RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive5

This is an archive page, last updated 16 December 2011. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, < List>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>

, (new)(back)

No confidence

After reading this section I have no confidence in the mods.
it's my view that Nx's actions should not just be endorsed, but repeated in the future. Blocking someone for hours or days as a joke, when he can't unblock himself, is not cool. If someone does it, it seems incumbent on us to take action and temporarily desysop the person who did it for abusing their rights. And if they keep doing it, we have to make a vote about it. Agree/disagree?
Brx was blocked, by me, for 30 mins. He was swiftly unblocked and when I remembered he had no ability to unblock I ceased immediately. He was then blocked for longer periods by others - months on end on some cases. Then Nx comes 9 hours later and focuses on me solely. Not one other person involved in the entire situation was approached by the Nx, as a mod. He refused to answer for his actions and has refused to state he wouldn't abuse his position in such a fashion again in the future. And now the mods as a group are debating whether or not to endorse said actions? I have no confidence in the structure. Ace^ace 20:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Where is that quote from? Blue (pester) 22:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The project page. Ace^ace 22:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh I see. Blue (pester) 23:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

You keep forgetting to mention that after UHM unblocked brxbrx, you reblocked brxbrx for an hour. -- Nx / talk 20:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Then Brx complained on his talkpage he couldn't unblock himself - so I stopped. That was the end of my involvement. Until you came along 9 hours later and decided I should be stripped of my rights and blocked for 9 hours. And that you shouldn't have to even explain your actions. Ace^ace 20:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

It was all fun, RW fun that is. -- Nx / talk 20:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

You are allowed to use your Mod rights like that? Ace^ace 20:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

You are allowed to use your Sysop rights like that? -- Nx / talk 20:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

RW has a pretty well established history of sysops blocking other sysops. When I realised he wasn't I stopped. What's the issue? Ace^ace 20:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I might also point out that there were a couple other mods around at the very time this was taking place and who did not feel action was necessary. This further casts light on Nx actions as personal and vindictive which are not adequate reasons for one to employ their mod rights. Ace^ace 21:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, why did you block brx in the first place?--. 20:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not having this discussion again, or here - take me to the coop or ask me on my user page. Ace^ace 20:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Ace that this is ridiculous. Mods are not there to issue punishments according to their own judgements. Temporarily desysoping someone should be an emergency measure only, or a community decision ("penalty vote"). I'm not going to get into whether Ace was right or wrong to block Brx, but (on a site where nearly everyone has blocking abilities) it's well established that blocking is something that happens a lot while dicking around with people's user rights is a whole different ball game. Add to that that sysoprevoke can only be undone by other Mods, so it's clearly not something to play with. Also, see what the Functions & Philosophy sections say about Mods having "a light touch", & using their tools to prevent conflict & community disruption, not create it. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

So … step down as an alternate. --★uːʤɱ libertarian 21:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I have all ready said i would not accept a mod position if Nx were to lose his rights due to my conflict of interest. Ace^ace 21:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, there I was writting the previous comment thinking that just once, just this one time, you might think a little before you respond. *sigh* No, Ace, what I meant was if you don't think the office of a moderator is a good thing, it's the consequential thing to not take that position in any case. Although, I now suspect that any response to this will either consist of "fuck you"/wild suggestions that I'm trolling you or a random picture with some weird caption. --★uːʤɱ sinner 22:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I never said the office of moderator wasn't a good thing. I said I have no confidence in the current mods. Before accusing me of not thinking about my response perhaps you should try reading what I wrote in my very first comment. Ace^ace 22:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

"After reading this section I have no confidence in the mods." "I have no confidence in the structure." ??? --★uːʤɱ kant 22:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I know what I said. I am engaging the mods - not you UHM. I don't care if you misunderstand. You want to debate me do it on my talkpage. Ace^ace 22:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Nah, you'll just edit war over it and then archive it so that nobody can edit it anymore. --★uːʤɱ structuralist 22:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

That was only to Nx because I wanted him to answer me over here - as a mod. You want to take this up with me on my takepage I am all ears. Ace^ace 22:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure... You know what, you can explain to me on my talk page how "structure" can mean "people". If you don't want to do that, I have something else to do anyway. --★uːʤɱ netlabelist 22:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

