay" votes appears, and takes the majority, I'd hope the mods would certify this "nay" ruling, even if all 7 were personally against it. That would seem to be the spirit of how we still do things here. (As the chances of this happening are probably nil, it's basically a moot point, but the principle stands.) I do think it's a bit unfair to characterize me as someone "who has no fucking idea what the issue is." I know the basic issue, and if I'm not as familiar with the specifics as many of you it's because no one has presented them here, which I really think it is their duty to do (someone's duty at least). Besides, it hard to call a single procedural nay vote "throwing the whole thing out of whack." As AD says, it's 9 to 3, and I'm a hair's breadth away from changing my vote to neutral ("goat", I guess, in this case), and I wouldn't be at all surprised if I switched entirely when the prosecution presents their evidence. Likewise he's correct about the result. We have a process now, and this block/unblock won't stand if the moderators do their job, and I have full faith that they will. DickTurpis (talk) 08:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm half cut anyway so maybe I'm being too brusque. This issue has dragged on and on and I am really tired of it and wanting a result. Honestly I don't care about the vote "going my way". I just want, as a moderator, to have some fucking action as opposed to bureaucratic hand-wringing. Ace^{of Spades} 08:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

All will be well.--^talk 08:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

We're in the middle of the most straightforward up-and-down vote I've ever seen on this site. The votes are even numbered for easy tallying (thank me later). I don't see this as a bureaucratic mess - quite the opposite, I'm optimistic that this is setting the new standard for how major disputes are resolved. It'll take a few days, as any such vote does, but if we get a clear, enforceable, unambiguous result for the first time ever, it will be worth the few days' wait. Anyway, it's 4:30 AM and I'm still wide awake for some reason. Damn alcohol-free nights. I gotta at least try to sleep. DickTurpis (talk) 08:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The dire situation is the status quo. Enough is enough already!--User:Brxbrx/sig 07:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

STOP THIS BULLSHIT NOW. This section is to record each member's vote not to argue the toss over why you think they are wrong. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.}

GOAT

• MC is not a big problem. He's actually pretty harmless. Yeah, he's a very naughty boy, but at the end of the day, it's not like he has any great position of respect, it's not like he's held up as an example, he lacks any position of (quasi-)authority (bureacrat/moderator/RWF board member/whatever.) I am much more worried about the behaviour of certain people who have some kind of authority/leadership, than I am worried about his behaviour. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 05:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
• I always support goat. Thunderkatz^Ho! 06:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
• I abstain from this and leave it to the majority to decide. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 14:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
• I missed whatever it was that MC did to rile everyone up this time, & am pretty much abstaining from this. Basically I'd support desysoping, & wouldn't particulsar object to blocking, but it's usually rather futile, as MC just comes back in a series of socks each time. They're are usually pretty easy to spot after a while, but still more trouble than if he was just posting as himself & everyone could see whose comments they were. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

DISCUSSION

I would like to point out that the troll-top template is currently under discussion for deletion. Тy^{sic semper} 02:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Where? ħuman 04:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

On its talk page, obviously. -- Nx / talk 04:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

So I found that eventually. The link TyMoron provided was especially useful. As was yours. ħuman 11:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

You know, stomping around and saying things like "Tymoron" doesn't help your cause. If anything, it makes you look like a sock of MC. --PsyGremlinParla! 11:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, now it could have a function. Ace^{of Spades} 02:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Gotcha. Тy^Complaints 02:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Will this be decided by simple majority, or is there a Wikipedia-style consensus needed for a ban of this nature? DickTurpis (talk) 05:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, is this going to be the page where such discussions are brought from now on, or do we still have the Coop for that usually? I have to say, this isn't a great title for this page, as it does not make it at all clear what it's for. I saw it in recent changes several times and didn't pay much attention because it didn't seem relevant this sort of issue. DickTurpis (talk) 06:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The case against MarcusCicero

