User talk:This is not the solution

Explanation please
I am late to this. Can you explain what is going on? - please use this talk page to do it. MarkDilley
 * I will. User:Nx was blocked for removing spammy links to Liberapedia and various inaccuracies and repititions on the RationalWiki (en) article; Proxima also protected the article to keep her version up. Nx emailed the people in charge and tried to get Proxima stripped of her rights, but when there was no response, someone started mass vandalism to try and attract some attention. 92.233.174.117 06:22, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

I gave a link to Liberapedia as that wiki also has material critical of Conservapedia and I know many readers of the RationalWiki (en) article will like that type of information. They called that spam, well I've now added another link Digging the Dirt on the Lunacy that is Conservapedia with better material about problems with Conservapedia. I only found out about that second website this morning and when I was under pressure I didn't think to add it. I hope the links are less spammy and more acceptable. Proxima Centauri 07:07, 24 August 2009 (EDT)


 * It's a bit too late for that now. Anyway, would you please come to irc to discuss this: http://webchat.freenode.net/, type wikiindex into channel Please unblock Nx and his IP, thank you 07:14, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

I added the link about two hours after I found out about it and about half an hour after the pressure was off me so that is not late. Proxima Centauri 07:23, 24 August 2009 (EDT)


 * You added the link to Psy's blog today. After the whole mess. In an attempt to make your link to Liberapedia look less like blatant advertising. And keep in mind that we didn't remove every link to Liberapedia, it was there with the other places RWians went to (although noone went to LP, guess why?), we just removed the advertisement
 * Also, unblock me please, and join us at IRC. Please unblock Nx and his IP, thank you 07:26, 24 August 2009 (EDT)


 * Several users or several sockpuppets of the same user first insisted on getting the RationalWiki (en) article their way if they could, then when I protected that article they started general vandalism. I hope I've cleared it all up. As far as I know they're all blocked but the user or users are experts at ban evasion and range blocks may be needed if it restarts. Proxima Centauri 06:19, 24 August 2009 (EDT)
 * First, I apologize for the vandalism. I will clean up everything on my own. The issue is that Proxima Centauri is abusing her powers and reverting and protecting any edits to RationalWiki (en), Liberapedia and other articles. She claims that removing content is a blockable offense. If you look at her edits at RationalWiki, you'll see that's an absurd claim, for example, look at this, which contains two wrong dates, unnecessary quoting of the linked blog post and comment (I've summarised the content instead, and linked to the post), and her speculation about when the site would come back and a sentence before that does state when the site will come back. Only getting the right date there was a struggle. But her main problem seems to be that I and others have removed a paragraph advertising Liberapedia. Then there's Liberapedia, which is her own wiki. I tried to improve her writing, but she reverted me without explanation and locked the article for a month. . Category talk:Active administrators of this wiki also contains a previous incident during which she abused her powers on RationalWiki (en) to pursue a personal grudge. 65.60.37.195 06:26, 24 August 2009 (EDT)
 * I'll help with the vandalism, by the way. Phantom Hoover2 06:27, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

Assume good faith
So - I am starting from this point. I know we are in a mess and I am late - but that is were I would like to start. User:Proxima Centauri has done a lot of work here and for that I am grateful.


 * Yet she doesn't assume good faith. She has now blocked Phantom Hoover2 who has helped revert the vandalism.
 * BtW, don't unblock Phantom Hoover2, unblock Phantom Hoover; I'm fed up with using my neighbour's WiFi. 70.84.211.82 06:36, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

She may have done a lot of work, but that doesn't excuse her behavior. She failed to assume good faith when Phantom Hoover removed the offending paragraph in RationalWiki (en), then she blocked me without warning with the justification that since I've edited Phantom Hoover's talk page, I should know that removing content is a blockable offense. She did not justify any of her reversions. It seems she didn't even read the edits she reverted, because she then asked a question that she would know the answer to had she read the edit. Please unblock Nx and his IP, thank you 06:39, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

I want a cooling off period
Phantom Hoover - will you accept that? MarkDilley
 * Yeah, but can you unblock User:Nx (who is the one who really didn't deserve his block), his IP address, and block ID #586, which is my home IP. Phantom Hoover2 06:45, 24 August 2009 (EDT)
 * Nx's IP has block ID #576. He's the one who you should be addressing all of this to; I just got tangled up in it. Phantom Hoover2 06:47, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

