User talk:SecretAgentoftheMods

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Why does this account exist? Who has access to it? And how do we prevent mods from anonymously abusing this? Carpetsmoker (talk) 02:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

  1. That's a secret. :P
  2. That's also a secret. :P
  3. The same way we 'prevent' regular mod accounts from abusing their powers: Peer pressure! :) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 02:08, 2 January 42016 AQD (UTC)
You can't do "peer pressure" if you don't know which peer to pressure. We will have six mods in a week, and assuming they all have the password for this account, you can create situations where someone abuses mod powers without knowing who abuses them. Even with just two mods (and not all six) with access there's a problem... Carpetsmoker (talk) 02:19, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Sure you can. And I'm not sure why you assume all mods would automatically have access to this account. Even so, if this account goes haywire, we can just demod it like we would a regular mod account going haywire. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 02:49, 2 January 42016 AQD (UTC)
I didn't assume it, it was a question; but why have this account if not more than one account has access to it? And yeah, it could be demodded, but then there's no accountability if no one knows who this is. Carpetsmoker (talk) 02:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Accountability is already pretty sketchy with internet accounts in general. Who is who? Is X the sock of someone else? Was X's account hacked or are they just saying so to escape the punishment? Et cetera. And it's not like when an account is banned people can't simply create a new one. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 03:08, 2 January 42016 AQD (UTC)
You know what's worse than anything Conservapedia ever did? This user account. It should have all rights stripped from it and the owner(s) should hang their head in shame. I, personally, don't care who owns this account. What they are doing with it is everything Trent said we would never do as a Wiki, and it damn sure makes the old "RationalWiki is just like Conservapedia" adage to be nice by comparison. Old guard (talk) 11:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
I also support removing rights from this account, at least until there's an adequate explanation of what its role is & why it's needed. Since its only notable action so far has been renaming an inactive account in a way which deliberately provokes an offsite troll (who has already caused enough harm to the RW community), I'm sceptical that it's going to be a good thing to have around. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
A bit more seriously than the replies I gave higher up; it's kind of obvious this account was created so moderative action could be taken against incoming GGers without the moderator in question having to suffer being held accountable by the notoriously reasonable GG populace being doxxed and dogpiled with nasty threats by the GG mob. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 18:39, 3 January 42016 AQD (UTC)

It originally was set up by mod decision to make revdelling certain items easier; I believe it is now unnecessary. I have removed all rights from the account. After the current mod election finishes, I will discuss with the newly elected mods whether an account of this type is necessary. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 20:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's something. But dirty tricks like this should not, under any circumstances, be encouraged by anybody on this Wiki, moderator or otherwise. Old guard (talk) 11:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
If this is what you think counts as a 'dirty trick', then I don't know what to do other than waggle my eyebrows and make a succession of funny armpit noises. Queexchthonic murmurings 11:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Not only did you guys create the account, but you guys hid the logs related to it, so that the person(s) who created the account and granted it moderator privileges can't be held accountable. Someone at the upper eschelons of this website abused their authority and made it virtually impossible for the common people to held them accountable for their actions. The operator of the account used the account in order to evade justice; that's the dirty trick. All logs related to this account should be unhidden. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
"to evade justice" Lol, what horrible crime did this account commit? Or is mere anonymity a crime too now. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 18:24, 3 January 42016 AQD (UTC)
I already explained, and you already read it. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Since when is a puerile "haha I named this account after you" poke equatable to a horrible crime? Some people have no sense of humour, I guess. :/ 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:52, 3 January 42016 AQD (UTC)
I can certainly see why this account was created but for reasons FCP explains well above, no good can come of it.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 13:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
You can just remove the visibility of whoever did the banning or whatever. There are certainly some cases where this might be required; but this account has already been abused, so it's probably a bad idea. Carpetsmoker (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Is the operator of the account going to get away scott-free?[edit]

Is the operator of the account ever going to be disciplined or reprimanded in any way? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