MarcusCicero has been regularly abusive to other editor using both this account and ips in the range 86.40./16 and 86.45/.16. He has on numerous occassions admitted to wanting to harm the sites community (as opposed to the site itself). I have made a first bash at putting together a list of examples of behaviour that surves no purpose than to abuse individual editors. Please feel free to ad any other additional information that maybe relevant. - π 10:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Recent Disputes
Abuse of Psygremlin	Blocks and racist name calling Removing himself from the vandal bin and once again making the racist claim Various userpage comments: He admits "I discovered how easy it is to wind Psy up" Accusations of "authoritarianism" His usual "your mother" repartee Starting his "you haven't left" crap Continuing Another unprovoked attack Reaction to the "trolltop" addition to his post Reinserting his trolling Ditto, and insulting Brxbrx in the process "You're a little whiny attention whoring bitch" Reinstating his trolling Issuing threats against the wiki as a whole upon being blocked More insults and threats following his vandal binning Let's not forget the sock accounts he created: On Friday the 8th of July 2011, something terrible will happen; Beware Friday the 8th; Harbringer of Doom and Utter Destruction; Disobedience, the rarest and most courageous of the virtues, is seldom distinguished from neglect, the laziest and commonest of the vices; We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal."; It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong; Revenge is an act of passion; vengeance of justice. Injuries are revenged; crimes are avenged; As long as people use tactics to oppress or restrict other people from being free, there is work to be done; You should never let your fears prevent you from doing what you know is right.
Previous Disputes
Campaign of abuse of Nx	Nx has been a target for regular unprovoked abuse. Examples: [1][2][3][4][5]
Campaign of abuse of David Gerard	Through out May, June and July 2010 MarcusCicero regularly attacked David Gerard on his talkpage. Links of examples [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]
Admitance of trolling	On the 6th of December 2009, MarcusCicero admitted to trolling the site and maximising the amoput of fallout in grievances. On the 12th of December 2009, admits to concern trolling again on RationalWikiWiki. On the 31st of Janurary 2010, says he aims to make RationalWiki unenjoyable. On the 7th of June 2010, he admitted that his comments are intended to sow discord.
Evidence that IPs in the range 86.40./16 are MarcusCicero
Comments by IP	http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nx&diff=602861&oldid=602853 http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nx&diff=550275&oldid=549605
Comments by MarcusCicero

Wow. that was empty. My dossier would break the wiki were you to compile it. What the fuck is the problem people have with this guy anyway? It's not like he deleted talk wigo:cp, like one of our esteemed mods once did, hahaha! I see no case and move to dismiss immediately. ħuman 11:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

"What the fuck is the problem people have with this guy anyway?" Can't you read, or would you like pictures. MC has treated RW as his own little trolling wankfest for that past 3 years and now it's time to stop. I know you're all in favour of anarchy and abuse, and will oppose the moderators come hell and high water, but luckily this isn't your wiki. --PsyGremlinTala! 11:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Human, such willful ignorance doesn't become you. This is more open and shut than TK. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 21:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Open and shut? For Human, it's mostly open where TK, Rob, MC and various other trolls are concerned. Not as bad as Human is a pretty low bar for behavior. --76.10.142.85 (talk) 02:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The case for MarcusCicero

For those interested, the closest thing Marcus has mounted to a defense can be found here. DickTurpis (talk) 16:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