I appreciate that. I will try to sort through stuff and check back in later. MarkDilley

Thanks to everyone for the cooling off; my idea on how to move through this
I appreciate everyone talking a step back. One of the things I love about Wiki is that anyone can edit anything, and when there is a diff - we try to work through it. I am aware, peripherally, that there are disputes between people and perhaps communities. These include RationalWiki (en), Liberapedia and Conservapedia. What I am interested in having done on WikiIndex - is to move everything to the talk page for those three wiki - and act as the moderator (other uninvolved administrators could also be in this role). This is only a suggestion to get us through. Please let me know if you think this is an acceptable solution for you. Best, MarkDilley
 * Acceptable (if I got it completely [concerning my en->de limitation]). Btw I'd remember the participants that wiki is a slower communication medium than e-mail, e-chat, or a real-life talk, but it's more open to public and durable. Many people will - and have to - read it. Everybody has the time to think what - and even whether - to write here. And he/she should use this time. Let's keep WikiIndex a peaceful "corner" (it's certainly not the top) of the Net. Best --Wolf | talk 04:07, 26 August 2009 (EDT)
 * This is politics for you. No offense, but I'd rather stick to technical stuff. That said, I think wiki rivalries belong on the wikis directly involved. WikiIndex is not about liberals, or conservatives, or religion, or Linux; it's about wiki technology and concepts. Let's keep it that way. Felix Pleşoianu | talk 04:59, 26 August 2009 (EDT)


 * Another possibility is that the people from RationalWiki (en), Liberapedia and Conservapedia spawn another wiki/blog/forum specifically for their 'discussion'. Having followed recent events I must say I an confused by it all this 'static' spewing out, so I imagine that for someone new who comes to wikiIndex as a wiki listing wikis, the recent events should seem highly irrelevant and far from germane to the wikiIndex project. If wikiIndex plays host to such squabbles, there is a real risk that allowing such discussions will set a precedent that will degrade the quality of this valuable site. Let us remember the message at the foot of the edit box:
 * Please note that we are an index of wiki, wiki people and wiki ideas, contributions outside of that scope may be treated as test edits and be removed. -- Carl McBride (talk) 06:12, 26 August 2009 (EDT)
 * This wasn't about interwiki disputes, it was about Proxima Centauri abusing her sysop powers to promote her own site and keep a flawed, inaccurate version of the page from being edited. Phantom Hoover 07:08, 26 August 2009 (EDT)


 * IMO there is no crime in promoting your site a little. E.g. I've started the Bee Train Fan Wiki article primarily to promote it (since I am its founder). However, you've got to respect others' opinions, as well. If moving controversial stuff to the talk pages is acceptable to all parties involved, I can only support it. Otherwise, I'd strongly support the removal of all controversial content from corresponding articles and their talk pages. Don't trouble trouble until trouble troubles you and don't touch a running system is my policy. --Koveras 15:44, 26 August 2009 (EDT)

I thik the above post by Koveras is the best suggestion so far. Proxima Centauri 02:03, 27 August 2009 (EDT)

Sorry, but Proxima has demonstrated that she has no qualms about locking and blocking to prevent people from questioning her. I cannot accept her getting off with yet another abuse of power. She has already locked articles on at least three separate occasions to prevent people cleaning up her terrible writing and ovious vendettas, and she seems not to care. She should be stripped of her sysop powers. Phantom Hoover 12:51, 27 August 2009 (EDT)
 * I think it is a bit foolish to fire a volunteer, when there is apparently nothing stopping us from changing the policy they were apparently following. Lumenos 22:53, 28 August 2009 (EDT)
 * (Note that "Proxima" didn't write this rule, they seem to have been trying to carry out their admin duty.) I updated this "guideline" so that this "editing etiquette" is clearly not to be a basis for blocking people. Ta da! I hope this is not wandalous of me but when Dad's cat's away, mice will play! Lumenos 00:54, 29 August 2009 (EDT)