(EC) AD's comment does not represent the views of "the current mods" as a group. I'm not sure why he's putting his opinions on the project page rather than here in the discussion, but they're still his own opinions only. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I put it there because I was hoping to draw other mods to actually have a conversation about the issues brought up here, and decide if we needed to do anything. This page is for people to bring up issues they want moderators to examine, after all. I was hoping we could decisively decide one way or another, cutting short all this crap and ending the downward spiral of discussion that is occurring.--^talk 23:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I am trying to engage solely the mods on this issue and keep it to this page to avoid a clusterfuck (though there is some discussion on RWW). Ace^ace 23:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your intentions and your dislike of the current mods, but there's a vote in two months. Just make your case then, and argue to replace the ones you hate and retain the ones you like.--^talk 23:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

But if this issue is no dealt with now then any other mod can act in the same way regardless of who it is. Are mods allowed to act they way Nx did or not? Ace^ace 23:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

No, but the whole system is an ineffectual failure anyway. I think it's time we decided on the exact remit of moderators, and what they can do in specific terms. Blue (pester) 23:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

"You are allowed to use your Mod rights like that?/You are allowed to use your Sysop rights like that?" Nx, here's my problem with you in a nutshell. You seem to think that "I know you are but what am I?" is a reasonable way for a mod to conduct themselves. You are being a cowboy and a cop, and are not being a moderator. You are supposed to defuse impending HCM. but your attitude is doing the exact opposite--you are creating HCM and extending HCM long past its shelf life by taking the law into your hands and doling out punishments instead of looking for creative and productive solutions to growing tensions, and then justifying it by saying "but he hit him first." To put it bluntly, not only are you really, really, really bad at your job, you seem to revel in the fact that you are really, really, really bad at your job. You are PROUD of just how badly you do your job. Please answer me this question--why are you a mod, and what do you understand the job to entail? B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 21:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I feel the same way as B-Flat here. And for the record I am not trying to cause an HCM. My concerns are quite serious and though I have been the cause of much drama due to my actions those actions are not what is being queried here. I have explained myself but Nx is yet to explain himself. And as a mod I feel it is necessary for him to do so. Ace^ace 21:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

If you let someone do something bad without any consequences, they're just going to start over again later. Moderators are meant to end the cycles of HCM RationalWiki seems to experience.--. 21:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

So we don't let Nx get away with this then. Ace^ace 21:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

We get recurring HCM because every time there's a controversy it eventually dies down. But then whatever started the controversy hasn't been dealt with and a month or so later the same HCM pops up again. Moderators are supposed to reduce HCM, and Nx went to the source of a recurring issue: people abusing their sysop rights. Thus, he stamped out the fundamental issue, which is Ace having block rights. If Ace doesn't have block rights, he can't abusively block people. Problem solved, without any casualties (except perhaps for Ace's ego and his ability to have "fun" at the expense of others).--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

No. Nx went about 'moderation' in a purposefully inflammatory manner, accomplishing the opposite of what mods should do, which is prevent this kind of endless arguing. It's getting absurd how ineffective the moderation system has turned out to be - I actually think the Loya Jirga was a better effort. Blue (pester) 23:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Brx, what did we ever do to you? Why did you pick this particular website as a place to contribute absolutely nothing of value and create long-term grief? B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 23:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The problem with moderators is that the system has been sabotaged from the inside. And you know what? I think that in spite of that mods have been fairly successful. We got rid of MC, didn't we? Isn't it better during HCM to have AD calmly overlooking everything and generally being the voice of reason? Isn't it nice that we can enforce things?--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

...you could not conceivably have made a worse argument.--^talk 23:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

...sure he could've. He could've used the word "nigger" again. That would have been worse. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 23:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

True. We should count our blessings.--^talk 23:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Hell, if he is going to laud the mods for getting rid of MC he should remember I was a key driver behind that...so thanks brx! Ace^ace 23:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I was all for you being a mod up to the point you soured and turned on Maratrean.--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

So in other words you've got nothing but some arbitrary personal criterion for singling him out, despite like 80% of the other mods sharing the same opinion about Maratrean (and you!). You are a fucking genius. 23:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not at all arbitrary. Up until that point Ace was really coming around. He even tried disciplining Human. But then he got tired of being responsible and considerate and that's when I stopped supporting him.--User:Brxbrx/sig 16:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Brx hatred level

--^talk 23:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Ace was "really coming around"? Ace^ace 19:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

You were. Then you gave up and went full douchebag--User:Brxbrx/sig 20:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Nx's attitude just gets worse. Our moderators fail.

