User talk:Bicycle Wheel/RationalWikiWiki M

=MCWiki= Blue and brown corners? TyrannisAn iron, yet caring fist 17:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In reference to the primary sig colours. Armondikov 17:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh. TyrannisAn iron, yet caring fist 17:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's just colourful language. Armondikov 17:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It is pretty funny to watch, to say the least. TyrannisAn iron, yet caring fist 17:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

This article just makes me think of McDonalds. SuperJosh For no reason whatsoever 18:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Good. :} TyrannisAn iron, yet caring fist 18:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (EC)Ah, I see that's covered in the first sentence. I must stop reading section titles and jumping to conclusions. SuperJosh For no reason whatsoever 18:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's okay. It adds to your charm. TyrannisAn iron, yet caring fist 18:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Have I just found MCwikiwiki? 86.161.24.207 19:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Pretty much. TyrannisAn iron, yet caring fist 19:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, damn, that was fun while it lasted. TyrannisAn iron, yet caring fist 20:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What was fun? Trolling as bad as MC on his own wiki? --Eira 20:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I hold my hands up, I did kind of hand absolute power to Ty. In Ty's favour however, he could have really fucked the whole thing up if he wanted to. Good think it wasn't somebody like Foster who doesn't appear to have any shred of decency anymore. 86.47.72.206 21:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * *takes a bow*, I'll check back in once autoblock expires. TyrannisAn iron, yet caring fist 21:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

A revolution with MC as supreme leader???
Sounds very Lenin and Stalin-esque to me. Punky McPunkersen 13:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. McWiki is a burger joint, not a буфет TyrannisAn iron, yet caring fist 13:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm more like Mazzini and Young Italy. 86.47.72.206 13:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd love to make a wigo page, but honestly you don't have enough activity yet. TyrannisAn iron, yet caring fist 13:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I see that treachorous backstabbing judas figure is hard at work spreading his doctrine of hate. How vile a creature this Foster the Cruel is, he has no moral center whatsoever. 86.47.72.206 15:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I also see Foster has banned Human for three months for having the temerity to disagree with his extreme authoritarianism. Luckily a real alternative to the sycophancy of rationalwikiwiki exists where blatant abuses of power and authority can be held to account. 86.47.72.206 15:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Funniest site on the internet
Well maybe not, but it's so easy to laugh at. It goes beyond irony and comes out somewhere on the far shores of surrealism.--Andrew the banned 19:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

McNight mode
Glad to see that McWiki has taken up the age-old defense of Night Mode. That'll show those fascist cretins who's boss! Punky McPunkersen 04:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Opening times
@Childerjohn Mass: It was open for a full 90 minutes and you didn't join in (Ace and Morelike did though)... if you would like to contribute to it, I will be happy to reopen it for you. I only shut it because everyone seemed to have left. Like a shopkeep who closes up shop early on a slow day... Maratrean 10:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Screen shots
I uploaded some screen caps, as given the fact that we're mocking them he'll likely delete 'em. TyrannisAn iron, yet caring fist 17:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

McDown
The McSite appears to be McDown. How terribly heartbreaking. Rennie McGreet 19:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not just the McWiki, the whole wikinet farm seems to be down. Whoops. -- Nx  / talk 20:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's baaack! TyrannisAn iron, yet caring fist 16:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed McMeme
Why not, in reference to McWiki, refer to MarcusCicero as "Big MC"? It only makes sense to me.... Conficker 21:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Big Mac? Nembus 22:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes! TyrannisAn iron, yet caring fist 23:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Love it. Let's run with it then, shall we? Punky McPunkersen 07:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Number of Flaws
There are a number of flaws in this article. MCWIKI was established as a counterweight to the sycophancy of this website, where many of the most oppressive and fascist members have free reign to do what they wish and stifle truth. Unfortunately, despite having many sysops, I cannot guarantee a vandalism free wiki due to organised and concerted vandalism directed from this site and its sister (Rationalwiki) As a result, the wiki is locked whenever I or another user is not about to maintain it. This is a direct result of your authoritarianism which demands everyone holds the same opinion and that we should all bow down and obey our moderator masters.

There are other flaws in this article which I cannot go into now as I don't wish to exert the energy in writing about it (Nx or one of his cronies will come along shortly and censor this edit, making all my efforts useless)

Oh, by the way, I will be coming back to Rationalwiki in the long term. At least I know that the likes of that Foster wanker or the South African racist cunt are getting suitably annoyed by my biting satire. You pack of cunts. 86.41.228.134 20:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Glad to know you're wasting so much of your precious time on this. It makes me warm and fuzzy inside. Armondikov 21:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I spend dramatically less time on the internet than any of pathetic wankers do. Tyrannis has spent more time on the internet in the past month than I have in 5 years. What a double standard. I use my precious time for good, calling out boring wankers like you who have a real cuntish streak. Can't take it? Then fuck off. 86.41.228.134 21:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see any sycophancy in this website. Just vicious backbiting.--Brxbrx 21:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You make use of your precious time to call people names on the internet. What a rich life you must lead. Rennie McGreet 21:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I was banned from Rationalwiki for daring to speak the truth and for daring to have an independent opinion. For this, I was banned. The majority was razor thin, the process corrupt, the sentance unjust. So long as this grievance exists I will be a running sore, employing my powers of critical observation for as long as necessary. I was betrayed by those I thought my most collegiate allies. I will have my vengance. 86.41.228.134 22:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * (yawn) same old shit. Rennie McGreet 23:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And MC will die a bitter, twisted old man, locked away in his hovel muttering endlessly "I was right, you know." Bob Soles 23:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It fucking baffles me how the proles can avert their eyes from the truth. Totalitarian states need only an unvirtuous citizenry to flourish. 86.41.228.134 00:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

LOL!
I hadn't checked in a while and this page alerted me to the coup d'etat. Splendidly done. 107 has taken all the sillyness inherent in the site and has ran with it. I wish him well. If he wishes to give me back the site, I'll be grateful. But he is free to do as he pleases now. I am merely the deposed leader... without sufficient power to restore myself. I will not go down the path of the Romonovs. There will be no counter revolution. 86.47.28.182 23:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Still, it'll give you time to finish that novel. Rennie McGreet 12:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm still waiting for MCLeaks - but I suppose they have about as much substance as the rest of the MCblustre. Bad Faith 14:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The creative process cannot be rushed. My novel will be finished when it is finished. How am I supposed to engage in Rational leaks when my website is under the control of a known Rationalwikian agent? 83.71.19.202 15:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Taking guesses now as to who this mysterious "107" character is. 00:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I really don't know. I'm guessing its DMorris as he is the only admin left standing. Also, 107 was the same person who made the despicable article about Susan before I shut it down. 86.45.237.193 00:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If in fact it is DMorris, you have been subjected to a Conservapedian takeover. Do you not have server access to get in and repair the damage? 00:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately not. I considered asking wikinet to intervene, but they wouldn't do anything. I'll just sit here and hope 107 gets bored and gives it back to me. There is a chance I could do something, but I'm so technically illiterate that I wouldn't even know where to start. 86.45.237.193 00:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought that after the whole John Childermass thing you weren't going to give anyone crat rights? It seems that Mr 107 isn't nearly as nice a person as Ty. Tobul Oltarolin 01:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You could fork MCWiki, i.e., export all its pages and set them up on another Wiki. There is an export utility among the MediaWiki special pages. 01:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

That sounds complicated and like hard work. And yes, I probably shouldn't have given 107 admin rights. But what can I say? I am a trusting and forgiving person, a gentle heart and tongue incapable of speaking an ill word of anyone. 86.45.237.193 01:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The export utility will save all the Wiki's pages in one big file, which can be uploaded into the other Wiki with a couple of mouse clicks. 01:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah. That still sounds like the special theory of relativity to me. 86.45.237.193 01:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

you have your rights back now, MC--107 02:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I object to the suggestion that it was me that did it, like I've ever maliciously messed with any wiki other than Rational-Wiki. And even with that I mostly just experimented with vandalism, copying other vandals' styles, rather than do anything particularly malicious. If I wanted to screw with a wiki at the level 107 did, I could do far worse; I could probably knock a wiki out of commission for weeks if I wanted to. PCHS-NJROTC 00:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well damn, you should've taken the opportunity to show us. Nembus  01:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thats nuts
I didn't know how my beautiful wiki got destroyed. This was revealing. So basically some pathetic loser decided to squeel to the authorities rather than ask me personally to remove potentially defaming material (Which I didn't even add) Pathetic. Utterly pathetic. Whoever did that was an abject wanker and a coward to boot. EdmundBurke 21:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * How were you supposed to know there'd consequences for violating Wikkii's Terms of Service?!  23:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't personally post the 'offending' information. The person who squeeled to the authorities could have contacted me and I would have taken it down very quickly. Somebody on that site posted Nx's real name - once he asked for it to be removed I did so. Another user insulted the late SusanG in an awful and intensely personal manner. I deleted and salted the article. I may speak roughly and use harsh rhetoric, but I believe in the rules of fair play, and I'm personally insulted that the oligarchy had to resort to cowardice and legal treachery to get their point across. Its pathetic, its weak, and ultimately its demeaning to me personally. Whoever did that should come forward and cease hiding behind the name 'RWFoundation'. Pathetic. Absolutely and utterly pathetic. That person should commit suicide or something, such a disgraceful lack of honour. EdmundBurke 10:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No comeback eh? Fucking typical. EdmundBurke 13:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Pack of miserable fucking cowards
I still can't believe that this is how MCwiki met its demise. The person behind this deserves universal contempt and ridicule. EdmundBurke 14:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes he does. Yes, he does. Tobul Oltarolin, Expedition Leader 20:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

=M the T= ಠ_ಠ Mbwun 16:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Two meters. ArmondikovFirst Lord of the Treasury, Lord Chief Justice, Commander-in-Chief, Lord High Admiral, Archbishop of RationalWiki (and Chief Rabbi), and Lord Mayor 00:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

=Main Page=

Very nice logo, reminds me of somewhere. I'd stick around but I'm due to screw up another surgery. PALMD 08:24, 27 December 2007 (EST)
 * Yes, there is a certain familiarity. ...--Bobbing up 08:39, 27 December 2007 (EST)
 * Might I suggest the Liberapedia RW logo?--Bobbing up 10:06, 27 December 2007 (EST)

I second that choice. Can we haz permission? Human 16:19, 27 December 2007 (EST)
 * Kewl. Logo too wide for the space it has to fit in.  Maybe crop off the outer brackets? Human 19:39, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Purpose
I have copied and edited some material about the purpose of this Wiki from a post at RationalWiki.--Bobbing up 10:18, 27 December 2007 (EST)

Hosting
Maybe the kind folks at RW would offer to host this metawiki if someone buys the domain name? Human 16:19, 27 December 2007 (EST)

Am I the only one ...
Who realises that the label is mispelt? Or is that a joke? --82.44.64.173
 * I think its a joke. I think. --72.232.23.238 21:38, 27 December 2007 (EST)
 * I don't think so...--Ryan 22:44, 27 December 2007 (EST)
 * It's funny whether its intentional or not.--Bobbing up 04:45, 28 December 2007 (EST)
 * Personally, I see nothing that needs to be changed here. --AKjeldsen 09:48, 28 December 2007 (EST)

install pleez?
I don't know who runs this thing, but can they install the "choose/option" tag things somehow? Human 19:38, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Godamn
I was gonna wandalize this, but I just noticed the good guys own it. Helios 01:42, 2 January 2008 (EST)

Today's activities
I think we need a separate article and not just something on Susan's page. But things seem to be still going down and it's hard to know where its going to go. So what angle? And what name? I wouldn't want to use "Susan's departure" in the hope she will come back. We've already got one "fuck" article so I'm not sure about that either. But anything written now might be out of date by this evening anyway.--User:FalseFlagFlag Me 13:45, 14 March 2008 (EST)
 * I, too, am at a loss what to name it. In her article I resorted to snark and called it "SusanG takes her ball and goes home". -- 14:07, 14 March 2008 (EST)
 * I think this had died the death now, but the debate went in so many y directions that it's hard to define the damn thing in a punchy way. Any ideas Hans?--User:FalseFlagFlag Me 14:42, 15 March 2008 (EST)
 * By the way, it went on longer than 90 mins. It started at talk:main with Marcus Cicero's complaint about the "talk to a Mormon" according to item, which very early on had a brief pissing match between him and Susan.  My/human's "lecture" came many hours later, and I think by then she was already doing some auto-dismantling. (changing her user page to say "castle" and no more, etc.)   14:59, 15 March 2008 (EST)
 * Well yes, the whole affair started as you say, but it was a hell of a lot longer than 90 mins before all the waves stopped. However it's my impression that it wasn't initially started by a post of Susan's. She just supported the Mormon post and then MS decided to to start using unparliamentary language. Later you decided to issue a reproof to Susan which might perhaps have been better sent privately and things started to come apart.--User:FalseFlagFlag Me 15:18, 15 March 2008 (EST)
 * You really have to go check the histories, FF. The MC/Susan flap started her packing up.  Long before my reproof, she had reduced her user page to saying only "castle" and had withdrawn from discussion.  People even made jokes about the castle thing - see "rook" and o-o-o, above the reproof.  I would say we need to look at about four places - the history of her user and talk pages, the history of the Mormon post discussion, and Susan's contribs, to get a handle on the order things happened and who was "involved".  15:51, 15 March 2008 (EST)
 * Ok, but our sequences are similar aren't they? I have MS's action before yours, though I admit that the implication of my post is that her departure was subsequent to your post. If this is in error then I retract it.--User:FalseFlagFlag Me 16:43, 15 March 2008 (EST)
 * How about calling it The "Tourette's attack episode". Wonderfully snarky.--User:FalseFlagFlag Me 17:25, 15 March 2008 (EST)
 * Good title... keep it in mind for next something similar occurs! 15:26, 17 March 2008 (EST)
 * "90 minutes" sounded punchier :-) Honestly, my impression was that it was immediately after your reproof Susan went nutcake, so I marked it as the "start", admittedly arbitrarily. 20:33, 15 March 2008 (EST)

May I suggest the "Big Juju in the Sky incident" for a title? And that we discuss it there? I'm going to paste some relevant data into its talk page now, I think I'm too close to the situation to be a good author though. 18:21, 16 March 2008 (EST)

New Main Page
I made a new main page. User:Ryan/Main Page. Hope you like -- 00:55, 15 March 2008 (EST)
 * So you did. A few tweaks and I think it is ready for pasting in. Balance the two sides, and perhaps start WIGO RW?  01:02, 15 March 2008 (EST)
 * While I have not always (or perhaps ever) been a fan of Ryan's, I really want to say that his work on the mainpage is absolutely fantastic. Well done Ryan, and thank you for your efforts. That said, I'm almost embarrassed to make a suggestion. What about repeating the RWW signature orange color somewhere in the mainpage?--User:FalseFlagFlag Me 14:10, 15 March 2008 (EST)