I outlined a number of the issues and created this page to both resolve this, and establish some better policies Policies and Guidelines. Lumenos 23:09, 28 August 2009 (EDT)
 * Hope I'm not overstepping some invisible boundary here. Looks like we could just do this without bugging anyone. I could always move it to my wiki if whoever doesn't want it here. Lumenos 00:54, 29 August 2009 (EDT)


 * Phantom Hoover, I think that now you are being unfair. Let's look at the whole business this way: what objective lasting damage has Proxima Centauri done to the wiki project? If it's just blocking of the user accounts and several articles, then the other admins should just unblock it if they deem it suitable, and let's move on over this thing. If PC is only accused of making some folks' adrenaline rush to their heads... personally, I'd rule "Not guilty". :) Is there something I haven't noticed?
 * Also, in my personal experience, nobody is given admin rights without previously demonstrating understanding of and dedication to the cause of the project. Therefore I have always found accusations of "power abuse by the admins", especially coming from newly registered users, suspect. I don't say they can't be right. I just say that an admin can do more than a regular user. Isn't the point of being an admin to steer the project towards its purported goal? --Koveras 06:06, 29 August 2009 (EDT)

(I'm moving Proxima's post here where I think it is more on topic. Please don't shoot! If you disaggree, move it back and I will leave it in the middle of the policy page. Lumenos 16:30, 29 August 2009 (EDT))

People connected with RationalWiki (en) have been revealing information about me for no reason except to punish me. Proxima Centauri 14:32, 29 August 2009 (EDT)
 * Yes I noticed that. I'm wondering if it is working or if you are not enjoying the attention or something. Seems a bit odd, that you would bring that up in the middle of the policy page, of all places. It is sorta relevant, in that this is what motivated much of this, but you could speak in general terms, and discuss policy on that page if you don't want to bring more attention to that info. It's really kinda cute, but I hate to think you are suffering over this. Of course I have no way of knowing that. I'm a little paranoid myself. Sometimes I think you are all playing some joke on me. Lumenos 16:30, 29 August 2009 (EDT)
 * I imagine those people feel frustrated and powerless and that is why they are "resorting" to being "mean" to you. I don't know how this whole thing started (I probably don't care). I just wonder if we can't move forward somehow. Lumenos 16:30, 29 August 2009 (EDT)
 * The problem as I see it, is this place is running in.. what do they call it?... headless chicken mode! There is no policy but people talk about "trolling" in reference to say, deleting something, and they accuse you of illegitimate blocks when the closest thing to policy there is says "no deleting". So I suggest we work together and write some policy. There is no point in me doing that myself, of course it means nothing if the admins aren't going to follow it and it is not democratically legitimate if it doesn't have community support. Lumenos 16:30, 29 August 2009 (EDT)
 * If you only want to try to resolve the specific conflicts you are having recently, I would suggest doing that here. Lumenos 16:30, 29 August 2009 (EDT)
 * Right, let me make entirely clear the circumstances surrounding Proxima's name. On RW and several other sites, she made an account using her real name. She later stopped using this account, and switched to Proxima Centauri; however, she said several times on LP that she was the same person (and any idiot could see that anyway, because they both had the same writing style and strange obsession with the Magdalene Laundries). This was duly noted on RationalWikiWiki. Proxima didn't like this, and rather than denying that the username was her real name, complained on RW. Since we didn't deep burn all references to her name, she had a strop and left. Phantom Hoover 16:47, 29 August 2009 (EDT)
 * Well what I was referring to is people bringing the name up on talk pages, etc, like to smite. I'm not intending to be judgmental as to the ethics of doing that... PC is such an interesting person we must keep talking and talking about them. :) Lumenos 17:38, 29 August 2009 (EDT)
 * Where did we bring it up? Phantom Hoover 17:43, 29 August 2009 (EDT)
 * I may get around to emailing that to you privately. But there is no rule saying that y'all can't do that, so I think it is all left to chaos unless we can agree on some ground rules. I can't do that alone. I need feedback from others to make this work. I thank you for posting there and I'm going to make the policy discussion a higher priority than discussing past indiscretions. If you have evidence as in links showing the blocks and the reasons for the block, which you feel were unjustified, please post that and maybe we can address those issues in a general format on the policy page. Lumenos 00:16, 30 August 2009 (EDT)

As for a practical solution, I would propose radical ignore of the trolls. Don't feed the trolls, that's the best way to deal with the punks. :) The steps I propose are:


 * 1) Lock and subsequently delete this entire page. Negotiations with terrorists are acceptable, negotiations with trolls not.
 * 2) Patrol the recent edits and deal with trolling and spam operatively as it comes. (This one goes to all admins, myself included!)
 * 3) Follow through with my proposal to boil the controversial articles down to least controversial proposals and semi-protect them.

