Information icon.svg

Nominations for the RationalMedia Foundation 2019 board of trustees election are now open!

Difference between revisions of "User talk:David Gerard"

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Sorry)
(Sorry)
Line 109: Line 109:
  
 
::::::I still think more than any of these issues our single biggest problem is that we are tolerating open hostility at well meaning editors way too much. Comments like "God, I wish you would just stay at WP" do nothing but propagate problems. tmtoulouse 17:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 
::::::I still think more than any of these issues our single biggest problem is that we are tolerating open hostility at well meaning editors way too much. Comments like "God, I wish you would just stay at WP" do nothing but propagate problems. tmtoulouse 17:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 +
:::::::I agree with Trent, and regret my part in making things worse.  (By the way, the current hostile atmosphere makes the fights between Human and me look tame by comparison.  I'm getting all nostalgic for when even the worst arguments could still produce worthwhile site policies.)  {{User:Radioactive afikomen/sig}} 18:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 
:::::::If you make hostilities a problem, then yes, hostilities will propagate that problem. If you don't...it won't. It seems like we got along just fine before we were forced to be civil. Or we just have to frame it in rhetoric to appease? If I believe David Gerard is a fucking cunt who does more harm than good, why can't I say that? Because ''you'' think ''that'' does more harm than good? Alanis Morissette would call that ironic. [[User:Occasionaluse|Occasionaluse]] ([[User talk:Occasionaluse|talk]]) 17:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 
:::::::If you make hostilities a problem, then yes, hostilities will propagate that problem. If you don't...it won't. It seems like we got along just fine before we were forced to be civil. Or we just have to frame it in rhetoric to appease? If I believe David Gerard is a fucking cunt who does more harm than good, why can't I say that? Because ''you'' think ''that'' does more harm than good? Alanis Morissette would call that ironic. [[User:Occasionaluse|Occasionaluse]] ([[User talk:Occasionaluse|talk]]) 17:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 +
::::::::^^^^And ''that'' comment, above all else, demonstrates that Occasionaluse is MC.  Only MC would pull the "We should be able to call each other cunts without impunity, just like we always have" argument.  Which is rather disingenuous, because ''before MC came along, we didn't call each other cunts''.  Remember the HUGE fallout when MC said "fuck you, SusanG" in the {{rw|Epic debate}}?  That was a big deal.  It's still a big deal—just because MC and David Gerard hemorrhage insults all over the place doesn't change that.  {{User:Radioactive afikomen/sig}} 18:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 
:::That would make a nice change - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 17:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 
:::That would make a nice change - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 17:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
  

Revision as of 18:11, 12 August 2010

This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>
Troll
This user likes a troll-free talk page. Revert away!