One point that I think we need to consider, whether you find it persuasive or not, is that if the case against MC is largely due to comments made against Psy, then don't forget that Psy gives as good as he gets. I am not going to drag out emails and edit comments but in my experience of dealing with him, Psy is perfectly capable of calling people "malignant cunts", fuckwits and the like. Also, if someone states they are leaving and have made their "last ever edit at RW or RWW", then they should expect some criticism upon their return. I have nothing really against Psy, but I think that if you are prepared to use foul language and be nasty against others, you really need to accept it in return. The same point can largely be made for his attacks on Nx. Nx and Human have been feuding with each other and saying horrible things at each other on a regular basis. Again, Nx should accept his own medicine. I would be more persuaded if MC was being nasty to people like Bobm or AD or the like who have basically never pressed a key in anger so far as I can see, but unless I am missing something, this has not been his MO. Damo^Hi 19:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm only an asshole towards Human because I've had enough of his abuse. Giving him some of his own medicine, as you say. The abuse I got from MC was because I dared to remove his trolling and personal attacks and block him, not because I used foul language and was nasty against others. -- Nx / talk 19:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The Little Fish that Got Away

Hello all. Marcus Cicero, in one of his routine rants, stated rather confidently that he had been "hired" by unspecified higher-ups to do the dirty work in some fashion. Normally, I, other wiki users, and the great and mighty sysops, admins, and mods would ignore this as pure bullshit. But if it is true, it could be really big. One might say the same thing about the existence of God, but there is a difference: while it is logical to assume nonexistence over existence, it is also logical to assume that, in times of crisis trivial and monumental, people will do the dirtiest, lowest thing imaginable. And what could be dirtier or lower than asking a troll to do the dirty work? Who would suspect? Marcus Cicero's narrative has always been patently illogical and probably impossible until now. Everyone should be skeptical, but let's not get too skeptical. I propose that somebody, somehow, investigate just to ensure that corruption is not as strong or highly placed as the shrieking troll says.--Talpidae (talk) 16:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what investigating there is to be done. MC claims he has incriminating e-mails. Unless he releases them I don't see what anyone can do. I'm staying skeptical. DickTurpis (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure these accusations are false and this is just another attempt by MC to cause drama and disruption. Also, Talpidae is probably an MC sock. -- Nx / talk 18:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

OK! I confess! I sent MC 500 euros and he agreed to make life difficult for Ace! Now he's got my emails confirming this though he promised he wouldn't tell anybody ever! He's always been so approachable and trustworthy that I took his word that he'd keep the secret.

If only I'd just thought of creating a sock and using it to do my own dirty work I could have saved myself the 500 euros and not be in this embarrassing situation now - but creating my own sock simply didn't occur to me! Oh what shall I do!--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

That's very suspicious - you two must be on awfully friendly terms for him to offer you a discount. The hit on Psy cost me no less than 1500 bucks, and that was a short-term project. Röstigraben (talk) 19:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Further question redux

The vote has been open for 24 hours now. Another 24 and then call it? P-Foster_{Can't we talk about this, baby?} 21:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

At 23-2, I don't think the extra 24 hours are going to make a difference, but leave it for the sake of fairness and openness. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 21:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking. P-Foster_{Can't we talk about this, baby?} 21:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

My only concern is that this is a new process in a new forum, and people might not know about all this if they're not paying close attention. This isn't exactly on a lot of people's watchlists, and the page name is a bit obscure. I posted it on the chalkboard, but honestly, who reads that? (The post I replaced it with was about discussing this new proposal of creating moderators.) I'd err on the side of caution and have this run a little longer than necessary rather than risking the appearance of a rush to judgment. Yeah, I know, at 24 to 2 it isn't going to make a difference, but I'm looking at much of this as precedent-setting, and I really want it to be done right. Besides, let's not give Marcus any fodder for his kangaroo court accusations. DickTurpis (talk) 01:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I sent out an intercom thingy when this all started. You wanna send out another? P-Foster_{Can't we talk about this, baby?} 01:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

How'd I miss that? Nah, that's not my concern so much as if this is a precedent, 48 hours or whatever might not be long enough for more controversial decisions in the future. Is there going to be a standard? I realize this is largely playing by ear, and I'm quite impressed with how it's been going. DickTurpis (talk) 02:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. If nobody else objects in this case to 48 hours, I'm kind of inclined to get things over with; that said, yeah, we're making it up as we go along. Job one is to formalize stuff, and to set a reasonable time limit on things. P-Foster_{Can't we talk about this, baby?} 02:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