Proxima Centauri, through their actions, your accusers demonstrated their incompetency and their limitations. I understand how unpleasant it is to have your privacy invaded but I cannot think of a way to counter it except just let it blow over. For the time being, I would cheer myself up with an image of basement-dwelling schoolkids whose only joy in this life is to pull on an anonymous mask and gang up to mob decent people. :) --Koveras 05:58, 30 August 2009 (EDT)
 * We didn't invade Proxima's goddamn privacy! She outed herself. I don't like you now. Phantom Hoover 06:04, 30 August 2009 (EDT)
 * I'm trying to figure out who these trolls are. Is Nx a troll? Is Phantom Hoover a troll? I'm not sure how many were blocked and now are not blocked, does this mean they turned from trolls back into humans? Or are the trolls being allowed to run rampant for the time being? Do any administers besides Proxima have anything to add/subtract to the policies I've been suggesting in order to define trolling here? Lumenos 14:37, 30 August 2009 (EDT)
 * Me and Nx were blocked; Nx for cleaning up the RW article, and me for giving him formatting tips after he started on his wandal spree. Phantom Hoover 15:04, 30 August 2009 (EDT)


 * I am tired of this shit, people. Please relieve me of my admin rights and let me just go back from crap-chewing to fair and simple content contributions. Thank you. --Koveras 12:20, 31 August 2009 (EDT)
 * I could take over for Koveras, if you want a new sysop. I'm not sure what would be expected of me, but it might come in handy sometime. Figure I could just wear my badge around to get people's attention. Lumenos 12:44, 31 August 2009 (EDT)
 * What is your grievance, Koveras? Lumenos 12:44, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

Comments relocated from MarkDilley's talk page
[I relocated these comments here, because it seemed that this is where MarkDilley requested this dispute be resolved and I don't want to continue posting on their talk page. Lumenos 06:31, 30 August 2009 (EDT)]

I have experience mainly acting as an administrator on controversial wikis where it's not usual to assume good faith and you probably have more experience than I do about assuming good faith. Please bear in mind that as Wikiindex grows, the wiki will become better known and will attract more spammers, vandals and trolls. Proxima Centauri 07:46, 28 August 2009 (EDT)
 * Nx and I are both bureaucrats at RationalWiki (en); while that isn't as significant as on other wikis, it still implies a fair degree of respect in the community. That's not exactly your archetypical troll. Moreover, you knew that we aren't trolls. Phantom Hoover 15:02, 28 August 2009 (EDT)
 * What controversial wikis where it's not usual to assume good faith on do you hold power? The only one I can think of is RW, and you were explicitly called out on your block-happy behaviour. Phantom Hoover 15:05, 28 August 2009 (EDT)

User:Phantom Hoover has started insulting User:Lumenos as well as insulting me, see here. I would like to warn him or block him a second time but you seem to assume good faith even when problem users are upsetting other users. You decide what to do. Proxima Centauri 07:03, 29 August 2009 (EDT)
 * Insulting? What? I pointed out that zombie computers aren't likely to be used on this wiki when any determined vandal would just use proxies or Tor. Phantom Hoover 07:33, 29 August 2009 (EDT)

"You can secure your router well with WEP. Anyway, how many zombie computers are there going to be attacking Wikiindex? Think sensibly." That's insulting. Proxima Centauri 08:56, 29 August 2009 (EDT)
 * Very well. Show me a justified example of vandalism from a zombie computer. Phantom Hoover 09:02, 29 August 2009 (EDT)