Admin abuse

I will re-sysop you tomorrow. We don't block people because we don't like what they say, here. ħumanUser talk:Human 06:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems unilateral to me, is there discussion that I missed where other were recommending rights removal? tmtoulouse 06:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I thought that too - I have renewed his sysop status. AceX-102 06:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I will repeat, just for the record: "We don't block people because we don't like what they say, here". I don't know what DG does not understand about that, but he apparently doesn't. He seems to think it's ok if the person he blocks is someone less useful than himself (see the chicken coop/DG2 thing, which spun out of control because everyone turned it into being about MC, when it wasn't). Oh well. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Well I don't understand it either because I'll block anyone who comes along simply to abuse and cause grief. AceX-102 01:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Toss me in with the reading-challenged. Personally, I think "is solely here to get in the way" is not the same as "saying stuff we don't like". --Kels (talk) 02:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not losing sleep over DG's choice of blocks. As I've said elsewhere, Trent isn't paying a metric fuck ton of money to host that sort of shit. Scarlet A.pngnarchist 02:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Then it's time we rewrote the Community Standards (and sysop guide?), since they seem to have changed. Which is fine with me, as long as we all, or most of us, agree. Change the rules so he isn't breaking them. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
What rule has he actually broken? AceX-102 02:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Ace, Mr. Gerard did this after this conversation between Occasionaluse and Susan. There, I did your due diligence for you. Lyra § talk 02:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
He blocked an editor for saying something he didn't like, an editor who could not unblock themself. As I said, if we want to change the "rules" (we don't really have any), let's just change them and be done with it. Maybe what worked for 3 years prior to DG being our most prolific editor doesn't work any more. So let's fix it. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Can't understand why we allow nasty fuckers to progate this site with pointed abuse towards editors under the auspice of "we don't block people". Its fucking crazy. AceX-102 02:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Mr. Gerard accused the editor of being MarcusCicero, who is a troll, and used that as an excuse to block him. The user had actually made some positive contributions before using poorly chosen words to aggravate Susan (and subsequently Mr. Gerard). A warning would have sufficed, not a block. User:Occasionaluse is not a "nasty fucker," nor is he a troll. Lyra § talk 03:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Lyra is correct. Ace, if we want to change the guidelines we can. But to change them, we must change them. As I read them right now, DG absolutely abused his sysop power and blocked a new editor who made a decent contribution, accusing them of being a known troll. He was wrong in several different ways, and is an unrepentant fuckwad at the date of this writing. However, he has the support, apparently, of many users in his abuse of the now-dead guidelines. So my request of you, and those who support DG's use of blocking to stifle dissent, is to bring up changes to the guidelines in a formal manner. User talk pages are not where we write policy. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
If you think that was a "decent contribution", you're outside the reasonable range of humanity and are actually incapable of such estimations. It was pointless abuse and worse than utterly useless. I did actually think it was MC, and the style of the unblock requests didn't convince me otherwise. By the time I realised it was Neveruse being stupid, someone else had finally unblocked Occasionaluse (after several others who had seen the exchange felt no inclination unblock either). I actually went to sysop Neveruse to quit his whining in future ... but, reading the log, saw that the consensus was strongly against doing so.
I do think I can say (based on discussion here, your talk page and the chicken coop) that the community is bloody sick of your continued defence of blatant griefers over anyone who isn't going out of their way to act like a fucking waste of space.
You, on the other hand, desysopped and decratted completely outside rules, consensus or pressing need. If you consider otherwise, do please provide a citation justifying your own action, since you've fallen back to bureaucracy as an excuse - David Gerard (talk) 11:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
It seems the issue here was not space consumption, but an insult, in fact a reference to the more disgusting human anatomies, and worse still, the decomposing parts of the supposedly middle/elderly-aged; a below the belt shot aimed at something far more sacred and sensitive than imaginary testicles could ever be. Was it somewhat urtful? This should not be answered in the affirmative or the goat will be got. We must guess. If urtful, was it deserved/defensive? Oh the complexity of it all. It would be much easier just to categorically forbid insults that might be readily distinguished by the use of the dirty words. I think that is more fundamental to your claim that the community is turning against Human's protecting of the supposed transgressors of reason/goodness. You may become excited to know that I am working on a poll/proposal for dealing with such insults, to be posted over there in Community Standards (as well as policies for bureaucrats, etc). ~ Lumenos (talk) (other talk pages: LI1, LI2, WP) 04:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I would say that your attempts to work out human interaction from first principles with no comprehension are like watching a monkey try to fuck a football. I admire your perserverance but don't think you'll get very far with this approach. Have you considered http://www.lesswrong.com/ ? You would be on a level with many of their participants in social interaction skills - David Gerard (talk) 20:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
We are straying from the topic of your alleged abuse, which is fine with me, but I have made a new section for it a few sections down. It is called "My conflict-resolution philosophies". ~ Lumenos 00:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Finally some drama!!! --Idiot number 59 (talk) 11:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Cryptic reaction to proposed policies

Your edit comment here reads, "It is a direct comment on your bilge, and you and Human are quite aware of this". Well, non-chronological archiving does detach it from the other sections and its meaning becomes even less clear. I "agree" there. It seemed to be a reaction, perhaps a parody, but I wasn't sure how much context would be required to make sense of it. Are you commenting only on my policy proposals or is this a larger issue?

My proposed policies seemed fairly simple. Do you have an objection you could express in a simple and straight-forward way? (The most appropriate place for these objections would seem to be the sections I created on the Community Standards talk page.) ~ Lumenos 21:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Well? ħumanUser talk:Human 03:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Human, if you suddenly think Lumenos has anything useful to say on the subject just because you've decided you're arguing with me ... By the way, you still haven't answered just which community standard you were invoking above - David Gerard (talk) 07:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
David, you haven't responded to Lumenos' concern that you consider his contributions "bilge". ħumanUser talk:Human 07:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I do believe I have. Human, when did you start considering Lumenos' contributions - any RW contributions - not bilge? - David Gerard (talk) 07:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Eir are strange, but eir cares. When did you start considering eir contributions "bilge"? ħumanUser talk:Human 07:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
When I realised that every contribution matched the pattern "concern troll", but without trolling intent. Sincerity does not imply non-bilge. When did you start considering Lumenos' contributions - any RW contributions - not bilge? - David Gerard (talk) 08:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I forgot, you are now the ultimate arbiter on RW of who is and who isn't a troll. My apologies. NOW FUCK OFF. — Unsigned, by: human / talk / contribs
And, of course, I said he isn't trolling. I said he's a useless motherfucker. Well done on your superior reading ability - David Gerard (talk) 09:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Unless you are a mother I've fucked, I think you are unqualified to speak of my usefulness in that venue. ;-) You are obviously biased to claim all my ideas are as bad as any of them. This is where we see if atheists can be moral people; not the speculations of mainspace editors. I have my disagreements with you and Human, but I would never make such a generalization about my heathen brethren. ~ mothafuck'n lumenati beatch! 21:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

