Talk:Trial of Human
From RationalWikiWiki
No. Ty 03:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- remove the parts you don't like, it should be fine for a start.--Brxbrx 04:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
This is quite well-written, neutral, and accurate as far as I can see. Nice work! humanbe in 16:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Name change?
Should we call this the "Trial of Human" instead? It seems to have more in common with the trial of Socrates than with Watergate. 
ListenerXTalkerX 05:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Your perrogitive, you can claim neutrality, as you did not vote. Ty 05:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- ListenerX, you didn't vote, but you did convince me to change my vote from Goat to Yes. Not sure if that was exactly your intention or not, but that was the effect it had. --Maratrean 07:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
It should be called witchunt. If this was a real 'reporting wiki' you lot would be able to see this affair for what it is. In reality you just propagandise in favour of one faction over the other here. My God how I despise you internet nerds, Goonie is the only one of you with any integrity. 86.45.195.245 09:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Inappropriate rollback by SuspectedReplicant
SuspectedReplicant just rolled back this and this edit of mine without explanation. The first edit is a true and verifiable statement of the situation. The second was correcting a formatting error. Without an adequate explanation of why these edits were reverted I will be reinstating them. Nutty Roux 19:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Go ahead, I refuse to participate, as I do not wish to insert my bias into the article. Ty 19:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- It *was* inaccurate, nutty. You're putting your own spin on a narrative that even Human has called quite well-written, neutral, and accurate. Don't spoil an article that currently satisfies everybody. SuspectedReplicant 19:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Don't use me to justify your edit warring. I said that about an older version of this, I find Nutty's edits to be an improvement. Quote that. humanbe in 02:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- Duly noted, but I've sent them to bed. The last thing this place needs is more HCM. How are things, btw? Ty 02:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- Don't use me to justify your edit warring. I said that about an older version of this, I find Nutty's edits to be an improvement. Quote that. humanbe in 02:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- I correctly stated the relevant guidelines and facts. I don't care if it "currently satisfies everybody" or what Human's opinion is if the article falsely states that the rule "explicitly prohibits" what he did when it is far from clear that it does (that is, after all the very purpose of the show trial you proposed) and if the article omits highly relevant information about Blue's identical conduct. You're going to have to do better or I will be reinstating the edit. Nutty Roux 19:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- No you won't, because it's going to start a fight. The article is currently good enough to satisfy both "sides". If I were to rewrite it, it would be much move anti-Human than it currently is, but I have deliberately stayed off it so that I'm not tempted to do so. I'm asking you not to trample over what is currently a fairly good consensus. You're on your own on this, whereas several other editors are happy with the current version. SuspectedReplicant 19:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- You've failed to justify your edit. "Consensus" isn't adequate to reject edits that hadn't even been made when the "consensus" was forged. The article falsely makes a conclusion that is the subject of the very dispute being resolved on RWW and whitewashes Blue's identical behavior. That's unacceptable and I won't tolerate it. Nutty Roux 20:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- You are just trying to cause trouble. Stop it or I'll block you. I've had more than enough of your shit. I tried to be nice, but you're evidently not interested in that, so fuck you instead. SuspectedReplicant 20:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- In fact, screw it. I've blocked you for a day and will leave Punky or somebody else to sort it out. I'm sick and tired of having to fight you but you're obviously not interested in doing anything else. We currently have a good article with which everybody except you is satisfied, yet you decide to steam in purely to cause controversy. Your edits were inaccurate and biased, and it's impossible to see any kind of good faith. I now see that my attempt to smooth things over last night was a complete waste of time and that you just aren't interested in anything other than strife. SuspectedReplicant 20:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Arguing by assertion doesn't carry the day, SR. Point out why you believe my edit was inaccurate and biased. I'll be happy to discuss any change in tone but you can't just keep stomping your feet like this when the article as it stands makes a conclusion that the rule "explicitly prohibits" what Human did when it's not clear it does and when readers might be interested to know that Blue did the exact same thing and where Human was actually entitled to crat Sterile if he wanted to. She did it twice. She's wasn't responsible for putting this shit storm up for vote. You were. As a direct partisan in this it's highly inappropriate for you to act like you're a gatekeeper and hammer on about a consensus that doesn't exist. Even if it did it'd be a railroad as the article stands. As for your attempt to smooth things over, give it some time dude. In the heat of this it's pretty hard to believe you're acting in good faith either when both of us have been needlessly provocative and both of us are obviously pretty steamed. Chill out. Nutty Roux 20:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- (copied from my talk page)This has all been explained to you before. The two situations were totally different. The vote on Sterile's 'cratting was ongoing so it was not appropriate for Human to preempt the vote and 'crat Sterile immediately. Blue was restoring the status quo ante. Human's de-cratting of Blue, however, was an unjustified use of his user rights as revenge. Is this clear enough now? SuspectedReplicant 20:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- No, it's not clear at all. The guideline expresses a preference for discussion but doesn't require it. You can read it for yourself in the relevant material you removed from the article. Further, it's