Ah, ah, ah. Why does this look like a real wiki now. 76.10.172.106 14:37, 15 March 2008 (EST)
 * FF, I'll see if I can do something to that effect. 14:37, 15 March 2008 (EST)
 * That was more orange than I intended - I only was trying to color the "borders". It didn't preview the way it looks now.  14:52, 15 March 2008 (EST)
 * Ah, I see, it wasn't my fault. Btw, the "orange" in question is #F2A500.  14:54, 15 March 2008 (EST)

Um that was my fault. I can revert if you want. 76.10.172.106 14:54, 15 March 2008 (EST)
 * It's ok, I already did, and tried out what I was doing. Do you folks think the header boxes should be orange, too?  14:57, 15 March 2008 (EST)
 * Well I liked it (drew attention to the headers and complimented to borders). But wtv. 76.10.172.106 15:00, 15 March 2008 (EST)
 * First off, I'd like to mention that this is the third fourth edit conflict I've had this afternoon Weird on RWW. Anyway. Yes, the idea is good, but (and I'm letting my feminine side out here) are there any "pastel" oranges we can use for the header boxes?--User:FalseFlagFlag Me 15:04, 15 March 2008 (EST)
 * Sure, there are 64,000,000 colors ;). So, use the logo orange for the borders and a lighter version for the  header backgrounds?  Should be easy...  15:48, 15 March 2008 (EST)

I tried that out. Opinions? 15:55, 15 March 2008 (EST)
 * Nice, (actually very nice) but is there any way to make it more edgy?--User:FalseFlagFlag Me 16:45, 15 March 2008 (EST)
 * Thanks! Can you tell me what you mean by "edgy"?  You  mean high-contrast colors?  Pictures of nekkid people?  Blinking text in MS comic sans? Let me know and I'll try to accomplish it.  17:09, 15 March 2008 (EST)
 * Well, maybe it's a little bit too nice. We're a rather "in your face" sort of place and maybe we should have something more aggressive. Sadly, my knowledge of color combinations isn't at the same standard as my ideas.--User:FalseFlagFlag Me 17:45, 15 March 2008 (EST)
 * OK, I think I get what you mean. More pepper, less salt ;)  I'll play around and see if something comes up.  19:28, 15 March 2008 (EST)

Adminship
Make me an admin! No? Ok... MarcusCicero 14:06, 15 March 2008 (EST)
 * You really need to petition User:Admin about that. Initially he promoted promoted RW sysops but more recently people who have made significant contributions to the site. Perhaps you should work at the site for a while longer before making your request to him? On the other hand "Admin" lives in a cloud of secrecy and does not explain his decisions, so your appeal may prosper anyway.--User:FalseFlagFlag Me 14:27, 15 March 2008 (EST)

Proposal
On a whim, I registered another RationalWikiWiki with ScribbleWiki (http://rationalwikiwiki.scribblewiki.com/Main_Page), another free host for wikis. I know it is way too late for you all to be willing to do so, but I just wanted to put this out there: are you all willing to move to that site? Pros:
 * The latest version of MediaWiki, with all of the extensions that edithis.info doesn't have (i.e. functioning reference tags, math tags, extended user preferences, logs that aren't half-assed, compatible with parser functions, etc.).
 * An owner who would actually be around on a daily basis.
 * No Captcha.
 * No typo in the url :-)
 * All contributors here would retain their sysopships. And I would probably have to give Human allpowerz, out of necessity :-)
 * No checkuser (I am not sure if it can actually be removed, but I will not allow anyone to have it.)

Cons:
 * Pages moved there will lose their entire history.
 * Confusion across the site during transition.
 * The owner would be me :-)

Also note WikiWikiWeb rates ScribbleWiki 4 stars, but editthis.info only 2 stars. More info on ScribbleWiki, including technical details and features, here. Your thoughts? 06:39, 16 March 2008 (EST)

"And I would probably have to give Human allpowerz, out of necessity" - you're joking,of course!
 * Reconsidering... stewardship is just "oversight/siteowner" and bureaucrat is, well, bureaucrat. So no, it will not be necessary. 14:22, 16 March 2008 (EST)
 * Why bother? And I am around on a daily basis --Admin 14:34, 16 March 2008 (EST)
 * Apologies, then. We rarely see you edit and you are not particularly chatty, thus it appears you are never here. 15:57, 16 March 2008 (EST)
 * I would like to add that this is not about me. This is about the wiki. I would be happy to maintain the current power structure, to de-steward and de-bureaucrat myself and hand the keys to Admin. I will not pretend I wouldn't experience an ego boost by you all agreeing to move, but it would be less of an "I have total power on the new wiki" than a "you all liked my proposal" ego boost. 16:05, 16 March 2008 (EST)

Well - like you said, it would fix the damn url. And what "history" do we have to preserve here exactly. 76.10.172.118 16:56, 16 March 2008 (EST)
 * I was referring to any past revisions of pages. Such as for this page. 19:40, 16 March 2008 (EST)


 * Overall, I think it might be a good idea. Fixing the typo would be nice, and craptcha is tiresome.  And real "ref" tags would be really nice.  Can the entire wiki be copied there in one fell swoop? User sub pages and all?  Because if not the effort might not be worth it.   19:59, 16 March 2008 (EST)
 * Not in one fell swoop. We would have to do it one namespace at a time (instructions here). 21:12, 16 March 2008 (EST)


 * You can Export as many Categories as you like at one go complete with edit history and then re-import them with all their baggage. Anon 05:48, 17 March 2008 (EST)
 * Sorry, checking with this wiki, you have to export the individual pages, but you can export the history.

Special:Export should be used for any moves worth reiterating. --4.154.54.146 16:11, 17 March 2008 (EST)

Why Bother?
'''"Our purpose here at RationalWiki includes the following:


 * 1) Analyzing and refuting the anti-science movement, ideas and people.
 * 2) Analyzing and refuting the full range of crank ideas.
 * 3) Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism ."'''

Count the number of edits over the past time period (you choose) and see how many are actually directed towards the above purpose(s). Most of the action on RW is one (or more) of:
 * 1) Human correcting grammar
 * 2) Bohdan being stupid
 * 3) Human amending layout
 * 4) Persons responding/encouraging Bohdan's stupidity
 * 5) Picking up the stupidity of CP (not hard to do)
 * 6) Human correcting spelling
 * 7) General "humour"

RW has moved far from its stated purpose and has become a social club for a few insomniacs.

It is a good place to practice Wiki syntax though and it does save the trouble of scanning CP's "Recent changes".

Anon 22:05, 16 March 2008 (EST)
 * I dub thee 'Sourpuss'. 22:59, 16 March 2008 (EST)
 * True though, isn't it? Anon 23:01, 16 March 2008 (EST)
 * Indeed. Additionally, those who are true to the wiki's purpose (such as Dark Matter Glaucopis and EVDebs ) do not talk as much, and thus have less power to influence the direction of the wiki. Shame. 23:16, 16 March 2008 (EST)
 * Although Anon forgot that every couple of weeks a new article gets written that is "on mission" (making RW more like a sloppily-run weekly magazine, where the consumers also get to see all the office pranks that went on while one lousy column was prepared for syndication), that's a pretty good analysis. Why isn't the content in this section an article yet?  00:12, 17 March 2008 (EST)
 * Also, Once every week or two, some talk page comments results in an 8,000 word discussion. These usually involve religion, and might be considered the "Best of RationalWiki".  15:21, 17 March 2008 (EST)

What the hell? DogP 19:52, 17 March 2008 (CDT)

Say No More Anon 21:33, 17 March 2008 (CDT) and then! 217.171.129.71 05:51, 18 March 2008 (CDT)

SusanG is not back - it's just that she don't want to see RW made worse by his Taking his ball home ) She was the only one with the powerz & the inclination to stop him at the time. She blocked him for a mere 2 hours to let others take over later. Anon 06:36, 18 March 2008 (CDT)

I'm not sure about SS. I'm trying to figure it out myself. I may have been responsible, as he suddenly joined in my spurt of catting and seemed to want to help out. I just think he got carried away and kinda got the wrong end of the stick. And his "see ya!" wasn't directed at RW, it was to me - I had just said goodbye to him. DogP 11:12, 18 March 2008 (CDT)

News section
This should include an "edit" link that goes to the template. And perhaps a "more" link that goes to the "noincluded" (old news) section of the template? human  12:21, 18 March 2008 (CDT)

Reporter's Ethics
Is it ethical for the reporter to attempt to influence the events he's reporting on?"(23:30, 18 March 2008 Hans Johnson (Talk | contribs | block) Category talk:RationalWiki/Categories moved to RationalWiki:Cat fight ‎ (Get it? It's a pun. ...Oh, nevermind.) (revert))" Anon 18:36, 18 March 2008 (CDT)
 * No, but it is the avowed goal of this site, I think. human  19:08, 18 March 2008 (CDT)
 * Apologies, Anon. I forgot myself, and edited in my "other" persona. 19:43, 18 March 2008 (CDT)

Questionable, ethically, I'd say. However, amusing. DogP 20:10, 18 March 2008 (CDT)
 * Aah - I see - What a reporter should do is sneak into the arena of interest under an assumed identity, stir up some aggro and sit back and watch? Sorry Hans - I hadn't understood that - all clear now. Anon 20:28, 18 March 2008 (CDT)
 * Um, is anyone here actually a reporter? If not, they are not bound by the ethics of another profession.  PalMD 20:31, 18 March 2008 (CDT)
 * "News brought to you by our embedded reporter," Anon 20:36, 18 March 2008 (CDT)
 * 'Tis the reverse -- I am the assumed identity. 20:38, 18 March 2008 (CDT)
 * "Hans Johnson ‎(Bureaucrat, Steward, Sysop)" I think not - unless your alter ego is "Tmtoulouse ‎(Bureaucrat, checkuser, oversight, Sysop)" your rank here belies your statement. Anon 20:47, 18 March 2008 (CDT)
 * The other came first, and contributing to RW remains first. This is a side project. 21:23, 18 March 2008 (CDT)

User Human seems to have become the major power RW. I see that user Human now has as much power and authority on RWW as he has on RW itself. Given that, I have to wonder how well this site can fulfill its objectives of applying external criticism to RW.--FalseFlag 13:19, 19 March 2008 (CDT)
 * I don't do much/any editorial content here as it relates to my activities on RW, would be my only "explanation" (I may chime in on talk pages, but I certainly shouldn't be writing articles about any "situation" I am involved in at RW, except perhaps to dig out citations). Anyway, I don't mind being just a sysop, or just an editor, as the owners of this site see fit.  I think most of the reason it was done was 1. trust (I hadn't been undermining POV here?), 2. experience (whether that matters or not), and 3. at least as far as sysop, having as many regular hands on boardas possible to undo wandalism/block wandals.  That said, I would not take any reduction in "powers" as a personal affront or rejection of my contributions. human  13:51, 19 March 2008 (CDT)
 * I would be hypocritical to condemn you for contributing so to RWW. I edit RW as well (under a different name)! 02:56, 20 March 2008 (CDT)

I CAN'T STAND IT ANYMORE, I NEED SDG
Feed me, noble scavengers, feed me with the spoils of lurking through the metaphorical goldmine that is known around these places as the Special Discussion Group, for I, after reading once again the treasure I managed to gatter in my short-lived stay there, feel the necessity to obtain more information located in that shady and mysterious dwelling.

I'll show you mine if you show me yours. NightFlare with no tildes


 * Awww, come on. At least tell me you won't so I can stop drooling over the headers of threads I didn't get to see. NightFlare 17:33, 20 March 2008 (CDT)
 * I have no access to SDG. The history to RW's SDG article starts suspiciously right on Dec. 1, the day the group was closed to outsiders. My (other) account at RW lacks access, too; I find no "resurrection" option for deleted revisions. Most likely oversight removed them. 13:20, 21 March 2008 (CDT)
 * Actually, the Dec. 1 version is the first one that appeared at RW (which btw, is almost entirely a comment I made on WIGO talk), the SDG unveil didn't get the attention it deserved, probably because for the first hours nobody knew what it was, or because they were too busy lurking it. NightFlare 09:45, 23 March 2008 (CDT)

Dating
Could the title of this section be changed? I keep thinking it's a place to pick up toy-boys and end up disappointed. BarbaraK 17:49, 25 March 2008 (CDT)
 * Hehe, seconded. I keep thinking it is the inter-office romance/liaison policy! human  18:29, 25 March 2008 (CDT)
 * Yes, should perhaps be renamed to "Chronology". That being said, I also think that we desperately need a specific inter-office romance/liaison policy. Who knows which immoral shenanigans might occur in its absense!? --AKjeldsen 18:34, 25 March 2008 (CDT)
 * One can only hope... I already called my travel agent to look into airfare to Moldova... human  18:45, 25 March 2008 (CDT)

Logo
Something wrong with the logo? Seems a bit not there at the moment. --AKjeldsen 18:05, 8 April 2008 (CDT)
 * I already bugged Mr. Hands, our defacto siteadmin, about it on his talk page. However, he is in trouble at school and has to sneak internet access when his parents aren't looking.  It is odd that's it's gone, I thought I protected it... human  19:25, 8 April 2008 (CDT)
 * I restored Image_logo_url but that didn't help :( human  19:27, 8 April 2008 (CDT)
 * I followed Scribblewiki's instructions for changing the logo, which fixed nothing. I have emailed Scribblwiki support about the problem and we can expect a response within the year. 22:08, 8 April 2008 (CDT)
 * Scribblewiki support responded. The logo's url was too long. I switched to a shorter one. 14:34, 9 April 2008 (CDT)
 * Btw, the "image logo url" serves no purpose here. The logo is set at the main scribblewiki site. Short of deleting the image itself (I linked to our copy here, not the editthis url), nothing we do on-wiki can alter the logo. "Image logo url" will accordingly be deleted. 14:34, 9 April 2008 (CDT)
 * Ah, ok, ILU was a holdover then? Thanks for getting it all made better! human  18:49, 9 April 2008 (CDT)

Featured article
I propose we create a featured article section on the main page. 14:07, 9 April 2008 (CDT)
 * I propose we create a main page section on the featured article. Oh wait, is this RWWW or RWW? What is Bohdan called here? human  19:33, 9 April 2008 (CDT)

RW down
RW appears to be down, same with the forum :( Icewedge2 13:51, 10 May 2008 (CDT)
 * She's back. PFoster 14:28, 10 May 2008 (CDT)

New policy
I would very much like to prevent new users from moving pages for a certain period of time, to prevent vandals like Stupid bot from burying any more of our articles. Unfortunately, given the limited nature of Scribblewiki, this is not possible. Therefore, I will be going through and locking the pages to prevent non-sysops from moving them. NORMAL EDITING WILL STILL BE UNRESTRICTED. The nature of these vandals requires that the lock be permanent. I am open to your opinions, and if any of you object I will undo the move locks. 14:27, 9 June 2008 (CDT)

By the way, I was able to restore the history of the lost articles in a limited fashion by uploading the equivalent page histories from the old home of RWW. Obviously, this only works with page histories from before we moved to ScribbleWiki. 14:33, 9 June 2008 (CDT)