My conflict-resolution philosophies

"I would say that your attempts to work out human interaction from first principles with no comprehension are like watching a monkey try to fuck a football. I admire your perserverance but don't think you'll get very far with this approach. Have you considered http://www.lesswrong.com/ ? You would be on a level with many of their participants in social interaction skills - David Gerard (talk) 20:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)"

"First principles" would appear to refer to consequism. That is a much lower level than policy developement which I've been involved with at WikiIndex and now here. I don't know what you imagine I am trying to achive or what I haven't comprehended. I have basically expressed my perception. I know of no other way to see how it appears to others. When it is wrong or unclear, sometimes others help me to correct this.
On moral philosophy: I looked at the http://www.lesswrong.com/ wiki and blog. I don't like to discuss only abstractions. I would rather be involved in a conflict and use philosophy if it can be a part of the solution. If you have some better philosophy regarding first principles, I'd like to see it. I've never met anyone who seems to really comprehend my philosophy, so I doubt that you have either. ~ Lumenos 09:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I've never met anyone who seems to really comprehend my philosophy - I'd be surprised if you ever do. Jack Hughes (talk) 10:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
The problem with your proposals of new rules is that basically all you seem (from your editing) to be interested in is how to hack rules. Bureaucracy is a useful skill applied in tiny doses, but that's all you're interested in. And you're not doing it to troll, you're doing it with complete sincerity, which is of course worse.
(When you've tried to participate in other ways, it's that monkey-football thing and I'm not sure that's better. Mostly it's stuff that would be ridiculously offensive if you weren't clearly devoid of any interaction skills.) - David Gerard (talk) 21:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Email

You have it at your gmail address. ÑR/Señor Admin/¡hablen ustedes! 18:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Answered pointing out that Skype is proven to make people read the Bible more, which is why I only communicate via black holes. I do IRC by arrangement tho - David Gerard (talk) 19:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Divabot

Nice name. Sounds sexy. Which diva is it we are talking about? LimpWrist (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I must point out, sir, that I only go out in a short skirt, stockings and high heels to pick up chicks - David Gerard (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Oooh, a cross dresser. Kewl! LimpWrist (talk) 21:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
We'll be having none of this "cross-dresser" rubbish here, thank you. My skirt is a MANLY skirt, the heels are MANLY heels, the stay-up black stockings are MANLY stay-up black stocking and the frilly knickers are MANLY frilly knickers. And this does in fact get the chicks - David Gerard (talk) 22:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Whatever you say. Who am I to judge? LimpWrist (talk) 22:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
AN OBJECTIVE INDIVIDUAL, THE ONLY TRULY SOVEREIGN ENTITY THAT CAN EXIST!!11!!! - David Gerard (talk) 22:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
What does Divabot do? EddyP (talk) 22:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I was going to do a pile of lengthy and tedious categorising, then I remembered last botlike run I did making Nutty Roux whine that he couldn't follow it on his phone (no doubt an iPhone) and then I remembered I was gonna make a bot to do that stuff and then I created it and then I answered questions about it and it's bedtime now - David Gerard (talk) 22:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Divabot will remember to alphabetize the categories, right? Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 22:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Of course! I trained it on this page - David Gerard (talk) 22:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

It's not you particularly that I'm pissed off at. It's just that you have, in the past, been a prick and been overzealous (to say the least) in using your authority. This wouldn't be much of an issue, except that all that has to be said is "MC" and this community goes "Oooh! They're right! MC is an asshole." The level of apathy regarding, for example, you being called out for abuses of power (whether you did or not is not the point) just because someone said MC is no excuse, in my opinion, for this website to abandon principles it has held high since before I even joined over 2 years ago. Punky Your mental puke relief 03:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Principles evolve with the community. It's disturbing but true. The community now is radically different than the community when we joined years ago (Has it really been that long? Wow.), but the principles have remained the same. As a result, the two are growing incompatible with one another, and strife is breaking out. I see only two solutions: change the community, or change the principles. Neither are easy and both are painful. Ah, well. I guess things will shape up the way that things will shape up. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 03:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I am going to change my trousers. AceX-102 03:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Here is a question: is it the community values changing or is it merely a scaling issue of community size? tmtoulouse 03:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I would say, probably, a little of column A and a little of column B. AnarchoGoon Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living 03:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
It's Dunbar's number, isn't it? The community is now too large for everyone to know everyone else? --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 03:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
No, it's still possible to follow RC routinely. Any wiki you can do that on, lots of people are going to know everything. When quite a few people respond to "We don't block the trolls here" with "Actually, no, that's just obviously stupid", it means you've failed to explain it in any convincing way. "But CP do that!" is argumentum ad Hitler and obviously fallacious. You will need to convince people the thing that looks like a bad idea is actually a good idea, using ... reason. Or you could just try to drive away the people you're disagreeing with, of course - David Gerard (talk) 05:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
When quite a few people respond to "We must block trolls here" with "Actually, no, that's just obviously stupid", it means you've failed to explain it in any convincing way...douche. 14:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I think one of the issues we are bumping up against is our previous approach of using "community standards" not "community rules." And taking a lassiez-faire approach to structuring them and enforcing them, allowing each individual editor to pursue their own personal interpretation of how this wiki should be run. Perhaps its time to really get some specific rules laid out about the things that are causing such conflicts.