inappropriate to assume Human's state of mind when Blue was warring with him over his prerogative and the crat guidelines may or may not permit him to temporarily remove her rights to prevent what he viewed as destructive behavior while the coop she started nearly immediately resolved the matter. If you care what I think about this I sorely wish the guidelines were a lot clearer about how this stuff is supposed to work but they're not. I think both of them were acting obnoxiously but that alone doesn't justify removing people's rights. Is this clear enough now? Nutty Roux 20:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- And I'll add that I would agree with you 100% that the article should state the rule "explicitly prohibits" Human's conduct if that's the decision of whoever the decisionmaker here is, which is hard to know since the process is such a sham. Nutty Roux 20:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- No, it's not clear at all. The guideline expresses a preference for discussion but doesn't require it. You can read it for yourself in the relevant material you removed from the article. Further, it's inappropriate to assume Human's state of mind when Blue was warring with him over his prerogative and the crat guidelines may or may not permit him to temporarily remove her rights to prevent what he viewed as destructive behavior while the coop she started nearly immediately resolved the matter. If you care what I think about this I sorely wish the guidelines were a lot clearer about how this stuff is supposed to work but they're not. I think both of them were acting obnoxiously but that alone doesn't justify removing people's rights. Is this clear enough now? Nutty Roux 20:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- (copied from my talk page)This has all been explained to you before. The two situations were totally different. The vote on Sterile's 'cratting was ongoing so it was not appropriate for Human to preempt the vote and 'crat Sterile immediately. Blue was restoring the status quo ante. Human's de-cratting of Blue, however, was an unjustified use of his user rights as revenge. Is this clear enough now? SuspectedReplicant 20:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Arguing by assertion doesn't carry the day, SR. Point out why you believe my edit was inaccurate and biased. I'll be happy to discuss any change in tone but you can't just keep stomping your feet like this when the article as it stands makes a conclusion that the rule "explicitly prohibits" what Human did when it's not clear it does and when readers might be interested to know that Blue did the exact same thing and where Human was actually entitled to crat Sterile if he wanted to. She did it twice. She's wasn't responsible for putting this shit storm up for vote. You were. As a direct partisan in this it's highly inappropriate for you to act like you're a gatekeeper and hammer on about a consensus that doesn't exist. Even if it did it'd be a railroad as the article stands. As for your attempt to smooth things over, give it some time dude. In the heat of this it's pretty hard to believe you're acting in good faith either when both of us have been needlessly provocative and both of us are obviously pretty steamed. Chill out. Nutty Roux 20:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- In fact, screw it. I've blocked you for a day and will leave Punky or somebody else to sort it out. I'm sick and tired of having to fight you but you're obviously not interested in doing anything else. We currently have a good article with which everybody except you is satisfied, yet you decide to steam in purely to cause controversy. Your edits were inaccurate and biased, and it's impossible to see any kind of good faith. I now see that my attempt to smooth things over last night was a complete waste of time and that you just aren't interested in anything other than strife. SuspectedReplicant 20:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- You are just trying to cause trouble. Stop it or I'll block you. I've had more than enough of your shit. I tried to be nice, but you're evidently not interested in that, so fuck you instead. SuspectedReplicant 20:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- You've failed to justify your edit. "Consensus" isn't adequate to reject edits that hadn't even been made when the "consensus" was forged. The article falsely makes a conclusion that is the subject of the very dispute being resolved on RWW and whitewashes Blue's identical behavior. That's unacceptable and I won't tolerate it. Nutty Roux 20:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- No you won't, because it's going to start a fight. The article is currently good enough to satisfy both "sides". If I were to rewrite it, it would be much move anti-Human than it currently is, but I have deliberately stayed off it so that I'm not tempted to do so. I'm asking you not to trample over what is currently a fairly good consensus. You're on your own on this, whereas several other editors are happy with the current version. SuspectedReplicant 19:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- It *was* inaccurate, nutty. You're putting your own spin on a narrative that even Human has called quite well-written, neutral, and accurate. Don't spoil an article that currently satisfies everybody. SuspectedReplicant 19:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Nutty Roux always been this whiny?--Brxbrx 20:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- As much as it may not appear to be the case, SR and I are doing our best to overcome our venom and work this out. We're both pretty steamed so unless you can be helpful, knock it off. This situation doesn't more of you piling shit on it. And you don't know what whiny looks like. Nutty Roux 20:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Brxbrx, go work on your masseuse article for a while. Ty 20:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- (e/c)I think it's clear, and judging by the number of editors who have contributed to the article without changing that section, I'm not the only one. As I pointed out, even the person you're trying to defend (not the best word, but the best I can come up with right now) thinks the article describes the situation well. Please can you leave the article alone for the moment? This isn't helping anybody. Do what I just did and spend 20 minutes playing Minecraft. There's no need to come up with a "final" wording right now - we can wait until things have calmed down a bit, when things will hopefully be a bit clearer all round. SuspectedReplicant 20:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Check your email, SR. Nutty Roux 20:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Your very important email of 10 inst. is received. You have a very important email of your own. SuspectedReplicant 21:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Check your email, SR. Nutty Roux 20:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