 * That is quite far from what I consider to be an insult. I suppose he is saying we aren't sensible but suggesting he should be blocked over that, is way over the line, in my view. It is only an opinion. Why do these things bother you so much? I'm trying to imagine how my words will sound if you interpret them in the most defensive way possible. I hope I don't sound mean or anything. I'm glad you are seeking a second opinion on this, but I'm beginning to think that you are way too trigger happy with that block button. I haven't known you for long but I say that as a friend. Lumenos 16:48, 29 August 2009 (EDT)
 * * hugs Lumenos* Phantom Hoover 16:53, 29 August 2009 (EDT)
 * Wait are you a dude? :-) Lumenos 16:59, 29 August 2009 (EDT)
 * Yes, but I've spent several days trying to convince people that she is block-happy, and it's a huge relief for someone to say that. Phantom Hoover 17:00, 29 August 2009 (EDT)
 * I suppose you mean someone who isn't a RW regular. Well I hadn't seen it before, but in PC's defense, she didn't actually block, but it suggests that she may have before for something that minor. You could direct us to the evidence. Like the block log and the blocks that you feel are illegitimate. I'm pretty exhausted at the moment so I may be able to convince myself to go to bed now. I'm not saying she is a bad sysop until some editors are actually willing to establish a policy and we see if she and they will adhere to that. Lumenos 17:57, 29 August 2009 (EDT)
 * She blocked Nx for changing the RationalWiki (en) article to remove advertisements for Liberapedia, two conflicting incorrect dates and various erroneous statements, like the thing about the backups. Phantom Hoover 04:13, 30 August 2009 (EDT)

(I've already written the following but I really have no idea whether this is supposed to be a consensus based wiki or not. I suppose I may have to go around asking all the administrators if they would support petitions, consensus, etc, but we can't really assume they will. Lumenos 06:55, 30 August 2009 (EDT) )

Okay, Phantom Hoover. These are a few approaches I (Lumenos) would suggest for you, (this method can be applied to any policy anyone wants to establish):


 * Write a "notability" criteria here for linking to similar wikis. Now or later, you might post (in this section of RationalWikis talk page) an explanation of how Liberapedia is not as similar or notable as the other wikis being "spammed" in the RationalWiki (en) article now. Lumenos 12:29, 30 August 2009 (EDT)


 * Alternatively/additionally you might make a policy regarding administrators with conflicts of interest. Lumenos 06:55, 30 August 2009 (EDT)


 * Next make these into a petitions which are subpages of the policy page, for example, WikiIndex:Notability/Links to similar wikis petitions or WikiIndex:Policies and Guidelines/Administers with conflicts of interest petitions. Have any supporters leave their dated signature on the petition. It may contain more than one proposal, even conflicting proposals but at some point all signatures should be updated to the latest version of the petition and it should no longer be edited after that. These petitions are to be used as guides/justifications for the policy pages, which should remain OpenEdit IMO. Lumenos 06:55, 30 August 2009 (EDT)


 * Canvas to rally community support for your policy, to prove its worth. Lumenos 06:55, 30 August 2009 (EDT)


 * If a sysop does not abide by this policy in the future, follow these instructions for making a request of enforcement of policy. Lumenos 08:29, 30 August 2009 (EDT)

This user followed me to Novelas and showed that mediation isn't the way forward. Attempted mediation just feeds trolls. Proxima Centauri 12:34, 30 August 2009 (EDT)
 * Followed you from where? They have no contributions here. Phantom Hoover 12:39, 30 August 2009 (EDT)
 * What exactly is a "troll" in this context? Lumenos 13:22, 30 August 2009 (EDT)
 * So your solution is to immediately label everyone a troll and shoot on sight? Also, how did this user show you that mediation isn't the way forward? Nx 12:59, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

Next steps
Hello Folks, So, I have been watching this exchange. I am moving information from the pages of ... to the talk pages, protecting the page and will put what is agreed upon onto the page.

I think that the behavior around this has been less than respectful on most everyone's part, including my own, I should have acted more quickly.