What for? IMO, funny armpit noises are more than sufficient. MaillardFillmore (talk) 17:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
The one misuse has been rectified; the account did do several useful things. There's not much more punishment that can be given in this case than ending this account. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 17:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Those "useful actions" were things that could've been done with any moderator account; you guys simply lacked the courage to do them with your main accounts. In addition, losing a throwaway account such as this one is hardly a loss or penalty at all. Shouldn't the operator's main account be desysopped as well? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
With respect, but all I'm hearing here is incessant whining about a moderator having the gall to use an anonymous quasi-untraceable account, thus cockblocking the GGers, EDiots etc. that would've otherwise directed all sorts of lovely messages to them and other people to get their revenge-boner on. I commend your courage for posting this whiny stuff here, though I think it's prudent (and relevant to one assertion from your post above) to tell you that there's often only a very thin line between courage and stupidity. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 18:53, 3 January 42016 AQD (UTC)
Eh, I see no reason to prosecute this account further. It's lost its rights, and that's with whoever owns it having the knowledge that, if they do it again, they'll be subject to harsher penalties. I'd consider this a first-time offense by somebody who had a stupid, bad idea, not a repeat offense by a hardened Wikicriminal. Hell, people in positions of power have had worse ideas (like deleting WIGO:CP and breaking the Wiki) and gotten away with no penalty because, while what they did made sense to them at the time, it turned out to not be such a good idea. That user said "Sorry, I fucked up guys," things got fixed, and nobody got hurt. Looks like Fuzzycat did the same thing here, and since this account has had its rights stripped from it, so long as nothing else similar comes from a moderator account after this, I see no reason to continue to prosecute a bad idea any further now that the owner of the bad idea knows it's bad. Old guard (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Unlike the case you have in mind, the operator of this account never issued (via this account or another) an apology or a promise not to do it again. There isn't any sign whatsoever that the operator of this account is remorseful or has learned the error of his or her ways. @142: I not asking for justice from Gamergate or from a mob; I'm asking for justice from RationalWiki. Why else is my message here than on reddit? So far, you guys don't seem interested in administering justice on your own at all. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
In that case, this comment seems relevant. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:21, 3 January 42016 AQD (UTC)

In case it matters, the account was created communally by the mods; there was no single operator. FuzzyCatPotato of the Sinister Oddballs (talk/stalk) 19:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm talking about the person who operated the account early on December 31, 2015 (GMT), and the list of moderators at the time was short (as short as it is now, in fact, and the culprit obviouly isn't you). --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Fuck off, concern troll. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
As one of the moderators in question, Fuzzy, do you 1) agree this was a bad idea 2) apologize for this idea and 3) promise never to do with again now that you learned your lesson in stupidity? Old guard (talk) 19:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
1: Should be clear from my above comments.
2: Yes and no. At the time, it seemed (and perhaps was) necessary. It caused something bad, and I apologize for that.
3: I was not the one who misused the account; I used it twice, first in relation to the mod elections and second to fix the dumb rename. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 19:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
hehe, quit playing around. You used your main account to fix the problem. You probably never used the acount at all. Quit covering for others. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:44, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Speaking of which, thanks for quitting playing around, Michaeldsuarez. Your bad faith trolling will be justly punished, you have my word. :) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:48, 3 January 42016 AQD (UTC)
Concern troll feigns concern, and keeps on Streisanding the C'wood thing. MaillardFillmore (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm kind of curious what you find so significantly horrible about the existence of an account like this, Old guard. More particularly; what makes it "worse than anything Conservapedia ever did"? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:45, 3 January 42016 AQD (UTC)
Well, I really didn't like the fact that a secret, unaccountable account was created solely for, as it appears, the sake of stirring shit. That being said, since Fuzzy admits that it was a bad idea, and since the community has started shining sunlight onto this account, and since this account is defunct and only food for the trolls now, I see no further reason to care or worry about it, provided that the owner(s) of this account learned their lesson. Old guard (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
I'd wholeheartedly agree with you if that were indeed the case, but I don't share the impression that the account was solely or primarily created for stirring shit. But indeed, nuff said about this matter already. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 20:37, 3 January 42016 AQD (UTC)

General note[edit]

The account is dead; it can't do more harm. Might be best to find a new bogeyman? Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 19:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

So long as it's dead then, yes. Beating a dead horse and all. Old guard (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
As long as it is not just pining for the fjords.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 00:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)