You guys ought to recall that Human did not reveal the reason he decratted me until after I had brought it to the Coop. All he put in the summary was that I'd accused him of being a troll - nothing about Sterile. I would have handled the situation differently if I thought Human was acting in better faith. Liveware Problem 20:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- But you don't know his state of mind and he wasn't asked for an explanation before this process started. He's since explained exactly what he intended. Nutty Roux 21:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- That's true. The entire Chicken Coop case against him is really a sham. I'm not being sarcastic. Liveware Problem 21:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm very glad to see you say that. I'd like to see people working toward getting the discrete problems with the guidelines that led to this situation resolved rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but tensions are so fucked lately that people seem to want to scrap the whole thing, which will invariably lead to a host of other unseen problems because none of us knows how to write a real constitution. It's really painful to watch. Nutty Roux 21:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm convinced that the most advantageous thing for us to do would be to create rules. We've been treating everything from Community Standards, the sysop and crate guides, custom, tradition, to Loya Jirga comments and general assumptions as "rules," and the result has been we have no rules. Nothing to moderate disputes except people shouting "don't be a dick" from every possible perspective. We have no good user rights management policy. I'm working on an essay expounding my view on all of this, which I hope will kick-start some discussion. Liveware Problem 21:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Everyone agrees that something must be done, we just always get bogged down with what. Ty 21:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Guess what, Blue? Oh I'll just tell you. I agree with 100% of what you just wrote. Nutty Roux 21:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Everyone agrees that something must be done, we just always get bogged down with what. Ty 21:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm convinced that the most advantageous thing for us to do would be to create rules. We've been treating everything from Community Standards, the sysop and crate guides, custom, tradition, to Loya Jirga comments and general assumptions as "rules," and the result has been we have no rules. Nothing to moderate disputes except people shouting "don't be a dick" from every possible perspective. We have no good user rights management policy. I'm working on an essay expounding my view on all of this, which I hope will kick-start some discussion. Liveware Problem 21:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm very glad to see you say that. I'd like to see people working toward getting the discrete problems with the guidelines that led to this situation resolved rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but tensions are so fucked lately that people seem to want to scrap the whole thing, which will invariably lead to a host of other unseen problems because none of us knows how to write a real constitution. It's really painful to watch. Nutty Roux 21:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- That's true. The entire Chicken Coop case against him is really a sham. I'm not being sarcastic. Liveware Problem 21:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Why I unilaterally undid Human's demotion of Sterile
Because Bob M did the exact same thing when Human unilaterally crated David Gerard. I just remembered. Liveware Problem 23:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- I don't blame you for that. Though, to be honest, few people even noticed when we changed the rules against unilateral 'cratting on RW. I think I even 'cratted people after we made that rule, only to wind up in an edit and user rights war. The rule wasn't always that we needed a community vote, it just changed at some point a year or so ago, and nobody seemed to realize it when it did. Punky McPunkersen 23:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- Cuz it didn't. The guideline expresses a preference that there be a crat vote, not a community vote, but it's not mandatory and any crat may presently make anyone else a crat he or she wishes. Does that make you a douche? Yep. That's obviously one thing we need to change. Just edit that single sentence requiring it to be put up for a crat vote. Nutty Roux 02:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Didn't we just change that [1], albeit after this ragefest? Ty 02:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, I thought it was a little strange that I was 'cratted--mind you, I don't think anyone would oppose it (except for the "we have to many" crowd), but I wasn't expecting it. On the other hand, I can follow a lot of governance stuff, but there's too many conversations going on, from tweaks to über-overhauls. I recognize that RW is bigger now, but it's a lot of navel gazing and certainly not moving post-CP. (And, yes, I think the de-cratting is the bigger issue.) Sterile 01:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Didn't we just change that [1], albeit after this ragefest? Ty 02:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Cuz it didn't. The guideline expresses a preference that there be a crat vote, not a community vote, but it's not mandatory and any crat may presently make anyone else a crat he or she wishes. Does that make you a douche? Yep. That's obviously one thing we need to change. Just edit that single sentence requiring it to be put up for a crat vote. Nutty Roux 02:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
[edit] when Human didn't deliver
You got it exactly backwards; I voted against Human originally, but when the complaining party, User:Blue, gave me a five minute time out, I suddenly questioned the wisdom of supporting her complaint and figured I'd get fairer treatment from the powers that be. RobSmith 20:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- What was recounted in the article was not backwards. You offered to vote in Human's favor if your sysopship was restored; it was not restored in nine hours, at which time you voted against him. Thirteen hours after that, you changed your vote.
ListenerXTalkerX 04:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- Wow. Maybe you're right. I don't remember that first part. RobSmith 20:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
