User talk:Miekal

From RationalWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Nomination for Board: new section)
(Eat a dick!: new section)
Line 39: Line 39:
  
 
[[RationalWiki:2015 board of trustees election/Nominations|I thought it was worth a try]]--[[User:TiaC|TiaC]] ([[User talk:TiaC|talk]]) 04:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 
[[RationalWiki:2015 board of trustees election/Nominations|I thought it was worth a try]]--[[User:TiaC|TiaC]] ([[User talk:TiaC|talk]]) 04:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 +
 +
== Eat a dick! ==
 +
 +
How was that page "spam"? I doubt you even read it and it dealt with a fanous individual. [[User:Andrew Millstone|Andrew Millstone]] ([[User talk:Andrew Millstone|talk]]) 00:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:16, 21 January 2015


Hai Thar; for the page histoy prior to June 2nd 1012 and any Liquidthread stuff, go to Here!

Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, (new)

Contents

people talk

help help I'm being repressed

:( King Skeleton (talk) 23:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I just don't know how to feel about that discussion and am glad I got out of it when i did--Miekal 23:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
It's like a horror movie, it's grotesque and disturbing but you want to see what happens next. King Skeleton (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

EE

While it looks like the vote is going agaisnt him don't you think that you should wait for a decision before acting?--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 18:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

He's going to other sites to encourage people to Harass DG while linking to a lot of Personal info on him, waiting for a discussion is just pointless. who's really going to come out of the woodwork and go "yah let's not ban him!". From there, If there's a quibble with the length of the ban, which is the only thing open to discussion based on voting, feel free to change it. 10 is just a nice good number so i picked it.--Miekal 18:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
As I said on the appropriate page I've not been closely following the drama either here or anywhere else and I'm not going to vote either way. It just seems odd that you would act before a decision has clearly been confirmed on the appropriate page. But I'm not going to reverse your block as I have no intention of getting very involved.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 18:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I'd say 11 and counting votes on "ban", with everybody jumping ship from earlier votes in the same discussion (even nutty, who'd so far been defending EE's right to be here), was enough moral authority to go ahead. That and, using my mod hat, he was doxxing david while making threats about using Anonymous and other threats against users. To me, atleast, that is enough to preclude a discussion on banning a user, at that point they are a threat to the wiki/editors and shouldn't be given the time of day or the courtesy of a discussion.--Miekal 18:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
If you feel that your rather out-of-date mod hat gives you the authority to short-circuit discussion then so be it.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 18:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually, Even if i wasn't a mod I'd short circuit it anyways on the same grounds. A doxxer, (let alone, again, going off site to harass users) doesn't deserve the time of day, especially one who's doing it in revenge for edits on a wiki of all things--Miekal 18:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Whatever. Life is short.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 19:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi

Sorry, I'm sort of out of the loop on all of this but it seems that the aptly named User:ExiledEncyclopedist is in some serious trouble. He made some really interesting contributions to Caligula so when I saw that User:Ryulong had reverted and blocked him, I unblocked ExiledEncyclopedist as I wasn't aware that he'd broken any rules. I know Ryulong from Wikipedia as a sadistic bully who blocks users on a whim and assumed that he was just picking on EE for sport. What exactly is going on? You seem to be doing the bulk of managing EE's affairs so I thought you'd be the right user to bring me up to speed on the case. Maybe I can be of assistance. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

There was a ongoing Coop case on banning/binning him that had switched, after he decided to try to Doxx David and seek out external help in harassing users here, towards banning, so i decided to just cut it all short and let us move on with our lives. --Miekal 20:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, it would seem that he lived up to his name, by getting exiled. Landmartian (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh I see. Well, obviously that's not acceptable. What does doxxing mean though? And who's David? --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Gerard?--Miekal 23:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I hope this is nothing to do with the fact that he created a category called slaveholders and (accurately) added Muhammad. Is it? Nothing to do with being too afraid too offend people by telling the truth? Oui? Non? --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 23:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

EE's contributions have been fairly uninteresting from what I've seen (mainly of the trivia/pub quiz variety: not entirely irrelevant, but hardly crucial either), and they were often sloppily written and sourced, leading to complaints from others who had to clean up the mess. EE also seemed to have a weird obsession with categories. I nominated the slave holder category for deletion, because I thought it rather silly - especially after having read EE's argument for its relevance which reeked of conspiracy logic and seemed to me to actually be an excellent argument against having such a category. Things quickly escalated after that as well as a scraps EE got into with several other RW editors. This led to a vote on the chicken coop on sanctions against EE, who responded by first continuing to attack other RW editors with increasingly paranoid and incoherent rants, culminating in EE going on a vendetta on other sites and doxxing[wp] David Gerard which in turn led to a landslide of votes in favour of kicking EE off RW. According to what other users have written, as well as what seems to be EE's Wikipedia account, EE apparently pulled a somewhat similar stunt (and was blocked) at Wikipedia, which leads me to suspect that EE is a right nasty piece of work. ScepticWombat (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Muhammad being categorized as slaveholder has nothing to do with EE's ban. If you think we were trying to hide that fact about him, don't you think the section of content addressing it would've been removed? If you want to know what doxing is, here's a link. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
As for the slave holder category, it wasn't created by EE, and he actually argued that having Muhammed and not U.S. Presidents in it was a sign that David Gerard is an Islamophobe(?!?) and that Wikipedia and RW were all just conspiring to hide the slave holding history of various POTUSes... ScepticWombat (talk) 00:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Man, that guy has some serious issues. Let's hope his time away from editing RW and Wikipedia will lead him to get a better perspective on things. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, that's all I wanted to know. Sounds perfectly fair to me. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 20:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for Board

I thought it was worth a try--TiaC (talk) 04:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Eat a dick!

How was that page "spam"? I doubt you even read it and it dealt with a fanous individual. Andrew Millstone (talk) 00:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support