Move to RW's server?
Tmtoulouse (in one of his many IP incarnations) suggested that we relocate to RationalWiki's server. I would like to know your thoughts on this. 23:43, 12 July 2008 (CDT)

I personally have a number of concerns. I worry that the integrity of this site will be damaged. Because Tmtoulouse pays for the server, would he hold us beholden to him? If he personally objected to anything we wrote, would he use his authority to force any changes on us? Would we still be able to continue running the site as we have so far? Would RWians take this as a sign we are officially affiliated with them, and be more inclined to complain about what we write? 23:43, 12 July 2008 (CDT)
 * Well, as far as issue one, he doesn't even do that at RW. He acts more as treasurer than owner (although his budget reports are clumsy at best!).  I don't think any change would occur in how RWW runs (or doesn't).  As far as RWians complaining, isn't that half the fun? human  00:44, 13 July 2008 (CDT)
 * Heh, all true :-) 01:35, 13 July 2008 (CDT)
 * sniff* I am offended...all those years of dating a girl who was an administrative assistant for a major business school gone to waste! 24.141.66.208 14:07, 13 July 2008 (CDT)

That said, relocating there would have advantages. Bureaucrats would be able to rename accounts, for instance (which we cannot do on Scribblewiki). Supposedly we would be able to change the localsettings.php file, which, I gather, allows one to adjust a great many things. Scribblewiki does not allow me to access the localsettins file. One thing I have my eye on is enabling interwiki linking, so we can link to RationalWiki using the prefix "RW" (similar to how one can link to Wikipedia using the WP prefix in links). 23:43, 12 July 2008 (CDT)
 * What would the domain be? Would it be like rww.rationalwiki.com or would it be on its own separate domain like rationalwikiwiki.org --Admin 23:56, 12 July 2008 (CDT)


 * You would need to register a separate domain name for the site, it ranges from $3-$10 depending on what TLD and site you use. Pretty cheap really. You would then point it to my nameserver. As far as editorial control I have never once used my status as owner of the server as a bludgeon for anything published anywhere. The only time I would have to step in is if I am legally obligated, such as with a DMCA notice or court order. The chances of either of those being very slim. The only other time it would be a concern is if RWW was becoming so popular that it was sucking resources from RW. Again not likely to be a major concern. In that case I wouldn't alter content but merely "cap" your CPU cycles and the site would run slower than usual. 24.141.66.208 00:08, 13 July 2008 (CDT)
 * My' concern would be one of practicality with the content move. Can you guys get a database dump from scribble or anything that would allow for easy transfer of existing works? 24.141.66.208 00:09, 13 July 2008 (CDT)
 * No. The only option on scribblewiki is the import/export tool. One of many reasons scribblewiki sucks. 00:26, 13 July 2008 (CDT)
 * So we would have to use it. Again. --Admin 00:36, 13 July 2008 (CDT)
 * I don't mind. I am quite used to tedious tasks. So if we do move, I will be the one handling any import/export tasks. 01:45, 13 July 2008 (CDT)
 * I'm going to do some of the importing/exporting tasks to. Who's going to buy the domain name? --Admin 15:10, 13 July 2008 (CDT)
 * I will. 16:34, 13 July 2008 (CDT)
 * I thought so :) --Admin 17:19, 13 July 2008 (CDT)

Hi. Been away for a while on other issues. If anybody is still interested in my opinion I'm all for the change.--False Flag 13:39, 13 July 2008 (CDT)
 * Thank you, FalseFlag. I didn't want to move without your input, and I feared I would have to wait weeks to hear from you. 16:33, 13 July 2008 (CDT)

So when's this second move gonna happen? Tomorrow? Next week? Next month? --Admin 17:21, 13 July 2008 (CDT)

What I will need is for whoever will "own" the site to send me an e-mail once the domain is purchased and I will set things up. Please post here using an account I will recognize as "in charge" when the e-mail is sent so I know it is not someone else. That e-mail will get the password and login information. 24.141.66.208 18:06, 13 July 2008 (CDT)
 * That should be Hans, he said he's going to be the one to purchase the domain. --Admin 18:18, 13 July 2008 (CDT)

It took awhile, but I have exported all five megs of content we have onto my computer. I will import it to the new site. In the process I have just stolen on of Hans's tasks. --Admin 19:03, 13 July 2008 (CDT)
 * In that case, we need to try to make it easy for people to know NOT TO EDIT until the move is over...

I see that rationalwikiwiki.org now redirects to http://ns1.rationalweb.org. I'm ready to import pages at anytime once MediaWiki is installed. --Admin 15:25, 14 July 2008 (CDT)
 * I think I set things up properly now. I merely await word from Tmtoulouse. 16:25, 14 July 2008 (CDT)

For some reason "Admin" is set as the default user account, but its not me. --Admin 20:10, 14 July 2008 (CDT)

I have got the latest version of mediawiki installed and running with all the initial setup done. 24.36.227.74 20:23, 14 July 2008 (CDT)
 * I know. Now what is the password for my account? --Admin 20:26, 14 July 2008 (CDT)
 * Or are you going to rename it? --Admin 20:28, 14 July 2008 (CDT)
 * I sent all password information to Hans Johnson, if you have his contact info he can give you that password, or you can e-mail me and I can send it wouldn't want to post it here. 24.36.227.74 20:30, 14 July 2008 (CDT)
 * I emailed you. --Admin 20:36, 14 July 2008 (CDT)
 * As Admin is now using the first account (which I assume was the one with the magical siteadmin powers), I am at a total loss for what to do. 21:20, 14 July 2008 (CDT)
 * Your the one with the keys to the actual hosting space, time to start learning how to use SSH and FTP and edit all the settings for the wiki. You should be uploading images and what not, and set the logo in the LocalSettings.php file as well as setting user rights such as preventing move, etc. 24.36.227.74 22:27, 14 July 2008 (CDT)

Postponement
My parents have issued me an ultimatum. I will not be available for however long it takes me obtain employment. I ask, no, beg that you postpone the transition, and continue editing the old scribblewiki site for the time being. I am truly, very sorry for the inconvenience, and I apologize for having to abandon you at such an critical moment.

Sincerely, 22:45, 14 July 2008 (CDT)
 * RA, you are so transparent. And also, get on with your real fucking life!!! human  04:11, 15 July 2008 (CDT)
 * RA = Hans Johnson? Hard to credit. But I read it everywhere. How could I be so wrong?  I was 100% certain he was somebody else.--False Flag 16:07, 15 July 2008 (CDT)
 * I posted this on RW

HANS HAS MADE A MISTAKE. This and this. THE IDENTITY OF HANS JOHNSON IS KNOWN!
 * Would you guys give it a rest? We've known this for months. You're all awful at sockspotting. I'm ashamed of your company.
 * Auf wiedersehen. User:Jellyfish! 00:44, 16 July 2008 (CDT)

News from the front
Is that section supposed to be funny? It appears to be one hell of a smear and a hatchet job against our friend Human. Why so bitter?
 * Mmm. You're right, what a shame.Tee Hee
 * I vote we replace it with something less obnoxious. <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w easeLICIOuS  <font color=brown face=Mufferaw>B ite M e 12:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It appears to be true though. Is this censorship? Vicious 14:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, no, it's not censorship. It's a suggestion that giving prominent space on the main page for Hans Johnson airing his epic vendetta against Human might not be agreeable or of interest to everyone who uses this site, so it might be more appropriate to replace it with some more balanced or entertaining content.  And I don't take your point that "it appears to be true". Largely the comments appears to be highly interpretive, and don't all make a lot of sense.  E.g. "Human can delete whatever he wants with no input from anyone else" in relation to the Vandals category.  Human had discussed this before deleting, Pi had agreed, and RA's only defence of the category prior to deletion was "It doesn't have a point, and it doesn't need one".
 * My real point is: if we're going to have a News From the Front, it should focus on anything interesting that going on, not just hone in on one user. E.g. I find Pink's & Susan's departures (which I didn't notice til now) more interesting - do we know for a fact that this was connected with Human?  I can't find any indication of this: it just seems to be HJ's say-so.  <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w easeLICIOuS  <font color=brown face=Mufferaw>B ite M e 18:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Excerpt from email from SusanG (dated: Sat 10/18/08 12:04 AM):


 * Human's treatment (http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=Human&page=User%3APink) of "Pink" was too much (insert image of camel with final straw). He apparently has the impression that he is the final arbiter on all things RW. Anyhow, I've left so it won't bother me now).
 * Human's treatment (http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=Human&page=User%3APink) of "Pink" was too much (insert image of camel with final straw). He apparently has the impression that he is the final arbiter on all things RW. Anyhow, I've left so it won't bother me now).


 * Regards


 * SusanG


 * Quoted with permission. Vicious 22:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I must say that it would be nice if "News from the Front"  wasn't just "What somebody don't like about Human." Every single point refers to user Human - twenty-one negative mentions in all. User Radioactive Afikomen is mentioned seven times in a positive or least more neutral light. Is there a certain amount of axe-grinding or, dare I suggest it, obsession here? Frankly, if this site is really going to take such a one-sided position in a conflict then it loses all credibility as am external commentary on RW's activities.--False Flag 19:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

New leader needed
Hans Johnson, as seen from his rationalwiki activities needs to step down from here. He's sucking the fun out of this place and its unfair to have such a prominent editor over there been such a prominent editor over here. MarcusCicero.
 * I'll step down the moment others step up. I'm so "prominent" over here because I am generally the only one willing to regularly put some effort into this place.  The moment I see another editor willing to put the same or greater amount of effort I have put in to this place, I will be more than happy to pass the mantle of main editor on to said person.   04:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Go fuck yourself and your "prominence" and your "efforts" and your ugly, personal vendetta. The moment I see another editor with a shred of dignity and honesty, I would recommend that they get the keys from Trent and block you and your vile swill and angry vindictiveness from this site.  Which, by the way, you have single-handedly ruined.  So I repeat and reiterate, go fuck yourself and your blind ego wanking. Human 05:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Human, Human. Deep breaths, look for your calm inner space, these rants must be bad for your blood pressure. RA has (or perhaps had) certainly turned the site into a base from which to launch attacks against you, but you do yourself no favors with counter-attacks of such vitriolic vehemence.  Also I see nobody congratulating RA on his subtle manoeuvre so perhaps the point has already been made for you.--False Flag 10:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Human, I share your grievance... To some extent. RA, you really need to stop taking internet life so seriously. I understand the pursuit of internet power is important to you. You indeed act like a health and safety regulator - promote so many rules that it soon becomes impossible to be even able to hold a bonfire at holloween. Sucking the fun out of everything. Sure, a place without rules becomes chaotic, but that is Rationalwiki's raison d'etre. If you don't understand this then you shouldn't be a member there.


 * I am willing to take the keys of this place, and place limits on my own authority. I would act as the snark-in-chief, working between the Human/RA controversy. Its ridiculous that the news here has become a soapbox for RA's petty grievances. Both members would be able to continue to do things here but with certain 'snark-editing-rights' to me. RA won't be allowed to go overboard in his pursuit of internet ventation and Human will be able to continue his trademark and loveable snark in a more even setting.


 * What say ye? The Adjudicator 11:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Quite honestly, if you are Marcus Cicero, then I believe that there could be no worse person. You have never shown any good judgement in the past and there is no reason to believe that you will in the future. You appear to have an inflated opinion of your own personality and capabilities, which would disqualify you from being in charge of anything at all. Stand Fall on your record.Vicious 12:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Its just a proposal. Judgement is relative though, my friend. The Adjudicator 13:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * As a longtime lurker and someone who fully believes Rationalwiki needs someone to beat it up from time to time, this mysterious IP gives its support to Marcus Cicero.


 * Mysterious IP, tear down this wall (Of mystery) The Adjudicator 21:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Marcus Cicero as leader of RWW!! I rather think not. An amusing idea certainly, but I'm afraid that MS's ability to generate friction and dissent is well up there with that of Human and RA.--False Flag 10:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Think for a second. The difference between me and/or Human/RA is that I won't generate friction about where templates should be put... Stupid little things that boil over time. I'm more likely to generate friction by saying, 'Susan has left! Oh no! How long will it be before she's back???? Two days.' Maybe its time someone created a RWWW, since this has been taken over by rationalwikians that don't seem to understand this sites purpose. The Adjudicator 13:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Having RA as chief editor here is a little like having Ed Poor as cheif editor at WIGO over on rationalwiki. Think people. 86.45.217.35 14:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Re having a RWWW, there is one. It's empty.  Seems to have only been active for two days (back in April) & had two editors, one of them being Hans Johnson.  <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w easeLICIOuS  <font color=brown face=Mufferaw>B ite M e 15:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

RWWW does raise one interesting point: "RationalWikiWiki is an wiki-website dedicated to critcism of RationalWiki." The Adjudicator 16:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Removal of News
I'm removed News From the Front from the Main Page. Revert if you must, but I really think it's best not to have it, at least in its present form, until things have settled down a bit. I'm not convinced the 'News' is a great idea anyway, & when it's dominated by one editor putting across his view of conflicts he's involved in, it's not pretty. Maybe when more people are involved here it can be reinstated. <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w easeLICIOuS <font color=brown face=Mufferaw>B ite M e 12:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually "Hans" has said that he'll keep his hands (ho ho) off it now. It could serve a purpose if used properly.--False Flag 10:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It could. I'd suggest gathering a few non-RA/Human news stories before putting it back, so it looks a bit more neutral.  I'm still a little skeptical of how workable it is, as long as RWW is being edited by regular RW editors.  (Obviously there are debates going on about whether this should be the case).  It tends to mean that news (e.g. of conflicts, discussions, etc.) is likely to be added by people involved in them (not a good thing, as we've seen) or else relies on people lurking & observing these things without getting involved.  Anyway, I'm happy to see it given another try, just a bit too lazy to go looking for news myself.  :-) <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w easeLICIOuS  <font color=brown face=Mufferaw>B ite M e 16:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually HJ archived the old news page, so as soon as there are a few stories a news page can go back up. One item could maybe be a potted summary of the Spanish Inquisition Incident & subsequent fallout, as long as it portrayed fairly neutrally/snarkily without taking sides, & balanced with some other items.  <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w easeLICIOuS  <font color=brown face=Mufferaw>B ite M e 16:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Announcement regarding user rights
As of this day, the "siteadmin" usergroup no longer exists. Its only real power (promoting bureaucrats and granting the "access" right) has been given to bureaucrats. Other powers that previously only bureaucrats had have been passed down to janitors. All in all, the hierarchy of user rights has been greatly flattened. You can read the page for the full details. 17:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I will no longer make any technical changes to this site unless explicitly asked to by the editors here. 17:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a good compromise. Fair play HJ. The Adjudicator 18:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions
Since the amount of editors will likely tend to be small here, perhaps we should place limits on:

A) Editing articles about ourselves. B) Reporting controversies where we ourselves have been prominent. C) Refrain from attacking one RW user without due cause. The Adjudicator 18:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I would say that we already have A, B is a good idea. (Although a clean sock would get round them both.) I'm not so sure about C.  Anything anybody writes they will think they have "due cause" for writing, so it would seem to be a bit redundant.  I wrote most of the original user stubs and none of them were that polite. To a certain extent this site is set up to "attack" - though hopefully not in a destructive way.  The spirit of the suggestion is good, but it needs work.--False Flag 20:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking along the lines of preventing 'witch-hunts' on single users. By all means be mean to users, but its not nice to be extremely mean to users like Human or Susan, or dedicate undue to time to single users. Not a rule as such, more of a guideline. The Adjudicator 20:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand where you're going with it, but as it is it could be argued that it would prevent any criticism of any user - or it could be argued that it protects none. I agree the concept is good but rules (or guidelines) which depend on such a level of interpretation are rarely effective. I understand that I'm being a little negative here as I'm not suggesting anything better tho. --False Flag 14:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Banner
Does anybody think that an active/inactive banner would be a good idea? Some RW members have sort of faded away and such a thing would be convenient. Only problem is that we could end up in "banner hell" as some articles have two banners and a stalk box already.--False Flag 19:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's an idea: instead of a banner, we use a category. We break the current category:users into two categories: active users and inactive users, with those category pages prominently linking to each other.  21:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice little banner 217.171.129.71 21:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We could do it with categories, but I was thinking that it needed to be something more immediate. And that is a nice little banner.  I was playing around with it on some user pages but some of them do get a bit overbannered.  On the other hand it gives the pages a quite distinctive look.  Is there any way to control the positioning?--False Flag 22:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Made it possible to "left float" it.Categories are not generally used for this sort of flagging although a category could be added to the banner - in fact I'll do it now so that anyone it's used on goes into Cat: Inactive RW Editors ... done 217.171.129.73 23:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Just "inactive users" will be fine; no need to specify that it's about RW when the whole site already is. 01:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've created a template:Template:test which can replace Stalkbox (just rename it) to include condition "inact". If inact is set (just put "inact=true" in the template call) then the box will be included, otherwise it'll be absent. (tried to make all the entries conditional but got fed up with the table syntax!) 217.171.129.73 17:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There's now Template:Test2 which uses "div" instead of table syntax. All entries but "joined" are optional. It includes the "inactive" note. (took me ages as you'll see from Recent Changes) 217.171.129.73 20:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Mascot - Rusty spotted cat
In the light of the current controversy surrounding this animal I suggest that we make it our mascot. The RWians have sent it to fun and back in an effort to accomodate all opionions. It'a been renamed and threatned with banishment or merger. Will it survive? Should RWW petition for its contunued presence?--False Flag 19:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If RWW petitions or does anything on RW, then it becomes no longer an observer, but a participant. Fat Tuesday 20:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think our by-laws prohibit the occasional friendly contact. Besides many RW editors edit here, and both Hans and I edit sometimes on RW.--False Flag 20:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No-one from here edits on RW as "xxx from RWWW" though. Anyhow a nice CUR would probably be better. Fat Tuesday 22:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Let us make the "cur" our new mascot. Or not. Human 02:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * PS, FT, Hi Barbara! (WAG) We all know who each other are, even without similar names. Human 02:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If that was intended to indicate that I am Barbara Shack - NO - sorry Human. Fat Tuesday 21:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry for the mis-ID FT. Human 20:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you're going to do this, we need to have an article on the subject. Fall down 02:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Just so you know, the future of teh article actually looks pretty bright right now. I think the RSC could be a good mascot, though. --ConservapediaUndergroundResistor 20:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The Royal Shakespeare Company? Rrose Selavy 22:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong with the article count?
displays only 57 pages, while there are more then 100 in the user category alone. Why is this? --Admin 20:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * will only count a page if it is in a namespace meant for articles (as opposed to, say, the userspace) and contains at least one internal wikilink (see this section of a WikiMedia manual for the same thing in techie-speak). 21:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think there is a way to toggle the latter requirement from "needing at least one internal link" to "needing at least one comma", but I'd have to hunt down the manual for it. 21:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Shall we go on an adding-internal-wikilinks binge to remedy this? : )  21:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Special:Deadendpages only displays 31 pages. 57+31=88, and there are more then 100 in the user category alone. Is there a size requirement? --Admin 22:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Surprisingly, no. 00:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I was afraid of this, but it might be because of the move. --Admin 01:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you think happened?  01:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I originally made User:Import a bot, maybe MediaWiki does not count some of his imports. But that's very unlikely. I know only as much as you do--Admin 01:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This may be related, but when we moved the total number of edits got zeroed out, as well. I think it only includes edits that show up on Recentchanges, so edits made before the move aren't counted. It's a pity the scribblewiki server crashed—then we could've just added up each site's edit count to get the true number. 01:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Of edits and IPs
Recently, I've been perusing the edit histories to get a true sense of the total number of edits made on RWW. Now, I have no idea how the IP numbering system works, but I can't help but raise my eyebrows when I see this:
 * 87.112.11.204
 * 87.112.24.71
 * 87.112.84.198
 * 87.112.93.66
 * 87.112.225.157
 * 87.113.15.65
 * 87.113.19.38
 * 87.113.103.3
 * 87.113.107.159
 * 87.114.0.141
 * 87.114.26.149
 * 87.114.144.32
 * 87.114.156.252
 * 87.114.159.15
 * 87.115.0.46
 * 87.115.1.241
 * 87.115.11.101
 * 87.115.11.170
 * 87.115.21.230

A handful of these appeared just once in our Barbara Shack and/or Proxima Centauri article's edit histories, so I can't help but wonder if Proxima socks up under IPs far more than we think. 22:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Or am I completely wrong on this and there is a huge difference between 87.112, 87.113, etc?  22:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I know about IP addresses, take a look at http://whois.domaintools.com/87.112.11.204 . 87.112, 113, 114, and 115 are all the same ISP. Or whatever "Uk-force" is. --Admin 22:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And, they are apparently all in London. One person at many internet cafes?  Or just several Londoners?   23:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Na, PC has a dynamic IP address (has said so a few times at RW). She edit warred relentlessly with me over a joke translation of her name in the RWW article a couple of months or so ago.  <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w easeLICIOuS  <font color=brown face=Mufferaw>B ite M e 23:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

RationalWiki moments of 2008
RW are doing a poll of Top Ten Conservapedia Moments of 2008. Would it be a good idea (or at least a fun one) to do a similar poll or list or debate about RationalWiki moments of the year? If it was set up here & then an announcement about it was posted on the Intercom at RW, it might get more people interested in contributing here. Or would that be carelessly blurring the boundaries between the two sites? <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w easeLICIOuS <font color=brown face=Mufferaw>B ite M e 03:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm interested in your idea. It be fun, and would drive some more editors our way. But we should wait for word from Admin and False Flag before proceeding. 06:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not that I'm too important, but I like the idea. FernoKlump 07:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. --Admin 07:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, first, it's totally "on mission" for RWW to do it. And second, it's totally "on mission" to fuck with RW ;)  I say run with it.  But how are you/we going to do the poll?  Did Trent port the poll extension over here?  Do I need to ask him to? Human 04:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you will need to. Last we checked, the vote extension was not installed here. 05:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd see if there are  enough moments before worrying about a vote. In extremis, you could always put the voting on RationalWiki & copy the results to here. Fat Tuesday 07:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, here's a few to start (in approximate chronological order), all examples to some extent of Headless Chicken Mode, but I guess that's the most engtertaining sort of "moment" at RW:


 * Kip the Dip Incident
 * Great TK Banning Incident
 * Fuck You Too Incident
 * Great Pissing Contest
 * Fox getting drunk & irate & demanding telephone calls from other RWians (30th July, doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere on RWW)
 * Teresita storming out & then socking up as Francine
 * Feud between RA & Human
 * Fall down's essays & vandalism causing extensive debates about freedom of speech & how to deal
 * ConservativeUndergroundResistor fighting virtually everybody else over rusty-spotted cats (& trying to get Weaseloid banned)

I'm sure there are others, but I've only been here a few months myself, & RWW seems a bit patchy in coverage - it looks like there was probably hardly any editing here over the summer. Hence probably a few things not mentioned here (e.g. Fox, as above).

Voting arrows would be neat if it's doable. Otherwise, 'voting' could just be done with comments & signatures, although this would lose any anonymity. <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w easeLICIOuS <font color=brown face=Mufferaw>B ite M e 11:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The voting arrows have a major flaw: anyone with access to more than 1 IP can multiple vote (I've done it myself on RW). Why do we need to be anon anyway? Fat Tuesday 11:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * FT's idea of running the poll at RW is a good one if we can't get it set up here fairly soon; although simple "signed" voting here would work well too. All the events under consideration should have links to articles about them here, of course.  Are we gonna add any "positive" or "funny" ones? (The Expelled Leader's Guide project?  The Behe interview project?  CP: The musical?) Whatever "we" do, it definitely should be spammed all over the RW Intercom to get some traffic and voters. Human 20:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I don't know anything about any of those.  I agree there should be linked articles &/or difflinks for all of them when the list gets put together.  <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w easeLICIOuS  <font color=brown face=Mufferaw>B ite M e 23:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, our purpose is to be critical, so I don't really see the purpose of citing positive moments. Certainly the rare moments of justice on Conservapedia didn't make it into the top ten. 01:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of linking to the appropriate articles here. I assume we use difflinks for the ones we don't have articles for? Some of them we have half-finished articles for (such as the Great Pissing Contest)—would someone finish those please? We also need to clean up our horribly biased coverage of some of them. 01:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "Criticism" doesn't imply only negativity. Sure, the "good" things are unlikely to make the "top of the top", but it is a bias to only bother to report on (or even mention) failures when there are also successes.  And, yes, without a decent article here, an item shouldn't even be under consideration, so there's gonna be some work to do.  Oh, and Hans, I guess Trent is going to need to work with you closely to bring RWW over to the new server, so don't forget to remind him to set up the voting extensions (I mentioned it once, but it probably got washed out of his brain due to the RW 2.1 to 2.2 server move). Human 19:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice
Little squabble going on as I write over (of all things) a harmless pun on Furry Fandom. Fat Tuesday 03:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

"RationalWikiWiki is in no way officially endorsed, supported, or, recommended by RationalWiki. "
Correct me if I'm wrong, but is it not the case that RWW exisits on RW's server space? If this is so, does that not count as "support"--and point to a possible bit of tension/ a conflict of interest? TheoryOfPractice 03:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Trent, by owning the server, is the only one with the power to force anything on us. He offered to house us on the server (it doesn't cost him extra to run multiple websites) and he promised to leave us alone. I, taking into account his exceptional character, chose to trust him (were he the sort of person to abuse his power, would anyone even still be at RationalWiki?) I consider it a deal between gentlemen, rather than a deal between two conflicting institutions. 04:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * And, would you have turned down a similar offer from Trent?  04:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I probably would not have turned down such an offer--I don't blame you for taking him up on it, not in the least. That being said--and given that TMT seems to be allowing RWW full editorial independence, this may be a very minor point--I think it's slightly disingenuous for RWW to say it gets no support from RW when the owner of RW gives RWW a free ride on his server space. Perhaps the disclaimer could be slightly rephrased in order to 1. give a little credit where credit is due (a public thank-you where newcomers can easily see it seems only polite) and 2. allow people to understand that the hands-off relationship which you currently enjoy vis-a-vis RW is entirely dependent on the whim of one individual who could change his mind at any time. Just my 2 cents' worth...TheoryOfPractice 04:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. We really should have a thank-you there. I am somewhat less inclined to insert a word of warning, but in the meantime I'll go ahead and add the thank-you note.  04:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I can't figure out how to word it. Would you please add it for me? I'll unlock the main page to let you do so. 05:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You can edit it now. 05:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your trust in me, thanks very much...--but it's going to have to wait until tomorrow. I'm dead tired and have an early morning. TheoryOfPractice 05:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, then. Goodnight.   05:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it struck me as funny too. Perhaps "we" should actually have a brief page describing the "details" as far as anyone would care. Human 05:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In passing: "officially" is a tad ... aah ... pretentious? Nicht wahr?  I don't think RW has the capacity to be "official" about anything. Fat Tuesday 07:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Know that I think about it, yest, it is a bit silly to claim that a mobocracy can "officially" do anything. I'll go ahead and remove that. 07:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I find that whole statement, especially the "in no way" part, rather tenuous. RationalWiki's entry for RationalWikiWiki looks a lot like an endorsement, or at least an advertisement.  <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w easeLICIOuS  <font color=brown face=Mufferaw>B ite M e 11:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Mostly because it was written by RationalWikiWikiites. 17:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * - who are also RationalWikians. And that's what undermines any kind of "in no way endorsed by" statement.  I understand the spirit of what the disclaimer is saying (that the two sites are distinct) but implying that there is no link between the management & editorship of the two sites is a bit of stretch.  <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w easeLICIOuS  <font color=brown face=Mufferaw>B ite M e 18:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hehe, I like the current version ("RationalWikiWiki is not RationalWiki"). Human 19:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I know this isn't the place ...
... but I can't load RW at all now. Fat Tuesday 20:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ditto. — ListenerX 20:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually the above was not strictly true. I manage to load it about once every 10 or so goes. Fat Tuesday 20:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I'll give up trying. So it's goodbye to Fröhlich. Fat Tuesday 21:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Because it's moving servers. Trent sent out a message and even a temporary screen during the move. Any other problems would have just been teething ones due to the move. It's back up and working now. Armondikov 11:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello RationalWikiWiki
It is your turn guys! With the "success" (still working out some glitches) of moving RW to a new server it is time to turn our eyes to you. This needs to happen this weekend, I am tempted to say either tonight or tomorrow. Tmtoulouse 17:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In your hands we are Master Yodo.--False Flag 18:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Privacy policy
As far as I can tell, we don't seem to have one, or not clearly defined. I think, as it's been an issue recently (here & at RW), we should agree on some standrards about what info we post about RW users & how we get it. So I've started RationalWikiWiki talk:Privacy policy to open a discussion. If we agree on some limits or guidelines, we can then build the corresponding policy page. Please add your thoughts on that talk page. <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w easeLICIOuS <font color=brown face=Mufferaw>B ite M e 22:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Corollary to "do not edit the article on yourself"
Proposed: Do not edit on controversies to which you are a party? Human 02:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That would prevent identification of power abuse (one is certainly a party to a controversy over a malicious block of which they were the victim). — ListenerX 06:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * How so? Your comment makes no sense... Human 08:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Suppose user X were the victim of a malicious block and wanted to complain about it. This would be a controversy, and X would be a party to it. Your proposed corollary could be interpreted as prohibiting X from making any complaints here about the block. (Or did you mean in the narrower sense that, e.g., Ryan should not edit the page on the New World Order article?)
 * — ListenerX 18:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * RWW isn't the place to "complain" about being blocked, or carry on conflicts started at RW. <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w easeLICIOuS  <font color=brown face=Mufferaw>B ite M e 22:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Weasel gets what I mean exactly. RWW would be a lousy forum to get a problem at RW fixed, although it might be a nice place to blow off steam.  But to bring a conflict over here and liveblog it while it's happening could get ugly (if anyone cared).   To address LX's concern more clearly, what good would complaining here about a "malicious block" do?  Reporting on it here makes sense, although, as I said, the participants should stick to talk page discussion of it.  JMHO, of course. Human 00:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, if you have a problem at RW complain at RW. "Administrative abuse" would be a good place to start. Perhaps a good place to abuse the administration as well.--False Flag 17:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Clarification: My only dispute was that the new policy might prevent a user who had been unjustly blocked from posting a note on a talk page here saying, "I've been unjustly blocked." With the clarifications above, the new policy sounds reasonable. ListenerX 00:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok. No problem.  Anyway, I'll leave it to the "higher ups" to interpret it and write it up in proper RWW style in the appropriate place, if they feel like it. Human 01:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Can we have another collorary along the lines of "do not nag other editors with suggestions for what to write about you"? <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w easeLICIOuS <font color=brown face=Mufferaw>B ite M e 14:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It would seem reasonable for editors to be able to put notes on their article talk pagers pointing out items which they feel should be included - be these things blocks or anything else. The fact that they have gone to the trouble to come here to whine about such things should help others form an opinion of them anyway.--False Flag 17:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