I can't believe this guy. I send him a message about his gross incompetence, and his reply is basically "so what?", Great guy, great moderator, great system. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 12:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

He's saying that his actions are the result of your callous pattern of rights abuse. By citing your own flippant responses he is illustrating why he believes you should not have user rights. I agree with him.--User:Brxbrx/sig 12:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

This isn't about you. That said, the nonexistent outcry of masses of people in my case at the Coop should tell you how many other people agree with you. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 12:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, was I somehow making this about me? I suppose it's possible my narcissism is so pervasive that I'm incapable of realizing when I co-opt something and turn it into a me-fest, but I honestly don't see how that's the case. I said "I agree with him." That is not making it about me. As for the number of people that disagree with me, they've failed to convince me of their position so for the moment all that changes is me spamming my opinions slightly less.--User:Brxbrx/sig 12:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

When accused of something his standard deflection strategy is to accuse the accuser of the same or worse without making any substantive response. He did it to you. He's done it to me. It's boring. 14:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I am in absolute agreement. Nx has completely failed as a moderator. Like I said on his talkpage - his defence of "Why didn't Ace just tell me he forgot Brx couldn't unblock himself" is a total failure as a defence because Nx didn't even bother to moderate. If he had asked/warned m=e first I might have told him but instead he just jumped in and removed my rights without any explanation. Fucking failure. Ace^ace 19:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Sysop Revoke

Can we move this to the talk page? No mods are not allowed to discuss on the mod page, but i don't think this is a mod only issue (I'm not sure what is a mod issue, actually - i had thought they just enforced Mob issues). It's clearly a site wide issue. Personally, I agree it's a necessary tool in the mod's hands. I disagree that it should EVER be used without both a Mob discussion, and a Mob/Mod consensus. It's something only a hand ful of other people can undo. GodotGet over it!. 14:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It's only necessary if you think cops should carry heavier sticks. This trouble is happening because only the mob has any moral authority here. More rules wont change that; they'll only make things worse. Same as it always was. 14:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised people still think "the mob" can be trusted with "organizing a piss-up in a brewery," much less deal with trolls, flamers, and user rights management without massively unnecessary disruption. That being said, we don't need sysop revoke if nobody has the authority to use it. Blue (pester) 16:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary, but if it stays it should only be used for either 1) emergency temporary action to stop a wheel war in its tracks or a spree of rampant abuse, or 2) enforcing a mob/coop decision. The same should go for pretty much any Mod activity against an individual user. I'd thought this was pretty clear in the Mod guidelines as they stand, but others seem to be interpreting the "moral authority" differently, so maybe it needs to be spelt out explicitly. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Fuck the mods

They cant even moderate themselves. Worthless fucking cretins. Ace^ace 21:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

We should start an "Occupy Rationalwiki" movement and demand justice. We are the 99%. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 21:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

No, you're not... But at this point you've all heard my spiel a million times over--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

"Shut up, Brx."

Shut the fuck up brx, I am talking to the wet bag mods. Not you. Ace^ace 21:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

We are all vandals as as most of the mods are concerned on most wikis that have ever been edited. Some of us just go one mod further. --Interpreted^{destroy all editors}

Occupy Rw has been done. sterile^talk 22:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The WIGO Template Affair

I don't care what order the damn buttons are in. I do care that Nx's idea of moderating was to lock the page in the configuration he wanted, after making very little in the way of an effort to moderate the situation on the talk page. That whole situation could have been moderated in a much more effective manner. I asked a mod to intervene, but she told me to bring it up here. So maybe a mod who is interested in moderating can see clear to returning the template to its original format and to moderating the ongoing controversy over the issue? Thanks, mods. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 03:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, then. Blue (pester) 03:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Blue. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 04:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Nx and SR

Nx, at some point can you drop the community a note and tell us why you've promoted another user? I see all kinds of oversighting in RC, but there's no real indication of what exactly the issues are. Thanks. Also, I shouldn't have to tell a mod to do this. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 13:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