Please let me know what you think about this course of action. Best, MarkDilley
 * Uhhh well regarding the RationalWiki (en) talk page, I moved the disaster "debate maps" to subpages so, in my warped mind, the rest of the sections I created, seem informative. I guess I might move some other sections to subpages, if no one objects. Lumenos 09:34, 7 September 2009 (EDT)
 * It seems we have gone from the extreem of a sympathetic viewpoint, to allowing anyone to post anything [and not deleting anything]. It seems like an improvement, but I would rather move the talk pages to the articles, so it looks nicer. Put a note at the top saying debate was opened on the articles. Lumenos 09:34, 7 September 2009 (EDT)[Added bold text Lumenos 09:38, 7 September 2009 (EDT)]
 * I think I would be outvoted on both these issues, however. Perhaps not if critics were around to vote like the sympathizers are/were. Lumenos 09:34, 7 September 2009 (EDT)
 * Do you have a plan as to how long to keep it this way? Are we trying to edit the article to a point where we have consensus on it, before moving it back out? Lumenos 09:34, 7 September 2009 (EDT)


 * I also regret letting this get out of hand. It appears at least one sysop is no longer active here, apparently as a result of this conflict over the WikiIndex RationalWiki (en) page and my sad attempts to first ignore it and later flailing about to Do Something about it.
 * I'm not sure what the best approach is now. --DavidCary 01:28, 10 September 2009 (EDT)
 * I'm not sure there was any way for you to prevent things getting "out of hand" and I think you have done more than any of the rest of the administration, to help resolve conflicts here. But there is only so much you can do when it is not your problem you are trying to fix. Nx's exit was a little more uum dramatic ;-). I made mistakes but ultimately it is his choice if he doesn't want to work it out. They were both very helpful in their way but, when they didn't get their way, they became controlling and demanding, instead of seeking a workable solution such as arbitration, or to offer their terms of a peace agreement (policy). Lumenos 17:30, 13 September 2009 (EDT)
 * I don't think it will ever be clear to you, what you should do, unless you can get feedback from the community of readers, editors, and other administrators. How can you know the solution when it isn't your problem? That is what the policy development page is for. My opponents have an understandable concern that my way of thinking is weighted more heavily on that page. I'm not sure they have really read it, but perhaps a different version could gain broader support. Lumenos 17:30, 13 September 2009 (EDT)


 * As for the present issue, I have already written some questions before I saw your post here. (These questions are for you, Dilley, or any other admins who want to answer.) I will post them here:
 * What can we can do to get your vote for unprotecting the articles: RationalWiki (en), A Storehouse of Knowledge, RationalWikiWiki, and Liberapedia? Lumenos 17:30, 13 September 2009 (EDT)
 * I never understood why it was done in the first place. Are people involved in the conflict supposed to be agreeing on a version to move out into "mainspace", or are we voting basically to unprotect the article? Lumenos 17:30, 13 September 2009 (EDT)
 * I've made a policy "proposal" (or suggestion) that the administration not protect articles simply because there is "edit warring" over them, unless someone requests protection. If an administrator personally feels the article is biased, etc, that would be another "good" reason to protect an article, in my view. You're input on that suggestion, would be appreciated, there or here. Lumenos 17:30, 13 September 2009 (EDT)
 * Is protecting a page, a consequence of "edit sparring", etc? Are we not supposed to be having "conflicts" if we don't want pages protected? Lumenos 17:30, 13 September 2009 (EDT)
 * (The reason I put my signature on every paragraph is so that you can insert a reply under any paragraph, should you wish to do so. Lumenos 18:25, 13 September 2009 (EDT))

I've left messages with all the sysops that have activity this year, requesting that they vote to unprotect the articles. Lumenos 22:05, 13 September 2009 (EDT)

''I am considering locking the whole wiki down while sysops figure this out and would like to hear what others think about that... MarkDilley ''
 *  (-: I don't think you'll need to do that, Cap'n. You've handed out some clearer orders now and I think everybody's gonna get in line. (I think that is probably all you have to do instead of protecting article pages.) Lumenos 19:48, 15 September 2009 (EDT)

These are a few things that I hadn't heard your position until now. I think this is what you are saying:
 * Don't be constantly editing talking pages (if you are crazy Lumenos :-) Lumenos 19:48, 15 September 2009 (EDT)
 * Reverting edits or "fighting" (argument?) may result in the protection of articles or the whole wiki.  Lumenos 19:48, 15 September 2009 (EDT)
 * It seems this dispute is not between the editors and each other, but rather that the administration does not want them using WikiIndex to have disputes. (Because some sysops agreed with article protections, not those involved in conflicts with each other. And because you do not appreciate "fighting" being carried out here.) Lumenos 19:48, 15 September 2009 (EDT)
 * We are supposed to be agreeing on an article to put in mainspace (so there will be no more arguing about it). Lumenos 19:48, 15 September 2009 (EDT)
 * No voting or petitions? Lumenos 19:48, 15 September 2009 (EDT)