OMGDZ massive power abuse!
"Human", if that's his real name (H. Uman? Huma N.? Seems unlikely), trampled all over the other eager editors champing at the bit to convert the Osama Joe Biden article to reflect Hussein's imminent inauguration as the XLIV Super Bowl winner 44th Prominent of teh Unlimited Straits. Though blocked for a paltry 5 miniberries by one "TheoryOfPractice", the alleged editor continued to "improve" the Osama article in spite of admonishments. He also called all potential RW editor/assassins "assholes" on the talk page. Kan we haz artikle? Human 03:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Nobody saw it happen.  (At least I didn't).  <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w easeLICIOuS  <font color=brown face=Mufferaw>B ite M e 22:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh well. One more outrageous abuse swept under the rwug... Human 01:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I must have been watching the speech. But let me get this straight.  You want an article criticizing your behaviour on RW? Can't you get RA to do it? I thought that that was one of his missions? --False Flag 17:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, what? I'm sorry, my attention was focused on trashing Ace McWicked for being an hypocritical git. 02:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * He's not a ... whatever you said. He's a Kiwi Kop. Human 03:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Like I said...  06:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

HELP
RW is down! Is anyone else experiancing this problem? --ConservapediaUndergroundResistor 01:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, maybe trent broke it to fix something. He usually fixes it within a half hour or so.  Meantime, you could go play on the IRC channel, often more folks pop up there during these little holidays. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human  04:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's still down for me but the RSS feed works & Ames just posted - so it's not down for everyone: "Fatal error: Maximum execution time of 30 seconds exceeded in /home/rational/public_html/wiki/includes/SkinTemplate.php on line 387" Fat Tuesday 06:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * NOT AGAIN! --ConservapediaUndergroundResistor 23:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yah, it's dead for me, too.  23:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * WHAT IN THE NAME OF GOAT IS GOING ON!? --ConservapediaUndergroundResistor 23:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Judging from how the intercom message was blanked, I'd say it had something to do with the intercom again.  23:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * How does one get on? --ConservapediaUndergroundResistor 23:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's worked for me all day. Maybe you're doing it wrong. We're all having a great time over there...TheoryOfPractice 00:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Because of my absence? --ConservapediaUndergroundResistor 02:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

WIGO RW
Shouldn't there be a WIGO RationalWiki section linked to on this Main Page, with green and red arrows for us to click on?
 * Yes, we should. 09:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I dream of the day when we have actually have enough users to keep such a page up-to-date. 09:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd get more traffic over here if there were something for readers to check in on-- Especially with this "boycott" nonsense nullifying the solitary thing RW has that's worth checking in on regularly, namely WIGO CP.

I'll bet I'm not the only one who'd like a chance to give that crap a thumbs down.

Set it up and display it prominently on the Main Page. I'll bet you'd get a lot more repeat customers here than you do now.


 * I just asked Trent to install the vote extension used for the WIGOs. With luck, we should have it soon (i.e. within a couple weeks). 18:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Off-Rw existence
Are we going to mention if RW users have a web presence elsewhere, like a blog or a myspace, or even if they're just on wikipedia or something? Rrose Selavy 22:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia and other public wiki's are fair game. As for blogs, myspace, etc, we shouldn't mention it unless they have linked to it themselves from RationalWiki (or another wiki).  00:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if they have juicy goss about RW? Awww. But yeah, thinking about it there's a limit really, the user articles would become less about RW itself and more about people who happen to edit RW. Rrose Selavy 20:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Favicon?
We can haz one, pleez? RationalwikiwikiUndergroundResistor 04:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm getting around to it... 04:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, now I recall why I never made one. I could never figure out how to set it up. 04:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's how, does that mean you'll need Trent's help? And I made a new favicon, as well as a 32x32 version: [[Image:Rww_favicon.png]] [[Image:Rww_favicon_32.png]], hope you like it. You'll actually need an ico file according to the mediawiki manual, so I've made one, download here --  Nx  talk 18:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm. It does appear I'll need Trent's help—I don't know of any image hosting services that take icos, so I'll have to upload to the "root of the domain" (whatever the heck that means). 21:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Root of the domain = base directory of the wiki on the server. But you don't have to put it in the root, you can put it into a subdirectory of www.rationalwikiwiki.org/wiki and point $wgFavicon in localsettings.php to it. That's assuming you have access to those two things. -- Nx  talk 22:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you explain how to do that, please (keeping in mind my extremely limited technical experience)? 22:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you edit localsettings.php or is there another way you can change settings such as which files can be uploaded or what usergroups exist and what their rights are? -- Nx  talk 14:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ask Trent to do it. 17:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

RWW inquirer
Whoever you are, please do not ask minors for personal details over the internet. Totnesmartin 20:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

RW not responding?
Anyone else? Fat Tuesday 05:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * at 5:00GMT (00:00 server time - 28th/29th Feb? Fat Tuesday 05:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Back up @ 00:10 Fat Tuesday 05:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * But incredibly slow/Hit and Miss. Fat Tuesday 05:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed policy for IP edits
An increasing number of IP edits have been spam/vandalism (,,,, and ). (The last example was particularly striking—the spammer created the page after following a link that only exists on the Main Page.)

Given that we are a rather small wiki, of legitimate interest to a relatively narrow range of people, I see no reason to allow IP editing at all. If someone really wants to contribute, they can sign up. Unlike RationalWiki and Wikipedia, we are not here to practice being super-tolerant and welcoming to random IPs that happen by, or to appeal to as broad a range as possible. It would be for the best if we restricted editing to those who are willing to make at least a minimal investment in the site by creating an account. 05:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Per my earlier promise, I will take no action on this matter until a sufficient number of editors agree with the proposal. 05:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with not letting IP's edit. Refugee 16:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * From what I've seen on Wikipedia, I'd have to disagree with this. If this site gets more popular, IP edits could become very important. MrFish 16:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Can a captcha be shown when an IP attempts to insert an external link into a page? -- Nx  talk 16:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I see no reason not to restrict IP editing, as HJ says, this place is small, and not intended to be "wide open". If it ever gets much busier we can always re-discuss, right? <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human  01:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

User rights reshuffling
I recently went through the user list and pruned back the rights of inactive, or otherwise not-generally-available, accounts. Note that those users who have been recently active also have been promoted (,, , and ). This is tiny wiki and there's no reason to let inactive or "legacy" accounts have block, lock, and deleterevision capabilities. 05:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait, hang on, me and Nx are bureaucrats now? 15:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've just finished reading the whole drama. RA/HJ got fed up with the inactivity/disinterest and decided to leave. He made us 'crats since we're the most active people around here. -- Nx  talk 15:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We are? I can't cope with this much authority! AHHHHHHHHH! I need to read xkcd to cool down! 15:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It just had to come after I read that New Scientist article about how humanity is doomed, didn't it? 15:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm, this looks borked: Special:Namespaces -- Nx  talk 16:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So what about me? --ConservapediaUndergroundResistor 21:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What about you? -- Nx /  talk    21:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

New logo
So, how's the new logo? I remade the old one as an svg, but unfortunately uploading svg's is not allowed. I've uploaded the svg to --  Nx  talk 16:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait, we don't have any access to the .php files that run the wiki, do we? Hans evidently did, as he was able to alter some of the permissions. 21:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't, but fortunately he pointed the appropriate config variable to a file uploaded through standard mw means. -- Nx /  talk    21:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * How do we get access to the files then?  21:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Which files? Localsettings? Ask HJ. As for the logo, it's here -- Nx /  talk    21:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Reshuffle
Anyone who was demoted in the reshuffle can whinge about it here. 21:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC) why was I demoted? --Test fail 06:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Because RA was being silly? 217.171.129.nn 06:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

seem more pissy to me --Test fail 07:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Block rights?
Would it make sense for block rights to be given out to lower user levels? (e.g., janitors and hollyrollers). RationalWiki gives them out right away with the Sysop, which works well because it's a small site. There seems to be issue here with there being a member with the block right on at any given moment. MrFish 02:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, I would block this spammer for a long time. Fall down 02:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * A site this small should not have anonymous editing in my ironic opinion. 192.43.227.18 06:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, all we can do is lock every single page. We don't have access to the server until Trent returns, and once he does, we might as well try this. --  Nx / talk 08:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

DEAD
'''I HAVE COME TO TAKE THIS DEAD WEBSITE TO MEET ITS MAKER. CHARON 08:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)'''
 * With what? 16:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Lame! Give it to me instead. Mei 18:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Capitalisation of titles
The capitalisation of titles here badly needs to be sorted out; Headless chicken mode has no redirect, and the whole thing is an unstandardised mess. Nx, would this be doable with a bot? 21:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably, however I don't know how to write a bot, and user javascript is unfortunately disabled. --  Nx / talk 22:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You have faaaaaiiiiiled us. 17:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't think this wiki even had a "manual of style" - I thought it just ran on the "wing it" principle? <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human  03:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that gets very confusing when you're trying to do internal links when editing and have to go hunting in another tab to find the correct capitalisation. 08:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. This site needs moar redirects! And a MOS. If you write it, I'll PHote for it. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human  02:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have checked the built in redirects, and basically everything with anything in the title capitalised, other than the first word, needs to have a redirect set up from the non-capitalised version. The main priority should be to get things like Kip the Dip Incident, with some words capitalised and some not, as a search for "Kip the Dip incident" will give nothing; of lesser priority are things like Broken Wiki Incident, with all words capitalised, as MediaWiki automatically redirects you to the page with correct capitalisation, but internal links are still red. 08:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's make redirects from lowercase titles, we don't need redirects for every possible combination though. --  Nx / talk 10:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My exact plan. 12:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that many of our articles actually should be moved to the lowercase titles e.g. there's no reason to capitalise 'incident'. Fall down 14:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that that is a good idea also. If I let you be a janitor so that you can make a start on it, will you promise not to touch any other buttons? 17:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Mmmmm, buttons! Yes, I can promise not to vandalise. Fall down 20:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hold on a second. First, we haven't decided on the titles yet, second, I'm not too comfortable giving Fall down extra rights after this --  Nx / talk 20:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Saith the person who left half the article in place. Anyway, if he will clean up the pages, I'm happy giving him janitorship; if it was possible to just give him move rights, I would, but I can't without giving him the rest of the bundle. 22:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't even think about it. Fuck it I'll do them all myself if necessary. Fd can occupy himself by lying in front of a bulldozer for Arthur Dent and certainly not levelling his house. Mei 22:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Is that last sentence English? Fall down 23:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We could Capitalize all the titles? On Another Point, a Certain Standard should be set for Syssosp - or do RW Standards Apply?--Tolerance 22:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You are definitely not an authority on capitalisation! Fall down 23:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

(B)eurocrats
All the active 'crats seem to be European (not False Flag?). This leaves a large gap in oversight. suggest another Murcan or two. 217.171.129.nn 00:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Site not need crats, needs sysops. Needs no IP edits. "Oops". <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human  02:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Round the clock 'crats are only needed on sites like RW proper, where there are lots of sysops who are less than trustworthy. 08:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware we were all European. But since we don't hand out sysopship like candy, not having a crat around shouldn't be a serious problem. On the other hand, not having a policeman/woman around is. We'll promote some more people if needed, but the spam attacks have stopped for now. And I'd still like to have Confirmedit instead of disabling IP edits completely. --  Nx / talk 10:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm from Britain, and False Flag is the only other bureaucrat who has been active in the last couple of months. 17:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am mostly harmless. --ConservapediaUndergroundResistor 23:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You must be joking. Anyway, as I said, you only really need one bureaucrat in a project this size, so three is just overkill. 17:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure what the issue is here. Exactly what problem is being addressed?--False Flag 17:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether or not we need another bureaucrat. 18:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OK.... And it is suggested we need one because ....?--False Flag 19:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No one knows. Please address my comment? <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human  03:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you had actually looked at the section, you would have seen that SusanG/Toast/217.171.129.nn suggested it because all of our current 'crats at that time were European. 08:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Why should you assume that I have not read the section? It's not that long, and of course I have read it. And I don't understand the problem. I have not seen fit to disclose my location, but, OK, let us imagine that every crat is european.  Why (even if it's true) would this be a problem for our BON? Why would we care?--False Flag 19:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I is not a BON. Just that it leaves a vacancy (in time) for vandals to operate. If you're not bothered, then I'm sure I'm not. 217.171.129.nn 20:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The point has already been made that round the clock 'crats are only necessary on sites where there are less than trustworthy users with permissions allowing them to do damage to the site. 21:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Random page?
Is there a way to put the Random Page button on the left? It'd be fun to see what's here? Sterile 18:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. --  Nx / talk 18:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There we go... Sterile 18:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Changes
--  Nx / talk 20:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've enabled the ReCaptcha extension and reenabled IP edits. We'll see how it works out. rationalwiki.com is whitelisted, and the whitelist can be edited here (note those are regular expressions)
 * I've added RationalWiki to the interwiki table, so you can do this
 * We can haz a favicon
 * svg files can be uploaded.
 * User javascript has been enabled.
 * Still bitter... BTW, have you seen the block war? 21:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? And I've been busy with other things. --  Nx / talk 21:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's over now, but it lasted for about one and a half hours, and for that time recent changes consisted almost entirely of the block log. 22:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw that. --  Nx / talk 22:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It should be documented here. MrFish 21:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It was trivial. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human  03:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I like the favicon, nice. How about the "edit section zero" exploit? <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human  03:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Done, and you can also use importScriptURI to load scripts from other sites, for example RW --  Nx / talk 11:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)ALL
 * Thanks! <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human  01:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

WIGO
Do we want it? --  Nx / talk 14:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I would be quite interested (i.e. yes). 17:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Test I'll upload the button images in a moment (they can be customized in Special:Allmessages btw) --  Nx / talk 17:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There seems to be an issue with caching. --  Nx / talk 18:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, fixed now. --  Nx / talk 18:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice, love all the improvements. MrFish 19:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Helpski!
My is teh Bork being! --&#91;&#91;User:Lavrenty Beria&#124;&lt;font color=Red&gt;Лаврентий Берия&lt;/font&gt;&#93;&#93; 01:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Under "nickname" in your preferences, check the "raw signatures" box. MrFish 01:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