He was revealing personal information. -- Nx / talk 13:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Next time, creating a "paper trail" somewhere other than in edit comments might be a thing to consider. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 13:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Give me a second. -- Nx / talk 13:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I just saw the time stamps and am confused by the time change out of DST. I honestly thought this happened an hour ago, not minutes ago. Seriously, I should have expected you to do something, but not right away. My bad. This time. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 13:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I got a glimpse of what Nx was oversighting before he did it. He's 100% in the right this time. Recklessly Noise Punk ^{What's this button do? Uh oh....} 13:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

That's good enough for me, Goonie. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 13:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

"I guess the proper procedure is to hold a week-long vote or whatever so everyone can chime in, but is that really appropriate?." No, the proper procedure was to do what you did. Shut him down and block him. NOW the proper procedure is to see if that should really be a permaban, a one-year ban, a one-day ban, or whatever. It seems to me that a permaban might be in order--I'm a big advocate of not breaking the 4th wall, but we can discuss now that the crisis is over. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 13:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I already knew what Nx hid what with all the delicious pillow talk. I don't share that kind of information with just any scrub either. But what's up with the super long blocks and derightsing? TK got better treatment and he called people at work, threatened to sue others, and promised to have me disbarred. 13:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

You should be disbarred, after the way you plea-bargained my brother-in-law into a death penalty sentence over that jaywalking charge. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 13:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

death joke --145.94.77.43 (talk) 14:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

That was a joke that went way too far. I really thought the prosecutor would notice that I crossed out "jaywalking" and wrote "arson and felony murder" in crayon before I threw a wad of singles and an empty half pint of Popoff at the judge and yelled "I'm rich, bitches" before I stormed out of the courtroom screaming. I'm very sorry for your loss. 14:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Cheerleader troll creature thingy

Locking the pages indefinitely. Just a heads up. Laters. Тy^talk 21:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

MC's Wiki and Human

This discussion was moved here from RationalWiki:All things in moderation. 22:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

So, MC finally went and created a wiki and Human is using his talk page to promote it [1]. What should we do about it? We could spamfilter the url, but on the other hand if MC stays there and leaves us alone, and doesn't spam it on the Saloon bar and stuff, that's a good thing. -- Nx / talk 05:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I am kinda unsettled by the level of vitriol that he is directing at some people. It's really beginning to read like the kind of thing that newscasters will be talking about after somebody has snapped and done something horrible. Combined with SR's stunt a couple of weeks ago, it reminds me that the internet can be srs bzns. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 05:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Foster the Cruel... Its just a bit of fun... Honestly, you can be so earnest sometimes. 86.47.72.206 (talk) 12:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Hm, I don't see anything quite as bad as that, just the usual. -- Nx / talk 05:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

As much as I get the damage MC does and is doing, filtering urls is not cool. Also, NX, this isn't "mod" business, this is SITE business. Mods do the "will" of the mob, as it were. They are not a special class of Rational Citizens or something. What you choose to do about this will color how other people see Rational Wiki. so do think carefully, because blocking sites to "protect" things is amazingly close to the kinds of things "other" wikis do. I'm not a mod, but i care a lot about RW, and i care about what actions are done in the "name" of the wiki, and the consequeces. --GodotSome would use a tautology to describe it ("The way things are done around here is the wa 06:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I did not say we should block the site, just that it's an option, and I know that we should handle this carefully. But tolerating criticism doesn't mean that we should tolerate trolls. The reason I brought this up here and not at the saloon bar or something is that MC is an attention whore, and having a huge site-wide discussion that degenerates into HCM is exactly what he wants. -- Nx / talk 06:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Nothing we can do. Let Human link to it, if he's so bitter. Let MC write what he wants. Just ignore it.--^talk 06:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that there's nothing we can do, but yeah, ignoring it might be the best option. -- Nx / talk 07:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

RE BbMaj7 & Godot's postings above, I thought only moderators were allowed to post on this page? I have responses, but thought us non-mods could not post on this page? I would suggest we either move both their and mine postings to Talk, or if we do not, I shall take it that the former rule against non-mods posting on this page has been rescinded by customary legislation. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 07:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Look at the bright side, Maratrean has a new place to spam his crap. More seriously, should a Foundation trustee be an active editor there? Big conflict of interest. PsyGremlinTal! 08:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

PG, sometimes you have such a either you are with us, or against us attitude. Life doesn't have to be like that. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