One more thing, is this going to be the site for such things in the future? I like how the process is working, but a talk page with an obscurely named title doesn't seem like the right forum. Can we transplant this basic boilerplate back to the Coop where people are accustomed to looking for these sorts of disputes? DickTurpis (talk) 02:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I put something up at the Saloon bar pointing folks here. The rationale was that a locked-to-all-but-the-mods page was necessary to allow the mods to do their thing without people poking in and aggravating HCM, but to have it still be open and transparent and to have a talk page where non-mods could contribute to the discussion. I think the consensus was that both of those elements were a good thing. A renaming or something, might well be in order. P-Foster_{Can't we talk about this, baby?} 02:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

A mods-only discussion page is fine (provided it doesn't mean a wall between mods and the rest of us plebes), but I'm not sure its talk page is the ideal place for community-wide decisions such as this. It just seems weird and hackneyed to me. As this page is currently serving the purpose of the Coop, I'd like to see the process being developed here moved back there, as a sort of new and improved Chicken Coop, if you will. I admit it's not a huge deal, but this location just seems weird and unnatural to me. DickTurpis (talk) 03:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. While this place is also a good idea and should stay, next time we will return such things as the subsequent vote to the Coop. Live and learn.--^talk 05:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

A Declaration of the citizen's committee for the rehabilitation of MarcusCicero

MarcusCicero has appointed me his mediator (I'm a sock of a well known RW user) Marcus is prepared to make a number of huge concessions, which include the following:

• A voluntary 6 month vacation from this site.
• A determination and a genuine effort to say what everyone is really thinking a bit nice-ier.
• I believe 'Damo' pointed out that MC went after people who gave as good as they got. Psygremlin, David Gerard and Nx are good examples of this. These are no shrinking violets. A little proportion is in order here. Marcus will agree not to target obvious dickheads or loudmouths, because so many people seem to get their knickers in a twist over such attacks.
• MC will forgive the numerous insults he has received on this thread and will bear no grudges.

If you do not abide by these generous terms, MC will release all of the information he has compiled over the last 3 years, including highly embarassing revelations against senior users, (Namely how he was egged on and encouraged to troll certain people who were disliked for one reason or another) as well as the posting of a highly incriminating series of emails that directly implicates Rationalwiki in an organised and systematic campaign of hacking, slander and creepy real life style intrusions into the everyday lives of conservapedia sysops. The publication of these documents will have very real consequences, and may even lead to legal proceedings should the conservapedian leadership decide to pursue such a matter. MarcusCicero is already in contact with a senior conservapedian admin who is, quote, 'Delighted' to hear of such incriminating allegations.

You have 48 hours to issue a formal response. Thisisyourchance (talk) 18:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest that you treat this situation with the level of seriousness it deserves. MarcusCicero is livid right now. I did all I could to talk him down, he was prepared to contact the FBI only I prevented him. Thisisyourchance (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm really not into this kind of game playing, but... why do you care if someone is "livid right now". He or she will deal or move on, or will act like a child and do petty things. Life isn't always the most "fair", but baring killing Mexican Nationals illegally, or you know, losing your job cause you're gay, shit happens and grown ups deal with it. So he or she is livid? Why should anyone here specifically care, other than maybe a sense of fair play if the game wasn't fair. (and again, i have no idea what game was going on, who the players were, who was right, who was wrong... i just found your comment to be very silly in a grown up world.)--En attendant Godot 18:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

By the way, are you serious on the FBI comment, or were you making a CP "in joke" about how Andy always wanted to run to the FBI. cause if you are serious, it really makes your comments even more vapid.--En attendant Godot 18:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Are all Americans so literally minded. God, its like having your autistic 5 year old nephew over to a ball game. 'Uncle, why do they run after ball?' 'Uncle, why do cheerleaders dress like sluts?' etc. etc. Thisisyourchance (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Responding to this as if it were sincere (though I don't believe it is): Marcus is countering a one month block with a 6 month self-imposed banishment? Isn't that a bit like a defendant, offered a 6-month sentence at plea bargain, proposing 3 years? DickTurpis (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