Is there anything else we can do to prevent the wiki being locked down? Lumenos 18:42, 15 September 2009 (EDT)

Yeah, how about you stop acting like a child, Lumenos? You won the edit war. Can't you be satisfied with this and move on? Felix Pleşoianu | talk 00:56, 16 September 2009 (EDT)
 * You, Huw Powel, and Phantom Hoover, don't seem to appreciate my clumsy attempts to dissipate perceived aggression with dorky humor, so I guess I will try to be serious and straightforward. Lumenos 13:15, 16 September 2009 (EDT)
 * I didn't know the things listed above, until Dilley clarified those. (Still am not really sure, but afraid to ask for details.) I posted them here because I am not sure that others will check all those places to find the "rules". For example, I sent messages to all the sysops saying that no one wanted the articles protected, not realizing that this dispute is actually between the administration and the editors (not the editors and each other). Was I the only one that found that confusing? There were actually a number of sysops that "voted for" the plan, at least when the proposal was first made. Lumenos 13:15, 16 September 2009 (EDT)
 * You say that I have won an edit war. I guess you mean that because User:Nx has apparently left, we are gonna have my criticism in the RationalWiki (en) article? I think there would be less edit "warring" or debating, if there were clear inclusion policies or dispute resolution mechanisms. I understand that these may require more work than others are interested in doing. Not sure if I will be able to facilitate the creation of inclusion policies, especially if voting/petitions aren't going to be permitted. Lumenos 13:15, 16 September 2009 (EDT)
 * I don't know what you mean by "move on". It could mean:
 * Go away.
 * Don't post to this dispute page anymore.
 * Don't post to the policy development pages anymore.
 * Don't post anything that may be controversial...
 * ...in articles.
 * ...on talk pages.
 * Don't post about anything controversial.
 * Don't post many times a day (due to the attention it creates in Recent Changes). I've slowed down a lot, not sure if it is enough.
 * Lumenos 13:15, 16 September 2009 (EDT)
 * You know very well what I mean. The latter. (Just so you can't say I didn't specify.) Lumenos, you're effectively just spamming now. This isn't getting us anywhere. As for what I mean, I've already stated my position elsewhere, but here it is again: I think criticism (as well as praise) should be allowed in articles as long as it's supported by arguments. As for dispute resolution mechanisms, what stops you from asking for a vote? Oh wait, you already did, and people did vote. Now someone simply has to act on it. Felix Pleşoianu | talk 14:41, 16 September 2009 (EDT)
 * You say, "the latter", so that only eliminates "go away". But now I'm wondering whether I am at risk of being disciplined somehow for posting anything, which could be what you are calling "spam". Was that last post "spam" by your definition? Lumenos 16:23, 16 September 2009 (EDT)
 * There are two ways we can deal with conflict:
 * You can spread FUD and maybe anyone involved will get frustrated, leave, or become timid (without really knowing what is permissible). If whoever was hoping to get rid of Proxima and User:Nx, then this would appear to be "working". Lumenos 16:23, 16 September 2009 (EDT)
 * We can define clear inclusion policies and have petitions showing which sysops and editors agree with them. Of course, it is not my place to make this decision but I think WikiIndex would benefit from this course. Lumenos 16:23, 16 September 2009 (EDT)
 * Oh, for the love of... is there anything I can write here without you twisting my words and trolling, trolling, trolling? I'm trying to NOT act like an admin, in case you haven't noticed. I have some power here, and that means responsibility. But you're seriously abusing my patience. Consider this: if not enough admins have piped in, maybe it's because they don't want strict rules, and frankly, I don't see why any intelligent, responsible person would insist on having them instead of using common sense. Felix Pleşoianu | talk 01:15, 17 September 2009 (EDT)
 * Tell you what, I've just restored and unprotected the RationalWiki (en) article. Don't make me regret this. Felix Pleşoianu | talk 01:15, 17 September 2009 (EDT)