It's an irrelevance. Ignore it or sock up and join it. It's cool though that we now have two sites dedicated to writing about us.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 08:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Ignore - I wouldn't even know about it if Nx hadn't brought it to my attention. Генгис^evolving 08:49, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Genghis. Having given MC a two year ban and been promised he would continue trolling, it's amazing he didn't have to utter a word on RW to yet again start a discussion that will take orders of magnitude more time and energy than responding to him directly ever did. Boy he really got your numbers if all it took was for Human to post a URL he thought was interesting that I bet 80% of the people here followed. 10:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

My opening comment was badly worded. MC did spam this to the Saloon bar several times - I wanted to use the abuse filter to prevent him from doing that. It would've been written so that autoconfirmed users are not affected by the filter, so that would not affect Human. Human being an asshole again is a different thing, and like I said if it stays on his talk page and doesn't get spammed everywhere, I'm fine with ignoring it. -- Nx / talk 14:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that somebody who was appointed - not elected - a Trustee of this wiki shouldn't be taking a poison pen to the members he's supposed to represent. At best it's bad faith. PsyGremlinSnakk! 08:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Does the fact that somebody has decided to reveal what they claim to be Nx's name change anything? Peter ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 09:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Yep. -- Nx / talk 09:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

How do we know that Nx's "real name" (whatever it supposedly is), is really his real name? I mean, whatever my real name is... it most certainly is not the real name you are all familiar with (Zachary Martin). Now, if someone said my real name was Kerry Andrews, then I would demand that they be banned for eighteen months minimum, but one still would be foolish to conclude thereby that my real name actually was Kerry Andrews, given the quite distinct possibility that it is actually Michael Baker, or Sarah Mackenzie, or Gautam Shivalingam, instead.... (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

When it comes down to it, whether or not it is his real name is irrelevant. Peter ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 09:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I take it back - Maratureen you're not a troll. Just a fucking moron. --PsyGremlin講話 09:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I hereby state, for all the word to hear, on absolute authority, that Nx's real name is Julius Caesar, and that if you have heard anything to the contrary (even from the man himself), that is nothing other than a lie, meant to lead you away from the truth, as most of those who know this truth wish indeed to prevent you from coming into possession of it as they themselves have, that they might thereby have power over you (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Re MC's wiki & Human linking to it: ignore, DFTT (meaning MC). Re Nx's real name, I don't understand the connection. Did Human or MC mention it? If not, why is it being discussed again? Please don't post it onsite again Maratrean; do you want to be banned like Suspected Replicant? Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 10:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

You haven't read the Left Behind trilogy series, it appears? Actually, I misspoke previously. Nx's real name is not the name of the Antichrist from that series of rather woeful novels, whose name it is now apparently a grevious sin to mention in association with Nx... Nx's real name is actually Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill, KG, OM, CH, TD, PC, DL, FRS, Hon. RA... (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

--^talk 10:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I thought you didn't mind a little bit of silliness AD... obviously you are way too straight. (True to Goddess, I do know Nx's real name, and it isn't any of those which I have previously mentioned... I'm not going to tell you what it is, just going to say that Nx = AD... you do the math... and I'm a sock of someone else) (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Genghis, Nutty, Bob. Let it go. For the love of Maratrea, let it go. sterile^talk 12:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I only see two options here: 1. We ignore this pathetic wankery MC spends his free time with. 2. We all swing by and change it so fast they can't manage to stop it, until they ban us. I suppose even though option 2 would be more fun, we will go with option 1. --★uːʤɱ socialist 12:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

If people seriously think this is a productive use of their time then leave them to it. Link to them. CP tried to deny the existence of RW for a long time and see where it got them. If that's what the wiki editors get off on then I hope they have fun. Frankly, a wiki dedicated to a mixture of to MC's weird ramblings and Maratrean's even weirder beliefs should turn our to be pretty amusing. Like time cube with bats. I hope it grows.