My head hurts...
What, may I ask, is the point, if there is one, of this site? The confusion is hurting me... 75.158.1.251 07:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * One has wondered. 217.171.129.nn 07:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * To document the madness over at RationalWiki what else? Also hate to do this to you but... MrFish 13:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My god, for once the internet has made no sense to me. 142.59.186.233 07:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Username vandal
Since FD appears not to be him, and therefore doesn't want the discussion going on there, I'd like to ask the sockmaster to identify him/her. --ConservapediaUndergroundResistor 23:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, it's a her, no doubt, but I have no idea who. Fall down 10:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * How are you so sure it's a her then? --  Nx / talk 12:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I know those things. Fall down 13:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * He's a misogynist, of course he knows. --ConservapediaUndergroundResistor 20:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

N/A
I see this being used a lot in inappropriate places, like people's names and locations. For the record, N/A means "not applicable", and should be used when a field is inappropriate. So, for instance, Capturebot's real name is N/A, because it is a program running on π's computer and thusly has no name. Jeeves, however, is not a robot (as far as we know), and so his real name is unknown, not N/A. 15:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * How about on here we use it to mean "not available"? But feel free to edit all the places it is used to "unknown". <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human  20:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Who is "in charge" around here?
I have long since lost track, is there now a complete abandonment of leadership for this site? Tmtoulouse 07:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Dunno. Let's see

e Admin ‎(Bureaucrat, Janitor, Police officer) DEFUNCT

False Flag ‎(Bureaucrat, Janitor, Police officer)

Kcabder ‎(Bureaucrat, Holyroller, Janitor, Police officer) INACTIVE

Hans Johnson (aka Radioactive Afikomen)

Nx INACTIVE

Phantom Hoover ‎(Bureaucrat, Janitor, Police officer)

Theemperor ‎(Bureaucrat, Holyroller, Janitor, Police officer)

Weaselicious (Bureaucrat, Janitor, Police officer)

Probably False Flag, but he shows up VERY rarely, so for day-to-day operations, probably P.H., followed by me, and then Weasel, who, like FF is barely active. This explanation of the RWW power structure brought to you by Theemperor 21:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, whoever is in charge needs to make a decision about the CC-BY-SA vs. GFDL. I suggest waiting to see what RW does in a week, and following suit to ensure cross compatibility. But I will not make the decision for this site. 216.221.87.112 23:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I see that my name has been taken in vain above and that my absence is noted. Firstly, I make no claim to authority here.  Secondly, I see that I am listed as "AKA RA" above.  This is most certainly not the case.  It was RA's, use of the site as an instrument to further his vendettas in RW which initially caused me to lose interest in the project.  Later it frequently became the vehicle for self aggrandizement and axe grinding on the part of others, so my contributions have been meager.  I'm frankly surprised to realize that I still have the powerz listed above as I had thought somebody had long since taken them away.
 * Having said all that, my response to the issue in question would be to support the suggestion that the site maintain cross compatibility with RW.--False Flag 09:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay that was point one, here is point to. The domain name for this site is scheduled to expire in two weeks time. RA holds the "keys" to that, someone needs to find out if he plans on extending the registration, and if not if he will turn it over to someone else who would like to do so. If neither of these happen there is nothing I can do to "save" the wiki, I can always forward it to a new domain if necessary. However, my suggestion is that someone get in contact with RA and figure out what his plans are. 216.221.87.112 16:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would nominate PH. As I recall, he seems - for whatever reason - to have a direct line to RA and was responsible for resurrecting him at RW at one point.--False Flag 19:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Screw it, I'll write him. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human  05:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, this comment is out of order, for some reason I missed this comment by Human, so I posted my comment below, I hope you are able to get in contact with RA, I'd be sorry to see this wiki go. Refugee 16:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If he doesn't action this I'll save the best stuff to my RW page until it can find a better site. Rrose Selavy 15:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * RA or PH would be the best choice, I'd think. Refugee 16:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Users with Access
 * Nx ‎(Access)
 * Tmtoulouse ‎(Access)

List of Bureaucrats
 * Admin ‎(Bureaucrat, Janitor, Police officer)
 * False Flag ‎(Bureaucrat, Janitor, Police officer)
 * Kcabder ‎(Bureaucrat, Holyroller, Janitor, Police officer)
 * Phantom Hoover ‎(Bureaucrat, Janitor, Police officer)
 * Theemperor ‎(Bureaucrat, Holyroller, Janitor, Police officer)
 * Weaselicious ‎(Bureaucrat, Janitor, Police officer)

Refugee 16:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * RA replied, all is good, he's gonna keep this alive as long as RW exists. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human  05:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I got the same message; I was away for a few days, however, and my internet connection conked out yesterday. 14:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has "Simple English Wikipedia"
Is there any chance RWW will ever create a "Simple Drama RationalWikiWiki", for those who find digging up even the simplest dirt headache-inducing? 76.105.223.232 01:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyright
Better get cracking on making the shift to CC-BY-SA, let Nx or I know when you are ready and one of us can set the LocalSettings.php file to point to CC-BY-SA, the other notices will need to be edited by hand. Check rw:RationalWiki:Transitioning to CC-BY-SA for pointers. 216.221.87.112 04:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

If I have to do this I am going to be pissed. Someone take charge damn it. 216.221.87.112 18:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Who ferinstance? PH seems to have vanished. 94.197.138.241 02:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Screw it then let the place rot. 216.221.87.112 03:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Simple enough to do it by fiat, I suspect. Load "all images".  Change all to CC-BY-SA.  Change "site" copyright warnings.  Done. Are there even many images here? <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human  04:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yah, "gallery of new files" fits on one lousy page. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human  04:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, pisswad, there are now no gfdl images on this site. Heck, there are barely any images on this site!  I PD'd, CC-BY-SAd, or deleted everything in sight. Nao pleez to change site copyright info from GFDL to Cubic Centimeters BY Sacred Arcs, mkay? <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human  05:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that that was Trent who you called a "pisswad". Theemperor 18:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it was. :P <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human  02:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Pisswad aside, I changed whatever that hell that was on the copyrights page to standard CC-BY-SA text and changed the settings of the wiki to reflect the new copyright status. In no way shape or form is this action to be construed that I have any official involvement with this wiki or sanction any of its content, etc. Tmtoulouse 17:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks on behalf of whoever is in charge around here. I just wanted to help clean up your hard drive ;) <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human  23:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, someone had to clear up both sites. Armondikov 00:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Um... Sorry... I was on holiday... 11:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I hasten to point out that my control of the site extends merely to bureaucracy; I was never given server access. 20:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

IP editing
Why can't IPs edit? -- Nx  / talk 08:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not true. 99.57.160.198 16:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Temporarily close down account creation?
Due to excessive trolling, can I please turn off account creation and IP editing for, like, the next two weeks? Pretty please? (It's not like we'll be snubbing mobs of people who would otherwise be editing—we get about one legit new editor signing up every week, and one legit IP edit once every couple days.)  12:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I am already going to shut down account creation and IP editing for the night, so that way I can come back to this page tomorrow and not have it covered in MC's shit.  12:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't really see the need, but since you're going to do it anyway, can you leave a note here confirming when it will be turned back on &/or a system for requesting account creation in the meantime - e.g. new editors could request an account at a designated page in RW (like here)? <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w easeLICIOuS  <font color=brown face=Mufferaw>B ite M e 18:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You do rather tend to get into fights, and this way of resolving your battle does seem a bit draconian. But I'm not around to fix things and you have the power to do this. I do think you should at least update the policies so that your actions are in line with policies though.--False Flag 21:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I, personally, don't see the point in disabling account creation as a means of stopping MC's trolling unless you intend for it to be a permanent change. MC has shown time and again he'll go above and beyond the call of duty to troll wherever.  more to the point, I have a felling that recent policy dealing with him (blocking him, archiving his posts, protecting trolled pages) did more to discourage him than you think.  Also, if we disable account creation for a limited perisod of time (2 weeks for example), what makes you think that won't feed the troll that way; where he comes back with new ammunition because he knows we did that in his acknowledgment? Trust me, I think our recent ways of handling him are the best possible practice, so long as nobody caves into his bullshit.  His recent spats are the dying gasps for the life of his trolling here. MNpunkboy 22:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Having heard your rather irritatingly defeatist "nay, but you'll do whatever you want anyways" statements, I have re-enabled IP editing and account creation.  01:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool. Trust me, if we stay the course, things should turn out fine. MNpunkboy 02:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The HCM involving MC
What should we call it, and what level of HCM did it reach? I, personally, think it made it as far as HCM2, maybe even HCM 3, but I want feedback. MNpunkboy 03:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Featured articles
I'm just off out now, but here's a suggestion: how about we work on a few more articles to bring them up to featured status. I'm bored with constantly having the same people who left years ago. Rrose Selavy 14:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I couldn't agree more. MNpunkboy 15:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Just make sure that it wasn't MarcusCicero. He would be so proud. --Earthland 16:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll feature his arse on my size ten work boots if that helps. Rrose Selavy 17:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

OK there's some weird way that articles transclude to the main page, but i can't work out what's happening. in the meantime, I nominate the following for featured status (please support/oppose with reasons):

Six months later
Nobody cares, so I'm going to do this anyway. Rrose Selavy 17:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Great, now the random featured article won't randomise. Rrose Selavy 17:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

What is this website's purpose?

 * I use this site to refer to Historical RW stuff that's hard to find there. For me it's a history of RW rather than an attack site. Others may have their own opinion. Rrose Selavy 10:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, we are both correct. The point of this site, according to the main page, is to "Identify groupthink, indentify power abuse, and observe the evolution of RationalWiki." Therefore, allowing the critics to come here and critique RationalWiki is part of our job, so long as it fits into identifying groupthink and/or power abuse. Slime attacks, however, do not fit to within that. As far as the history of the site goes, that fits well under "observing the evolution of RationalWiki."  So, Rrose, we both appear to be right. MNpunkboy 08:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind that RWW has no inherent right to reside on the RW server. It is offered as a courtesy, and I have never exerted or demanded editorial control in return for it. However, this is were to turn into a personal attack site against individuals, in a mean spirited way, RWW would have to find another home. Criticism is fine, and won't be met with me pulling the plug, but if MC comes here and is allowed to start calling people names on their articles I will issue an eviction notice. Tmtoulouse 07:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Trent is right. He is under no obligation to host it, and I certainly don't think he should if it turns vile. If RWW wants to be a meta-site that essentially records and keeps track of the fast-paced activity of the main site, then I'd certainly welcome it as something incredibly useful. As for criticism, I'd also welcome it - but then again I'm someone who's happy to learn and change, not everyone will be appreciative, especially if it's just personal attacks. Armondikov 14:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. As I think I said above, this site's goal is to keep a historical record of RationalWiki while, at the same time, critique RationalWiki in a constructive manner. Using it as a slime attack site is, however, not within its mission. MNpunkboy 15:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Much as I agree with the above there is a side aspect. By giving the likes of Marcus, CUR and Fall Down some play space it has kept them away from RW which is a "good thing". I know this is a by product and neither is nor should be the primary purpose of this site but it is an aspect. InnocentBystander 16:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Also agree with you there, innocentbystander. I think my original point was that I'd much rather they troll RationalWiki from this site than be over at RationalWiki trying to cause HCM all over the place. At least here, they can largely be ignored, and aren't really disrupting people who are actually trying to work on something important.  I do not think MarcusCicero should have free reign over here, but when he is here, at least, he is much easier to ignore and/or get rid of. MNpunkboy 18:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised
I've been rather out of the loop for a while now and I just thought I'd have a look at the old place. I'm pleasantly surprised. There is actual life in the site. If I had been keeping up with RW I would start to contribute again. Alas...--False Flag 20:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What's more surprising is that it's all because a certain somebody showed up, and everyone kept their cool and decided to do other things that didn't involve said person. Make sense? MNpunkboy 23:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Policies box
The policies box in the lower right shouldn't be nested withing the featured article box, it looks cluttered and confusing. E.g. Kels came up as featured article for me and the policies box looks like it belongs into the "Personality profile" section of that article. -- Nx  / talk 01:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Conficker's challenge
I hereby challenge this place to clear all trolling and other nonsense completely out of recent changes over the next few days. I will be gone, unfortunately, but let's see if you all can do it. Conficker 02:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I accept your challenge sir/madam! MNpunkboy 02:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

HotCat extension
Any way one of the techies involved in this site could install the HotCat extension so that I don't need to do categories old skool? MNpunkboy 02:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * HotCat isn't an extension in itself, but a JS script, so it should be importable. 15:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, it works. Because we don't have the Gadgets extension, it needs to be done old-school, by editing your monobook.js. I have taken the liberty of doing this for you. 16:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool. Thanks PH. MNpunkboy 17:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Domain name expiring
RationalWikiWiki's domain name will expire July 14th, as I have no money to continue paying for it.

