User talk:Nutty Roux
(→The FCP story: Aren't we (you) overreacting a teensy weensy bit?) |
(→The FCP story: Aren't we (you) overreacting a teensy weensy bit?) |
||
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
:::I believe the technical term is 'spitting the dummy'. Based on the Parthian shot left, there's some legal brouhaha regarding a Longdog-edited article lit the blue touchpaper. [[User:Queex|Queex]][[User_Talk:Queex|<sub>chthonic murmurings</sub>]] 12:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC) | :::I believe the technical term is 'spitting the dummy'. Based on the Parthian shot left, there's some legal brouhaha regarding a Longdog-edited article lit the blue touchpaper. [[User:Queex|Queex]][[User_Talk:Queex|<sub>chthonic murmurings</sub>]] 12:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC) | ||
::::For some reason best known to himself Nutty Roux has blocked me (I'm longdog by the way) without giving any reason or duration. Not only that he has blocked me from editing my own talk page so I can't protest so I've had to reboot my modem to get a new IP address. It seems Nutty Roux doesn't feel bound by the blocking policy http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Blocking_policy and has just gone on a rampage. | ::::For some reason best known to himself Nutty Roux has blocked me (I'm longdog by the way) without giving any reason or duration. Not only that he has blocked me from editing my own talk page so I can't protest so I've had to reboot my modem to get a new IP address. It seems Nutty Roux doesn't feel bound by the blocking policy http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Blocking_policy and has just gone on a rampage. | ||
| + | :::::Does seem a bit excessive for what is likely a genuine mistake. [http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALeonard_Coldwell&diff=1437233&oldid=1437084 noted here]. Not gonna coop it yet. [[User:Scream!!|Scream!!]] ([[User talk:Scream!!|talk]]) 13:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 13:11, 11 March 2015
Archives for this talk page: <2>, <1>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>
NB it's unnecessary to tell me you've sent an email. I am unaware of any instance in which I haven't gotten one sent through RW.
As you might guess, there are generally 2.5 reasons I may not respond when you want me to:
- I'm ignoring you.
- Go away.
- I haven't checked my email.
Thanks. You're aces.
#874040
| #874040 | This user loves #874040. |
The FCP story: Aren't we (you) overreacting a teensy weensy bit?
Hi Nutty, I'm a bit surprised that one who's always so quick to decry the current debased state of RW should feel it necessary to wield the permabanhammer on another editor - especially in this case. FCP may be far too fond of rule-writing, but creating a debate (in which FCP was told it wasn't the right way, btw) does not mean that FCP "[p]urports to be entitled to draft legal policy on behalf of others". I thought that one of your objections to the current group of RW editors was exactly their liberal use (in both senses of the word) of the banhammer? And seriously, a permablock?? How is that upholding the grand old traditions of RW? Even more so, how is one RW editor playing the role of judge/jury/executioner without calling in the mob? I feel very tempted to unilaterally change at least the duration of the block, but I might be missing something so I'd thought I'd better ask. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- Okay fuck it. I went ahead and changed the block to ½ hour from now and reopened FCP's access to own talk page (why was ticking that box necessary?), because I can see that someone else already questioned your permaban. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- Nutty also seems to be conflating me with Brxbrx and "Longdog" (who?), and has added me to sysoprevoke. I'd love an explanation, especially given that I haven't touched libel for a week. FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 11:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- I believe the technical term is 'spitting the dummy'. Based on the Parthian shot left, there's some legal brouhaha regarding a Longdog-edited article lit the blue touchpaper. Queexchthonic murmurings 12:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- For some reason best known to himself Nutty Roux has blocked me (I'm longdog by the way) without giving any reason or duration. Not only that he has blocked me from editing my own talk page so I can't protest so I've had to reboot my modem to get a new IP address. It seems Nutty Roux doesn't feel bound by the blocking policy http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Blocking_policy and has just gone on a rampage.
- Does seem a bit excessive for what is likely a genuine mistake. noted here. Not gonna coop it yet. Scream!! (talk) 13:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- For some reason best known to himself Nutty Roux has blocked me (I'm longdog by the way) without giving any reason or duration. Not only that he has blocked me from editing my own talk page so I can't protest so I've had to reboot my modem to get a new IP address. It seems Nutty Roux doesn't feel bound by the blocking policy http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Blocking_policy and has just gone on a rampage.
- I believe the technical term is 'spitting the dummy'. Based on the Parthian shot left, there's some legal brouhaha regarding a Longdog-edited article lit the blue touchpaper. Queexchthonic murmurings 12:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- Nutty also seems to be conflating me with Brxbrx and "Longdog" (who?), and has added me to sysoprevoke. I'd love an explanation, especially given that I haven't touched libel for a week. FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 11:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)