As far as Human's position is concerned there should be elections soon. If others want to take on board the rather tedious work of a board member they should stand agaisnt him in an election.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 12:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

If he has any decency he'd stand down as a Trustee. He can't expect to represent it on one hand and slag it off on the other. If he was a company director, he'd be removed from his post. He's made his choice, now he needs to fuck off and play with MC. --PsyGremlinParlez! 12:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. We have a wiki on which 2/3 of its members spend its time criticizing another site, and now people want pitchforks and tar for Human for criticizing this wiki on another site. RationalWiki truly is dead. sterile^talk 15:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The difference being that this somebody is a person entrusted to the running of the Foundation. It's like Andy coming here and bitching about CP. This is supposed to be the public face of RW and he's running around with an insane troll, calling members cunts. Human can do whatever the fuck he likes. A Foundation Trustee can't. See the difference? --PsyGremlinPrata! 15:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that the nature of the bitching is what is at stake. If Schlafly was to come to RW and say "dear fuck these flying kitty things are getting out of hand, I can't control him!", that would be different to saying "the whole of Conservapedia is corrupt and a lost cause and I hate everyone". Indeed, a position of trust and management should preclude bitching about problems (because a position of trust and management implies the ability to fix such problems) but it has to be the nature of the comment that is at the heart of anything, not just the mere presence of someone on a "rival" site. ^sshole 16:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

That's not a good post, Armondikov. That's an awesome post. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 17:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, it's not just "someone on a 'rival' site", it's a Trustee on a site that is saying pretty nasty things about people on here and remaining silent, thus condoning it. If Human waqsn't a Trustee I couldn't give a shit what he said over there. It's about the position, not the person. I would be raising the same issues if it was Nutty doing it for example. Human is welcome to vent hi spleen over at MC's blog; he's not welcome to do it whilst acting as a Trustee of this site. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 17:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I really do sympathise with that point, but I don't make make the connection between "having an account" or even "making small edits/corrections" with "condoning the message". Even in the case of an RWF trustee. ^moral 17:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I've read all of your comments this am, and I have to say that it doesn't seem like Human has done anything wrong (yet). He's gone and joined a petty silly child's tempter tantrum. But he hasn't, himself, stated anything or given up any one's personal info. Maybe since the Trustee Board meets next month, it's worth just watching him and waiting. If he just fixes possessives or something, it's hardly worth blinking at. But if he makes any edits that are material, then you deal with it. We shoudln't be in the business for punishing people for *maybe* or *they might do*. GodotSome would use a tautology to describe it ("The way things are done around here is the wa 17:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

This is not a moderator issue. Moderators do not have a special connection to the Foundation or the Trustees, except that Trent used his capacity as Operations Manager to create them by fiat. If the Board of Trustees wants to remove Human, it is their prerogative and should not be decided by the moderators or the general community. Community input is fine, but the community has no power to act here. Blue (pester) 20:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

And as for Human linking to McWiki from his talk page, I have to recuse myself from any moderator decisions made. Blue (pester) 20:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing to do about either of these things. Just ignore it. It's not really even a big deal - so MC is spending hours creating a hate-site? Big deal, that just makes him tragic. And if Human wants to go there, that's just pitiable as well. Maybe he's just goofing around. But neither are anything to worry about. Let it go.--^talk 21:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

First of all I am sorry that I missed all this, it looks like a riot of laughter. Second of all, MC's vanity knows no bounds and long discussions about him don't help. Third, where is my article, I haven't been called a cunt in a while? Fourth, link by all means it is comedy cold and the hate is perfect for clogo. Finally I feel sorry that Human feels like this project is in anyway a useful endeavour and he wishes to support it in any way. But as we know Human has plenty of spare time to edit wikis and if he wants to edit that one let him. - π 23:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Nx....Again

So it's OK now for moderators to insinuate that they are purposely trying to drive users from the site? Ace^ace 08:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to drive you from the site, I was merely suggesting that if you wanted to be a lame troll you should create your own wiki where you can do whatever the fuck you want. -- Nx / talk 08:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

no I said I wasn't going to be driven off rw by you to which you replied "we'll see". Pretty poor show from a mod not to mention creating a subsection on this very page to categorize my concerns with your behavior as "irrelevant whining". This is the mod page and I am calling into question your behaviour as a mod. The fact you'd do that when a user is requesting mod intervention just goes further to show you are unfit to be a mod. Ace^ace 09:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

My behavior as a mod? Where? And it's funny how quickly you can go from "I'm Awesome McCoolguy, the coolest user on this wiki, and I don't take shit from no-one" to "Mommy mommy, Nx is being mean to me, wah wah wah". -- Nx / talk 09:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

And once again, like last time Nx's behavior as a mod was called into question, he just carries on with it and doesn't give a fuck and implies that he'll just carry right the fuck on. At least I had the good sense to quit as a mod when realised I had abused the position. Ace^ace 08:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