A few key rules that are "non-negotiable" should help clarify when to block, and when not to block. Such things as "we don't block for content disputes" and "there must be a pattern (multiple incidents) of incivility in order to block." Blocking an IP for 2 hours is usually more than enough, stuff like that. tmtoulouse 17:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

When the Lame Jellies says "obvious vileness, worthless" and then one of the LJ says "that wasn't vileness, that was a decent contribution!" then interpretation is more than just a little problematic - David Gerard (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't disagree, I think we need to go back to embracing the concept of "mostly harmless" both in our proactive choices, and our reactions to the actions of others. When blocking someone for something, a small unit of time is usually more than sufficient to disrupt the activity (1-2 hours) and if someone blocks someone for a short unit of time and you think it was overly harsh, an hour block isn't the end of the wiki either. Subtlety, and above all else people need to remember that on a wiki almost any action done can be undone.
I also think we need to start really working towards discouraging incivility amongst our editors. I see a lot of insulting things getting thrown about that are really not justified in the least. Civility betwixt each other, subtlety in our approach to problematic users, and remembering that things can always be undone. Work towards these goals and I would think a lot of this social tension that has been permeating and seeping around lately could be aleviated. tmtoulouse 17:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the above, particularly since one of the things that can't be easily undone is losing good members of the community over petty disputes over things that are easily undone. I also think that at this point, we really need to start rethinking our sysopship policies; having 2 or 3 hundred sysops and 40 bureaucrats just means that there are effectively no administrative decisions that won't be contested by someone. Bastard harmonic Hoover! 17:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
The social rules are "CP did this bad thing so we'll go 110% the other way!" This isn't necessarily a good idea. It depends if you want a social space that is only for CP veterans, because others don't put up with it. In which case a Foundation, plans for expansion etc are pretty pointless. A list of rules that wouldn't look obviously insane enumerated under the mission statement? - David Gerard (talk) 17:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Dude just doesn't get it... Censorship = bad. Bullying = bad. Persecution = troll food. God, I wish you would just stay at WP... Occasionaluse (talk) 17:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
But it is equally bad to allow a caustic and poisonous element in the social interactions of the wiki to do whatever it wants. Censorship, bullying and persecution when dealing with content disputes are bad things, but the community has a right to remove individuals that are doing nothing but harming it.
I still think more than any of these issues our single biggest problem is that we are tolerating open hostility at well meaning editors way too much. Comments like "God, I wish you would just stay at WP" do nothing but propagate problems. tmtoulouse 17:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Trent, and regret my part in making things worse. (By the way, the current hostile atmosphere makes the fights between Human and me look tame by comparison. I'm getting all nostalgic for when even the worst arguments could still produce worthwhile site policies.) Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 18:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
If you make hostilities a problem, then yes, hostilities will propagate that problem. If you don't...it won't. It seems like we got along just fine before we were forced to be civil. Or we just have to frame it in rhetoric to appease? If I believe David Gerard is a fucking cunt who does more harm than good, why can't I say that? Because you think that does more harm than good? Alanis Morissette would call that ironic. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
^^^^And that comment, above all else, demonstrates that Occasionaluse is MC. Only MC would pull the "We should be able to call each other cunts without impunity, just like we always have" argument. Which is rather disingenuous, because before MC came along, we didn't call each other cunts. Remember the HUGE fallout when MC said "fuck you, SusanG" in the Epic debate? That was a big deal. It's still a big deal—just because MC and David Gerard hemorrhage insults all over the place doesn't change that. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 18:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
That would make a nice change - David Gerard (talk) 17:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You should be ashamed of yourself

Don't you even look at the other edits when you post a WIGO? You perpetrated three bad numbering errors. May the goat have mercy on your asshole. Redchuck.gif Генгисmarauding 14:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I always use a nextpoll clicky. Safe WIGOing! - David Gerard (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)