It's just as well. I effectively killed this site when I commandeered it for my own purposes back in autumn of '08. (I deeply regret doing so—this site could've actually been a good thing. But now we'll never know.)  It's been nothing more than a shambling zombie since then, kept alive out of hubris. It really ought to die. 05:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * 'Tis a shame, and just before (as my computer is broken) I was gonna spice things up here. Oh well. MNpunkboy 14:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it's up to you. I think the site should continue, though. I'm not sure, but it should be possible to relocate it into RW's domain, but the sheer volume of dead links could kill whatever was left. 17:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * How much does it cost to maintain the domain name, anyways? I agree with the phantom vaccuum cleaner that this place should be kept around in some form. Hell, we could even try to move it to a Wikifarm or something as a severe alternative. MNpunkboy 17:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Nah, let it die. Good riddance. 193.200.150.152 19:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, I feel it ought to die.  20:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's only $15, but what little money I have I'm saving up for something else.  20:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Update: Ownership of the domain name is being/has been transferred to Trent. 04:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And here (now that I'm at a computer again) I could've paid that $15. Oh well, probably better Trent have it anyways. I'll just donate that $15 to him. MNpunkboy 20:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

RWW readers, please check in
For those who read RWW (what, like 10 of you maybe?), I am looking for ideas as to who people think needs an article here. Granted, we have the outdated "wanted pages," but I am sure that folks can come up with more than that for me to write about. This isn't a popularity contest, I'm just at a writer's block point, and need some ideas. Conficker 05:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

RWW domains
Users of RWW should be aware that I am including the transfer of ownership of the rww domain to the foundation as well. 68.35.148.225 01:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A question: when the time comes that I am able to afford it again (or if someone else wishes to do so), will I/they be able to "buy" it back from the Foundation?  02:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Especially since I am an interested buyer in the future. MNpunkboy 03:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no intrinsic reason that would prevent this, and I don't see a reason the trustees wouldn't agree to such an arrangement. But there is also not really much hurry either. 68.35.148.225 04:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, no hurry. Just curiosity as something that could happen in the future. Thanks for the feedback. MNpunkboy 05:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Essay
I want to write something that I "own" - an essay really. I don't think that we've ever allowed this before, but would anyone have any objections? --False Flag 18:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, go ahead! I'm all for it. --Admin 19:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * All low-use Wikis considered, I have no objections. Go ahead! Punky McPunkersen 21:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I assume there's no essayspace, so it would have to stay in the mainspace. Liveware Problem 03:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you can always stick "Essay:" in the title, and that's good enough for the odd essay. 15:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Future of RWW
RWW is really low priority to transfer over when the server moves. May I suggest people interested in RWW start thinking about ways to gain some independence? The usage is small enough that cheap shared hosting would probably work fine. I won't pull the plug on it but the chances of it making it to the new server anytime soon are limited which means it won't have the defacto technical support that it had because it was piggy backing directly on the RW servers. Tmtoulouse 05:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been pondering on this for a while, ever since Human told me via phone chat that the RW foundation was considering dropping RWW as a proxy of RW. My question for folks watching this place is: would moving this to a Wiki farm, like Referata, be a good idea, and what would doing such a move require as far as content transfer and such? Punky McPunkersen 05:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, and most importantly, what is our timetable to figure things out? Punky McPunkersen 05:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I doubt porting to a farm would be a realistic option, with all of the customizing and extensions RA has done. We could do it, of course, but it would fundamentally change the way the wiki works.
 * If we were to do it that way, I think wikia would be the best option. Liveware Problem 05:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Fuck no, wikia is horrible, stupid ads, crap fixed width skin. As for what we'd lose: wigo. 89.132.239.149 07:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So what, then, are our options as a Wiki? Or should we just vanish? Punky McPunkersen 07:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no specific time table or plan to drop RWW, though it has been discussed by the current board. The thing to be aware of is that there is also no immediate plan to move RWW from the box in my apartment to the new server. That can happen eventually but its low priority relative to other things. RWW will continue to exist on the box here but since RW itself isn't on the box technical support maybe more sporadic than it has been and it is subject to issues like prolonged down time if something goes wrong and I am out of town.
 * My recommendation would be to find a cheaped shared hosting service that gives marginal shell access. You can find it all over the place, something like blue host just off the top of my head. The requirements to support RWW are fairly limited so <$10 a month hosting likely could support the wiki fine. Tmtoulouse 07:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What would the technical requirements be for transferring content from the current server over to another server be? For instance, how would data get transferred, etc.? Punky McPunkersen 08:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If someone is actually interested in finding an independent home for RWW I am willing to aid in getting things setup, just let me know. As I said there still no immediate issue, just trying to make sure people that are interested in this wiki are fully informed of the situation and options. Tmtoulouse 16:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been floating the idea for a while now about asking the RW Foundation for the rights to eventually move this Wiki to a different hosting domain which I could then pay for. However, the earliest that could happen is January after I move. Plus, I also have little technical expertise and experience regarding the behind-the-scenes parts of the Wiki, so that would also be a drawback. Punky McPunkersen 00:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The question is, are you interested in learning the behind-the-scenes parts? Nothing better than trial by fire, and I can help. Tmtoulouse 03:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely I am. Again, though, it would be better discussed after January, when i know more what my situation will look like. Punky McPunkersen 14:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I can help out with the technical stuff too, and I think Phantom Hoover would be interested as well. -- Nx  / talk 16:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's fine, as I said there is no plans to pull the plug on RWW, the board has mostly talked about encouraging the site to seek out independence. I think it is good for RWW as well to be independent of direct support from the RWF. The only caveat is as I said RWW is probably going to stay on the box in my apartment for a while yet. That is not bad, but does mean that the risk that RW and RWW both share now of prolonged downtime in my physical absence from the server will still exist even after the transition of RW itself. Tmtoulouse 18:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand Trent. It's just that I know Human has mentioned to me before that the RW Foundation was looking to make RWW independent of RW, which piqued my interest a little in taking over the technical aspects of RWW (domain name, server-side stuff, etc.). But, again, there is time for discussion of that, and I am still uncertain if or when I would be able to take care of that, should it happen. Punky McPunkersen 23:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Out of idle curiosity, how big is RWW? Tyrannis 01:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Annual awards
Annual, specific awards a la RW's CP Day awards? Perhaps:

Havent' thought of names for a few, and names definitely could change.

Anyone? More? Liveware Problem 02:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems like a good idea. I don't think we could get pictures for them though, but has merit. Tyrannis 12:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * How about this for the irrationality award: The "Why do they call it RationalWiki?" award for Irrationality? Or maybe not. Also, we need a LANCB award! -- Nx  / talk 17:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see a "Why do they call it RationalWiki award for most ridiculous criticism of the site". But that's just me. Armondikov 18:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a bad idea either, probably better than mine. Also added a name for the LANCB-Least missed award. Also also, there should be a LANCB award for this. -- Nx  / talk 06:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * An award for most ridiculous criticism would be problematic though, since the candidates would probably be one-off trolls who have been long forgotten and no-one cares about. Anyway, alternative name for irrationality award: Headless Chicken award? -- Nx  / talk 06:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Authoritarianism! Ooh, and maybe arrogance (Lucifer award for hubris?) I need to add to my collection.  Oh, and I never got my award box from last years, so I'm still pretty pissed about that.  Theemperor 03:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Head on over

 * I have opened voting here, but we need MOAR NOMINATIONS! Liveware Problem 05:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Server
I have purchased the server RWW is on from the Foundation and have other plans for it than a web server. A smaller VPS was setup shortly after the one RW is on designed to move the bots over to. It will also make a perfectly capable home for RWW till you guys sort out your issues. I will likely be moving you to the new server in the next few days. I am not planning software upgrades at this time. Tmtoulouse 01:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, keep us informed, how big is this site, size wise? I might be getting a server around may and would like to know should the unthinkable happen. Tyrannis 01:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not very big really, on the order of megabytes as opposed to RWs gigabytes. Tmtoulouse 02:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So, if worst comes to worst, i could run it off my old gaming PC, It has a decent CPU, 3Gins RAM and 400GB hard drive space. Only problem would be connection. Tyrannis 02:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

New Server
This is the new server, still working out issues. Tmtoulouse 06:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Because of various issues the software upgrade was forced. Hopefully things are working. Tmtoulouse 07:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The poll extension isn't working, but that's all I can see. Liveware Problem 18:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you point me to a page its being used on? 130.113.218.226 22:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Who is rationalwiki's biggest troll. Tyrannis 23:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Tmtoulouse 23:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Tyrannis 23:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Uploading files no longer works. Tyrannis 15:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Works now, but the limit is only 2Mb, and I can't seem to change it (that is, changing the relevant php option isn't working) -- Nx  / talk 16:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, most of the stuff I plan to upload is only a few K anyway. Tyrannis 17:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Lockdown
I've disabled editing for non-janitors because I don't have the time to deal with this moronic vandal. If someone wants to babysit the wiki I can enable it again. -- Nx  / talk 21:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * When will it be re-enabled? An hour or two or three maybe would be the most I'd think it would take to deter a script kiddie. Conficker 21:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've lifted the lockdown and installed the vandal brake to slow down the vandal. -- Nx  / talk 21:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool. I'm sure their orgy of fun is over at this point anyways. Conficker 21:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

TK's RW socks.
Our of curiosity ... has anybody noticed if any middle or high ranking RW editors stopped editing at the same time that TK stopped editing CP? Because, well, you know ... --False Flag 17:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmmmm..... Well, there was Nx.... Punky McPunkersen 18:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Mmmmmm. The death certificate is December 17. So going to have to doubt that as Nx's last post was 29 Jan. I checked Marcus as well ... But his last post was in Jan 1.
 * Any other ideas?--False Flag 18:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Fall down? Punky McPunkersen 00:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Checkuser. Armondikov 00:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Using checkuser on RationalWiki (or its equivalent, combing the server directly) would set off a massive HCM of unheard of proportions. Radioactive afikomen 09:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Check Larron's user graphs for Dec/Jan. If an editor suddenly drops off the radar in Jan, it might be a TK sock. He might have been using proxies to edit anyway, because his last ip address was blocked. --Psygremlin 12:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A quick glance at a few of the active users' contribs brings up A Whiter Shade of Pale and Agamemnon as two low-volume editors who stopped round about then. I got as far as Captain Obvious before stopping, if anybody else wants to continue. SuspectedReplicant 13:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * All of those are socks of Human. Liveware Problem 18:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I know. Why do you think I even suggested it? Armondikov 19:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I always suspected that ConservapediaRoolz was a sock of TK. Refugee 23:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

If/when we get LQT.....
I think that I'd like to open the discussion here about LQT, since I know some folks don't like it. If this site finally gets LQT installed (which wouldn't be until after I get this site from the RW Foundation and move it to its own hosting and get all settled in afterwards), I wanna know what everyone thinks should happen with implementation. First and foremost, I don't want LQT on talkpages that don't want it (we should especially give userpages the option of opting out). BUt, anyways, let's actually open the discussion about what those dozen people that come here think about LQTT on this site. Punky McPunkersen 23:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it should be set up like it is on RationalWiki right now. I, personally, am not a complete fan of LQT like everyone else here seems to be. So I think we should make it an available option for pages, but not go all gaga (and I don't mean Lady Gaga) over the prospect of installing LQT on every page here. Conficker 23:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Conficker, the real question is main page talk and the tree house. Tyrannis 00:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Can I put my oppose here now? Rrose Selavy 19:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure. Ty 19:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't forget to put it here as well! :) Ty 19:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Random featured article
Sometimes the random featured article is a load of massive banners and boilerplate things with he text far below it. Cover stories need moar noinclude and includeonly stuffs. Rrose Selavy 19:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can do. Ty 19:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Need to wait for cache to clear, but I moved the awards to a separate section, I'll see what happens. Ty 19:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

New RWWWW WIGO!!!
Because RWWW reached 100 WIGOs. Hey, if I don't linkspam, nobody will ever know... SuspectedReplicant 22:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I saw. Stop referring to LP as an it. Ty 22:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've done it once so it's hardly a habit. Besides, where is it specified that it is a she? SuspectedReplicant 22:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Look at her talk page. Ty 22:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Christ, don't YOU start being a dick. It's not on the user page, and it's not obvious anywhere else. SuspectedReplicant 22:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry :< LP is Blue. I thought everybody knew that by now. Ty 22:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that. I'm afraid I don't know all the RW<->RWW personalities. Sorry for getting wound up, but with everything else that's going on right now, I'm feeling a tad defensive. SuspectedReplicant 22:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This hit during finals. FINALS. I have another one in two hours, on Puerto Rican crack dealers. I'm just a tad bit upset, ya know? Ty 22:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Block policy has been updated
New block policy.

We never followed the old version, anyways. The new one is closer to how things are actually done, with a few suggestions to temper the wheel-warring. 18:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Please pass on this message
I am retiring. Somone hacked my computer and broke it maliciously. I suspect it was a rationalwikian, but it could well have been anyone on the internet as I've a bit of a reputation for crossing people and wrecking their delicate internet ego's. In response to this kind of terrorism, I submit. Like the Japanese after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I surrender. Please ensure everyone knows that this event has now occured. Rationalwiki can continue its path down a narrow and boring road of becoming 'just like any other site' on the internet.

Goodbye forever.

MARCUSCICERO

The "Random Featured article"
Thing seems to be top heavy in SusanG and TK. Is this on purpose or do I just have shitty luck in what i get shown?--Mikal 16:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Clear your cache. If you have suggestions for new material, let me know. TyrannisAn iron, yet caring fist 17:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Strip out everyone who has left, and the long-ago incidents, then add new stuff. Perhaps we could vote on what deserves a featured article and then make it better. Also retitle RA to stabby. Rennie McGreet 16:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Inclined to agree. Do we really think Barbara Shack is an important article these days? I did add Human a while ago to spice things up, and certainly think we could keep the bulk of what's there, but there are some "Random Featured Articles" that we could do without and, contrapositively, some that we really should include. Punky McPunkersen 21:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Human, ADK, Blue, Nx, you, LX, you? John Childermass 02:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * the Punk needs to be featured. Also a couple of big events to go with the names. I'd like RWW to concentrate on the storyline as much as the characters. Rennie McGreet 12:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sod it, I'm going to go ahead with this. Out with the old! Rennie McGreet 16:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Chicken coop added... I want to add Blue, Friendly Block and Saloon Bar Putsch, but they all need a bit more. Rennie McGreet 16:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * More? TyrannisAn iron, yet caring fist 18:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * More! Rennie McGreet 20:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So, do you want spam, bacon, or sausage in your grits young sir? TyrannisAn iron, yet caring fist 20:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you got anything without spam? Rennie McGreet 20:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheese grits? Bananas Foster? Etouffe? Gumbo? Jambalaya? TyrannisAn iron, yet caring fist 20:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * OCTOPUSSSS!--만두 20:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll have the lot. All mixed up in a bucket. Rennie McGreet 20:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you want cocktail sauce with that? TyrannisAn iron, yet caring fist 20:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