What have I abused? -- Nx / talk 08:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The first time I complained about you as a mod you had abused your powers. Now you are suggesting you are purposely trying to drive users off the site. Great, nice work. Good moderating. Ace^ace 08:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

What a complete fucking farce

Not one of you mods is fit to moderate the making of a cup of coffee. Nx rules the roost and is beholden to no one, Genghis is nowhere to be found, ditto Pi and Nutty. AD and Blue just layer more and more bureaucracy but at least Weaseloid tries. What a depressing site sight...Ace^ace 19:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm working. I'm sorry RationalWiki Moderator isn't my primary occupation. Blue (pester) 19:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

We don't regulate most behavior and any real response would require a longer term plan than we can implement since Nx is basically ungovernable. If you disagree, please propose a course of action that's consistent with the mandate Trent gave us. I regret that I don't see anything a mod can do to address your complaint. 20:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Its a fucking farce. Nx is an awful person who's stated goal is to drive me off RW. As a mod that is a pretty poor show and no one seems to give a damn. He has abused his mod right in the past and rubbishes any appeal for someone to take note of his appalling behaviour. I don't mean to be a hypocrite but when I act like a dick I get fronted for it but Nx gets away with far more aggressive transgressions. And he has also publicly refused to state he won't abuse his rights again. So, its a fucking farce. The power structure cares only about protecting its own. Human was right I regret being part of the group that had him against the wall. Ace^ace 20:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

All I see is some kids fighting in the playground; has someone got hurt? Генгис^evolving 20:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Has someone got hurt? Yeah, RW. Ace^ace 20:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

LOL. -- Nx / talk 20:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

See what I mean, he just doesn't give a fuck. I got shafted (and quite rightly so) because I abused Maratrean. I can accept that and I deserved it but Nx does what he likes without anyone giving a fuck, least of all him. Ace^ace 20:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't give a fuck about your faux concerns. Jesus H Christ you sound worse than MC. RW got hurt because I told you to fuck off? Call the wahmbulance -- Nx / talk 20:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

What counts as "someone getting hurt" in your book? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 20:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I got punched in the face once by some guys who tried and failed to mug me. The shiner I had for a week after hurt quite a bit as the gentleman who decked me was wearing a ring. SJ ^Debaser 20:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I seem to recall one or two people here openly admitting they were trying to drive Maratrean off the site, and I don't recall a big fuss being made over it. Also, links. DickTurpis (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So, let me get this straight. When you (while being a mod) and a few friends of your's (some of them also mods) state that they want to drive somebody, who annoys the living crap out of almost everybody, off the wiki, that is a good thing. But when a single person states in a rather jokingly fashion that they'll see if he won't drive you off the site, that's an audacity. Am I getting this right? --★uːʤɱ anti-communist 20:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

that is a good thing See my statement above: I got shafted (and quite rightly so) because I abused Maratrean. I can accept that and I deserved it. But Nx is allowed. I am wrong. He has openly stated he want's to drive me from the site. I am a dick for wanting to get rid of brx and Maratrean but Nx is allowed. Forget it. May Nx win. Ace^ace 20:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

UHM - you mean "atrocity." Ace - If you propose a course of action for the community to take re Nx's perceived abuses, rather than whining about it, people might listen. Nutty is right: moderators have no authority here, and it's especially difficult because Nx is himself a moderator. Blue (is useful) 20:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I retract my complainant. Nx is so blatantly able to carry on as he wishes while everyone else mutters about the rules. As I said. A farce. Ace^ace 20:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

What do you want us to do? Blue (is useful) 20:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Get completely hamstrung by the rules, let Nx abuse his rights and be a dick as he sees fit. All codified because no one can do anything. That's all the mods are good for. Ace^ace 20:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

What do you want us to do? its all been done already. The whole system is farcical and has been shown to be so. There is nothing else that can be done. Ace^ace 20:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're unwilling to provide substantive criticism or anything beyond whinging about "the whole system." You're stringing buzzwords and expletives together, nothing more. Blue (pester) 20:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

For the record, Ace responded on my talk page to the request for links. Basically we're looking at the recent block log: [2]. In general it seems blocking people who have the ability to unblock themselves isn't seen as too much of a big deal, but a series of 3 month blocks like this is getting into harassment territory. DickTurpis (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not worried about being blocked. What i think is wrong is a mod openly stating he is trying to drive users from the site. When I did that I quit and accepted I probably shouldn't have done so. then when pointing out over here that a mod is behaving in a pretty shitty manner the same mod just rubbishes it. like i said - a fucking farce. Ace^ace 20:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you just want someone to tell him off? Blue (is useful) 20:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