(EC)There are times and places to be playful. This, it seems, is not one of them. In general, text communication on line is notoriously fallible when it comes to conveying winks and nudges. If this were Wikipedia, you'd be out on your ass in a heartbeat for hinting at legal threats. Basically the community seems to have said they are tired of MC's petulant uncivil trollsome nonsense, and are willing to give him a good long holiday whether he wants it or not. If you want to be taken seriously, then measured unambiguous language is in order. If this is another case of MC's self-styled "light-hearted persiflage," then I bet the mob is not amused. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe 'Damo' pointed out that MC went after people who gave as good as they got. Psygremlin, David Gerard and Nx are good examples of this. These are no shrinking violets. A little proportion is in order here. Marcus will agree not to target obvious dickheads or loudmouths, because so many people seem to get their knickers in a twist over such attacks. This is false. We were targeted because we wanted to block MC and remove his trolling. See for example this and my contributions before that. -- Nx / talk 20:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I vote for option 2: Marcus fucks off for good and shows us these facinating emails he talks about. That would be far better than him hanging around inflicting his aspergers on us all. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 20:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

MC, it's cruel to tease. Show us the emails! EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 20:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

£5 says they're all from Human. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 20:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Nah, I know there's some from Nutty. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 20:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I highly value MarcusCicero both as a contributor and as a member of this community. I'm for any option which affords us his participation and his company. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

We don't respond to threats.--^talk 20:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

ListenerX^TalkerX 20:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Email

Last night I received an anonymous email which was pretty much in this vein. Since the user remained anonymous I have no problem posting it here if anyone is interested. Ace^{of Spades} 20:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Go for it. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 20:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I can reassure everyone that Ace received no email from MarcusCicero. MarcusCicero has been exceptionally restrained during this entire lynching, and will continue to be so unless significant concessions are granted. Thisisyourchance (talk) 20:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I have never said I received an email from MC. Ace^{of Spades} 20:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

(EC)So as long as we keep knocking him he'll stay away? Works for me. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 20:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

From whom did you receive it then? Please share. Thisisyourchance (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Post it. Here's one I recieved from MC a while ago:

“”Stop being such a twat. I troll on RW. Get over it. -- This e-mail was sent by MarcusCicero to Crundy by the "E-mail user" function at RationalWiki.

Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 20:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

And how are we supposed to know that is genuine? Thisisyourchance (talk) 20:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Beware there might be fascists under your bed! --★uːʤɱ structuralist 20:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, you know it is :) Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 20:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I am merely MC's plenipentory. I have no idea of the exact nature of his emails or their specific quantities. Thisisyourchance (talk) 20:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm chatting to MC at the moment on google chat. He says you're a dickhead. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 20:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I am secretly observing your conversation. Marcus doesn't do anything without my advice. Thisisyourchance (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

MarcusCicero has proven time and again that he is not here to contribute. His long list of offenses to the community cannot be ignored, and we cannot assure ourselves that he will change his ways.

I also think this would be a great example of why we should (sparingly) use checkuser. i would not be shocked to find that thisisyourchance is another of MC's socks, dredged up to continue his trolling.--User:Brxbrx/sig 20:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Lol, are you seriously not sure whether TIYC is an MC sock? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 20:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The first of what will be a long and drawn out series of highly damaging leaks has been released. You know what you have to do. For anyone interested, check the userpage of MarcusCicero. That is where they shall be stored. Thisisyourchance (talk) 21:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

That leaked conversation from four years ago between Ames and Graham looks so genuine that there is literally no possible way that it was forged or otherwise made up and simply typed in to an html-using wiki-based website. I'm absolutely gobsmacked at Ames' betrayal of the RationalWiki community four years ago. The only obviously feasible option is to completely shut down RationalWiki forever. It's been a good run, but never mind. Goodbye forever everyone. SJ ^Debaser 21:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Lads, my evidence of the truthiness of these emails have just been confirmed. In a desperate attempt to maintain his dignity, Foster has resorted to an age old tactic - censorship. But he should know that truth, once buried, will always strive to break free, will always see the mountaintop and scream 'I MUST BE HEARD'. There is nothing he can do about it. The wonderful thing about history is that injustice, intolerance and oppression will always be held in antipathy, whilst freedom rises like a phoenix from the ashes. Thisisyourchance (talk) 21:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

"After extensive community consultation the following decisions were made"

Seriously? 57 hours from go to woah. About a dozens posts (and 14 hours) before "let's ban him already" is put to the vote. Seriously supposedly this editor has been a problem for some years now. There is a point where "speedy trial" becomes "railroad" and I think this passed it (quickly, and moving quite fast). Tricksy (talk) 02:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I like you Bradley but you don't really know what you're talking about. This has been a thorn in our ass for years. Ace^{of Spades} 02:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

MarcusCicero has been brought to the bench for these offenses many times before. Each time ended in a "hung jury" with the mob unable to agree. The current motion to ban him was brought over a week ago; what you see here is only the intervention of the moderators. ListenerX^TalkerX 02:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that I may not know what I am talking about (regarding MC's history). I did point to MC being a problem for some years, though, so I think I am on the right track. If the problem has been long-standing and has not yet destroyed RW then it would probably not destroy RW to take the time to do this properly, in a measured and considered manner. Being the first "case" this is not only about MC, but about how the mod squad will operate. Whether or not it is in fact rushing to judgement, this certainly APPEARS like rushing to judgement. Where was the motion to ban brought over a week ago? That is actually rhetorical; I am illustrating that while it is good that there is now an actual central location to handle moderation issues, it needs to be recognised that the moderation "process" only starts when it officially starts. To an outsider, this whole thing looks less like an attempt at moderation than it does a pretext to get rid of an annoyance. Regardless of the reality, that is the strong impression. Who is to be next "moderated" out of town? Me? Or perhaps Maratrean? Tricksy (talk) 03:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

As you are a good-faith contributor (unlike MarcusCicero, who has stated in no uncertain terms that he is a troll) I doubt the moderators or the mob would consent to your removal. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

You make some good points Brad but I think this issue has been around long enough to justify quick action. MC's history is the mitigating factor here, hence its speed. Your removal, on the another hand, wouldn't be an easy task (I'd protest) and the same goes for Maratream. Ace^{of Spades} 03:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I might also add the following fact that it is only a one month ban after 3 years of bullshit. Ace^{of Spades} 03:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

During Human's trial, when I tried to put a lid on things by making the vote last three days, people said that was too short; I doubt the moderators would do that again on a contentious trial. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

So Human has been tried, can he get away with inhuman behaviour or human weakness? Proxima Centauri (talk) 06:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Bradley - this had nothing to do with moderation. Several moderators helped out like others did, but our mandate is not handling long-term issues like this; it's putting out fires. Don't get your panties in a bunch over moderators yet. 03:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I think "nothing" is going too far, but you do have a point. I think it mitigates my points, rather than refutes them, though. Tricksy (talk) 06:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

You're probably right, Lx. In this case, the numbers made the decision to get it over with for us. That would not have been the case in a closer vote. P-Foster_{Can't we talk about this, baby?} 03:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

What happened this time was simple: the moderators kept the discussion on track and reasonable, kept the discussion to one page, and created a clear system for gauging the wants of the community. In other words, the moderators moderated, to a good deal of success. They, dare I say it, shot a billowing Headless Chicken Mode in the foot. Javasca₧ U s t D W a D e t u i v u o W l d D v A 04:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)