There's a saying that in a Democracy you get the government you deserve. Well, I'm thinking the same applies to mods. This is what happens when people keep voting for the controversy-prone users (I'm looking at both Ace and Nx here). Anyway, I'm not sure just the statement "we'll see" is enough to really justify action. I myself am trying to drive SuperJosh off this site by ignoring his farts, am I to be punished? DickTurpis (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Blue - no I really meant "audacity". Ace - Didn't you state that resigning had nothing to do with the whole Maratrean-thing? Anyway, I don't oppose telling Nx off that he shouldn't do that. I do believe one shouldn't do that because (a) it's dick move (b) as a mod you should moderate not cause problems and (c) what follows out of it almost always against the rules most of us actually wanted or at least agreed to "work" under. But I'm not a mod a Nx is, if I pop up on his talk page that will hardly have an effect. @Dick - You hit the nail on the head there. --★uːʤɱ sinner 21:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Look what I found… --★uːʤɱ constructivist 00:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

That's all nice in theory, but the reality is that enforcing the rules against dickheads like Ace doesn't work. Try to bring them to the coop and the result will be a resounding meh from the community. Try to block them and everyone screams rights abuse (never mind blocking a non-sysop for 3 months, that's ok, but remove the blocker's sysopship and suddenly you're TK). So I fight fire with fire. Is much more effective. -- Nx / talk 21:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The RationalWiki community is disgustingly conservative.--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Ever thought about searching for some water? --★uːʤɱ anti-communist 21:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I forgot. Try to ask them nicely to stop being dicks and they'll laugh at you. -- Nx / talk 21:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Do we have any reason to believe that Nx is trying to drive Ace off the site?

Any concerted campaign of harassment? Any articles created about him? A mock ominous retort is not evidence. Ace McWicked is just trying to stir up trouble.--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I also told him that he should follow the example set by MarcusCicero and create Ace McWiki. -- Nx / talk 21:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Hardly damning. That's not driving him off, that's making a useful suggestion.--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

That's at least a good name… But honestly do you want to? I've been reading it as a joke, but I might be wrong.

I don't think Ace is trying to stir up trouble as much as he is overreacted by making a new section here (instead of stoping by Nx talk page and asking him/telling him to stop it). --★uːʤɱ pirate 21:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I also suggested that he commit suicide by means of choking on a bag of cocks. -- Nx / talk 21:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

So, as the community can see, there was no campaign of harassment. The treatment of Ace McWicked is hardly comparable to the horrendous treatment of Maratrean by several moderators. While it's not a pretty precedent, according to it there is nothing Nx has done wrong. Ace is just being a drama queen.--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Summary

Nx: Ace is a dick so I can be a dick
Blue: We can't do anything
Genghis: I don't give a fuck
Dick: Nothing to see here
Brx: Oh, I want get involved! Look at me! Ace is a bad man!
All is right with the world. Again, what a farce. Ace^ace 22:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Ace: Nx is being mean to me, call the FBI. -- Nx / talk 18:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

[3] --★uːʤɱ socialist 22:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It's kind of a rock and a hard place (been working 18-hour shift, just saw this). I mean, mods can't block him for "harassing" you any more than we blocked you for harassing Maratrean. In both instances you guys are "wrong" - if you're looking for that moral surety - but if we tried to impose any further sanctions or anything we'd be acting beyond our bounds.

• We could propose a vote, but then, you could propose a vote if you wanted to do so.
• We could propose a rule to stop this, but then that would be building more of those rules that you complained about in your opening post here.
• We could block him or take unilateral action, but then that would be arbitrary authoritarianism done against someone who isn't breaking any real rules.

Literally every avenue of action is one of which you disapprove. You don't want a vote, you don't want rules, and you don't want arbitrary action. Ultimately, all we can do is just say that this is the anarchy/mobocracy aspect of the site, and you need to actually decide what you want before you can complain you're not getting it. Ask for a rule, a vote, or unilateral action. Short of that, we're not magicians and can't solve this problem when all possible solutions are precluded.--^talk 22:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Pictorial summary

→ → ← ListenerX^TalkerX 04:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

→ Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 04:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)