voting buttons
I can't get my votes to register. When I vote, I just get put on hold forever. Clearly other people can vote, so what's the problem? Rennie McGreet 10:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm. I'll look into this later today when I have some time. Punky McPunkerson 14:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I poked at it for a while, but couldn't figure it out. I'll have to see if Trent can figure out what's up. Punky McPunkerson 12:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The border (mis)alignment of the boxes
Can [the header] be made a few pixels thinner? I'd like to see it align with the rest of the page. Just a suggestion--Brxbrx 04:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * +1. It bothers my lack of aesthetic sense too.--Burzum 11:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a margin: -8px attribute that doesn't need to be there. Armondikov 12:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Ad hom
Some of the WIGOs are becoming just outright ad hominems. Not impressive. Sterile 12:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Then rewrite them. Passiveaggressive 17:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Or people could just stop the ad hominems. Re-writing a WIGO always causes stupid "You re-wrote my WIGO!!!!" drama. Punky McPunkerson 19:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't follow the drama enough. I haven't a clue why you third graders all think PC is a wanker, and I don't care to look at the links. Sterile 19:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * How about we stop wigoing PC's antics, along with Ty's LAICBs? Laugh in your own time. Tobul Oltarolin, Expedition Leader 02:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, El Taj/SJ leaving is notable, I just found it funny that they both left on the same day. Looks like RA changed me wigo. Mbwun 03:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But I want my "Most LANCBs ever" badge! Passiveaggressive 03:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ad homs are RWW's stock and trade. Every single one of us would be better of it the domain redirected to Rationalwiki.org. Nutty Roux 13:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Only of a half dozen or so users, and very rarely in articles. Most of the ad homs are on talk pages. And no. Mbwun 23:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of LANCBs, I was just curious if anybody noticed that Bob M seems to have vanished. He's still selling pots and cookware on his teflon website, but he's not edited RW in a while. Punky McPunkerson 12:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It has been over a month, yes. Passiveaggressive 16:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * At least until today Passiveaggressive 16:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If we ignored those things then we would have to think of actual insightful WIGOS. Or repeatedly post "nothing happened." TheCurtlyKnave 17:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, no, you might actually have to work on content at RW. The horrors! Sterile 20:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If you ignored those things you'd be 100% less creepy for obsessing over the lives of strangers on the internet. Nutty Roux 22:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm? What was that yousaid? Mbwun 23:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Nutty Roux didn't write any of those articles. If you want to prove someone a hypocrite, try looking for examples specific to them.  Otherwise it's just another cheap lazy ad hom. <font color="maroon" face="Comic Sans MS"> W easelicious  <font color=brown face="Comic Sans MS">B ite M e 23:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not calling him a hypocrite for writing them, but for complaining about the ball-tongueing here while doing nothing about similar articles on RW proper. Mbwun 23:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What's all that have to do with the price of fish? And are you even one of the creeps here? I actually do remove potentially defamatory things about CP sysops and whatever else I notice on RW. TK is a special case: he threatened to sue several people and have me disbarred, as well as reached deeply into the lives of others. And he's dead. If you notice anything problematic about someone who's alive, remove it yourself or email me and I'll have a look. Some of the things people say about Ed Poor and Andy Schlafly are unacceptable. Keep up the good work, buddy! Nutty Roux 01:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Because aside from the WIGO and Brx pages, there is stunningly little non tongue-in-cheek negativity in the articles here. And it can be argued that Brx deserves it. So stop molehill mountaineering. Mbwun 01:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Lol. This site is a shithole. Nutty Roux 06:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Why are you even here then? I mean for other things than commiting ad homs... --84.158.58.59 20:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * To interact with truly delightful people like you, UHM. Now get back under your rock and do whatever you do. Nutty Roux 23:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah Nutty, you are my second Ken. --84.158.58.59 07:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Brx told me that UHM eats through his anus and shits out his mouth. When he does so an eerie keening is heard throughout the woods causing birds to drop from the sky and rats to die in their tracks. As was prophesied. Ace McWicked 03:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. You made my morning. Nutty Roux 13:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Back to CKnave, it's only partly what's WIGO'd. It's also how you put it.  Honestly, just calling someone a wanker tells you nothing and is just a cheap insult.  (Actually, it's not even an ad hom, as it's not making an argument.) It's just childish. But then again ... Sterile 10:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I was being sarcastic way up there. TheCurtlyKnave 13:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know why the 'LANCB' of Tyrannis is notable. He is already back. Stop giving him the attention he craves. He is quite trollish in his own way. As a former troll, I can spot them a mile off. MC.

That wasn't me! Jesus fucking christ
in the wake of the Tisane affair, MC decides he has nothing better to do than harass people about it, including spending the time making many tiresome troll accounts.

For christs sake, I see this all the time. People claim to be me, or you lot assume that its me, as if there is only one fucking troll on the internet. Most likely it is one of you going to the bother of creating a sock account to please some personal whim (Not that I've anything against that) Perhaps the legacy of Marcus Cicero lives on, long after his natural life ended. A user called 'MarkCarthy' also claimed to be me, which I have refuted, even though the refutation was hidden by various people with bad motives (You know who you are). I'm sick of this shit. I'm too lazy to use socks. You know my IP, you know when I pop up for a little dig every now and then. IN SHORT, THERE IS MORE THAN ONE FUCKING TROLL ON THE INTERNET. Jesus. 86.41.232.72 15:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Plus, my work is a lot more sophisticated than all that. I would take no pleasure in such intellectually derisive trolling. 86.41.232.72 15:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * mmh hmm. Passiveaggressive 15:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure you know how much I loathe you, how I consider you to be little more than a cockroach... no, a cancer, infecting humanity with your lameness and pathetic lack of a real life. How you drag everyone else down to your autism spectrum way of thinking, of obsession, of an evident lack of any kind of sexual contact ever. I'm pretty sure you know all this, but I really do need to tell you this again. I think you're pathetic. Not just because you spend all your time on an internet fixing fucking templates and categories and making minor spelling corrections. I hate you because you represent all that is bad, creepy and obsessional about the internet. I'm idealistic about the internet, I really am, and its because of people like you that I troll. I want the creepy obsessional freaks to get the fuck off and leave it to serious people with serious ideals. Now fuck off and masturbate over midget porn or whatever the fuck it is you do for your kicks. 86.41.232.72 16:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That's nice. Passiveaggressive 16:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Frankly I don't know why people tolerate you, you're like a fucking wasp running around annoying everybody you come into contact with. I don't like being like this to people, I really don't. I generally leave people alone if they leave me alone. I could have left you alone. But you had to be the aspie motherfucker trying to impress his elders by censoring my posts. I'm on RW once every 3 months but you ALWAYS seem to be online when I am. Why the fuck is that? Why the fuck don't you go outside and read a fucking book or something? 86.41.232.72 16:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * mmh hmm. Passiveaggressive 16:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Leave me alone and I won't use my tongue against you. You've got a good tongue lashing there, I hope you understand I derived no pleasure from it. Learn from your mistakes, grow up, and maybe stop being a such a cunt to me all the time. Just because the powerful think I should be censored and banned doesn't mean I should. You should have the courage to stand up for the powerless and the voiceless. MarcusCicero had the courage to defeat and reveal the Catiline conspiracy - he was the last great man of the Republic, who spoke out against the monster Mark Antony. You are just one of Antony's assasins, earnestly carrying out your grim task so that you can earn the favour of your master, like a pathetic dog or rancid slave. Beneath contempt, you really are. 86.41.232.72 16:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * mmh hmm. Passiveaggressive 16:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Cool Story, bro. --Revolverman 19:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

--Seth Peck 19:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * And yet the untrue allegation remains on the WIGO page. You people really are a pack of creepy obsessional fucks.
 * SPOING! ArmondikovFirst Lord of the Treasury, Lord Chief Justice, Commander-in-Chief, Lord High Admiral, Archbishop of RationalWiki (and Chief Rabbi), and Lord Mayor 11:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You are probably the single most boring member of rationwiki. Armondikov, not for the first time you have tried and failed in your attempt at humour. Please understand that you are not an intrinsically funny person, and the amount of effort you put into it is quite frankly embarrassing.
 * DOUBLE-SPOING! ArmondikovFirst Lord of the Treasury, Lord Chief Justice, Commander-in-Chief, Lord High Admiral, Archbishop of RationalWiki (and Chief Rabbi), and Lord Mayor 23:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Truth & Untruth
Were did I say I was a 'senior editor'? Where did I say that I don't expect to me insulted merely because of a disability? I said it was below the belt to insult someone for poor grammar and spelling when you are fully aware that they suffer from dyslexia. I'm not going to reveal the identity of my employer as, you know, they wouldn't look kindly on my online activities. Rationalwikians seem to have an uncomfortable relationship with verifiable truth.

Truth & Untruth (Part II)
Again, rationalwikians display their uncomfortable relationship with verifiable truth. Where did I say that I 'came out the better man' from the email exchange with AD? All I said was that they made him look arrogant which they did. And why wasn't my previous comment responded to? Why do rationalwikians choose their own version of facts and reality as opposed to what the verifiably true position is?

Detente
I propose the following terms: Unblock me on RW, allow me one edit per day. That is all I need to draw attention to the lies and calumnies present on that awful site. Every day, I write a new essay denouncing the repressive secret police apparatus on Rationalwiki. What do you say? MARCUSCICERO
 * Your demand is not al denteTheCurtlyKnave 19:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You're not currently blocked at RW, you feckless cretin. <font color="maroon" face="Comic Sans MS"> W easelicious <font color=brown face="Comic Sans MS">B ite M e 19:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Why is that? We had him blocked for quite a while.  I do hope there was some sort of consensus before we removed his muzzle--Brxbrx 19:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There wasn't, but let's see how this one-edit-per-day thing pans out. <font color="maroon" face="Comic Sans MS"> W easelicious <font color=brown face="Comic Sans MS">B ite M e 19:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, let's give him yet another chance, maybe this time he'll be a useful contributor and not just a shit-stirring troll. Idiot. -- Nx  / talk 19:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, how about no? Tytalk 19:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you saying I'm not blocked on RW, as in, I have full editing rights as normal? MARCUSCICERO
 * Well, you weren't for over 2 months. You are now. Tytalk 19:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You really are a wretched petty jobsworth Ty, a snivelling little sycophant. like one of those SS officers signing Jews off so they can be shipped out to Auchwitz. You've the same miserable mentality you horrible little cunt. And you're so lonely and perrenially bullied in real life, its pitiful. MARCUSCICERO
 * Holocaust references aren't your forte, Marcus. Try an Irish Potatoe Famine reference.--Test fail 20:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ty, you're so out of touch with the world that you're comparable to the guy at Freebirds who put beans on my nachos even though I explicitly asked for him not to do so. Pull it together, man, before you cause the entire Internet to crash. Nembus 20:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * hahahah! That was absolutely priceless, Ty!--AD 20:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * HAHA the DYSLEXIC kid made a few spelling errors HAHA lets all make fun of this disability HAHA MARCUSCICERO EdmundBurke 20:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * MC seems to be adept at using bold, at least. TheCurtlyKnave 20:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, the fun thing was the momentary hope you had - "please sir, you mean I'm not blocked there sir? I can go back to trolling sir?"  And then bam, crushed.--AD 20:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

So what the fuck was the point of deleting this stuff?
I'm out of the loop and confused. Why did we just nuke the only place anyone could ever place a criticism of RWians and/or RW behavior without stomping on the penis of hypersensitive people who want to be loved unconditionally on the internet? The facebook, the G+, mainspace, the bar, every other space is a Butthurt Whiner Baby Zone. You guys realize right that the only reason why anyone other than yourselves could conceive of nuking this place was that somehow the butthurt complainer people WON THEIR REBELLION against the AUTHORITARIAN ASPIES and now they slammed the door and made it an invite-only clubhouse. People are just going to act out more and be more stupid, and no one will be able to vent or call them out save in surreptitious, behind-everyone's-back emails. Which we all KNOW turn ugly eventually. This was a batshit stupid idea, and I hope one of you reverts this piss-poor decision before something stupid happens. This is just Viagra for the sloppiest Internet Drama Boner that I can imagine. I hope one of you has a damned good reason for doing this, other than 'well I don't feel like it anymore,' or 'I don't think it serves a purpose,' because those are just damn wussy reasons. This had better be 'we are chopping off RationalWikiWki to give RationalWiki more bandwith, or, 'I needed to unplug the server because this is skynet in its larval stage and I am from 50 years in the future and this must be stopped now.'TheCurtlyKnave 05:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Bluntly, months ago, I decided that promotion of RationalWiki as a Trustee meant both protecting the brand of RationalWiki and dedicating RationalWiki as a site that, while we have fun, it also means we have serious business. Let's face it: RationalWikiWiki, Conservapedia space, and the like have run their course. They were fun when RationalWiki was starting out, but now all they are detrimental to our cause and only cause division amongst our fragile base. So while I'd like to continue to promote RationalWikiWiki as a place to vent about RationalWiki, I cannot in good faith do so while also trying to brand RationalWiki in the outside world as a place to go as a skeptical resource. Punky McPunkerson 05:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a good reason and it satisfies me. But this also means that you as a trustee must also promote this same goal on the main space of RW, and not tolerate any shitty business there. You're going to have to beef up actual moderation, put in actual penalties, kneecap longtime users who choose to take craps on each other, without fear of their fame, etc. It's one thing to nuke a space, it's another to actually try and present one's community as respectable. As a community that mostly just sits in the bar and takes craps on each other, it's doing you even fewer favors than RWW is.TheCurtlyKnave
 * Yes, I know. Unfortunately, I have less control over RW than I do RWW (I have total control here). But I understand completely that I need to promote RW in all avenues. And I have, for years, been trying to de-cruft the mainspace and make it presentable. Punky McPunkerson 05:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * My concern is that RW is plagued by Celebrity Users that came here for reasons other than to actually participate, or the thing they participated in (being an asshole on CP, for example) is no longer an activity. RW will never be presentable as long as there's behavior that totally undermines the present purpose by trying to raise the RW of years ago from its ashy grave. No one likes to see their favorite activity go down the tube, we all want to keep playing the game forever. I fear RW will never become and active, contributing community so long as we play follow-the-leader with individuals who don't set good examples. The fewer people edit mainspace, the fewer new people will edit mainspace: without a support system and the belief one will have help, no one wants to start a project.TheCurtlyKnave 05:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with the knaves points. Probably going to stick my lousy neck out and see if we can get rid of what's left of "fun"/CP space in a few days. Tytalk 06:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The (possible) future
RationalWikiWIki is not likely gone for good. But it needs a complete re-tooling to make it compatible with the growth of RationalWiki proper. Until I have figured out where to go with it, it's going to be mothballed. Let's face it: the persistent dramafest here needed to die. Everyone is guilty of letting it get there (even I am guilty of it). But we need to re-tool in a way that makes this a place where RationalWikians don't come just to spit poison at other RationalWikians. Punky McPunkerson 23:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This was a very ill-considered way to do this, and again wish you had said something and worked out the future. Dramatic sweeping changes are, surprisingly, much easier than due diligence, but they're seldom the way.
 * Okay, folks. We're going to be importing some stuff to RW.  Not sure who can see this, but please list articles below this post that you think we should keep.--AD 00:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * TK article
 * Loya Jirga article?
 * Shrug. Tytalk 00:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

=Meme= To do: "P-Foster is useful" Ty 18:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I want not approve on it. Stop breaking my wiki!  <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w easeLICIOuS  <font color=brown face=Mufferaw>B ite M e 19:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And I just started updating your article. Irony. Ty 19:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, I was just about to say that you missed the "I want not approve on it, I think x post" meme which we started on RW after a spambot showed up. Crundy 14:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Then add it. Ty 14:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it was me who kick-started it so I thought it would be against the RWW rules. Crundy 15:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, what about the whole "Human's wiki" thing? Crundy 15:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ty is only one sad person with no life. Please help Ty. Ty 15:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Armondikov 15:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Ty 15:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Long-eared Jerboa
Wasn't this stated by either Susan who posted a very cute picture of one?--Bob M 20:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you think we're going to trawl through Susan's 800 squidillion contribs trying to find it...no. Just no. Rrose Selavy 09:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Eh, more like ~14,000 and so, but you get the point. Ty 22:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But what if a squidillion is only about 17.5? Rrose Selavy 21:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Then... you would be correct. Ty 21:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

borked
borked. I've only seen it used here. I assume it comes from broke?--Brxbrx 18:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've seen it used practically everywhere. Yes, it does. Ty 18:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I attest as well to its common usage. --Eira 18:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Modron
how's about modron? as an RW meme?
 * A modron is a LN denizen of the Clockwork Nirvana of Mechanus. How is that relevant? Ty 20:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * lol. well you've called me modron a few times, and I've seen it about.  Actually, alignment tests show me to be CG--Brxbrx 20:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Dragon generally considered modrons to be a stupid concept, they made fun of them often. NG. Ty 20:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I meant modron as a meme: the intentional misspelling of moron to jokingly insult the intellignece of other users. You were joking, right?--Brxbrx 21:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No. Ty 21:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * well now I'm sad... I guess you should probably add "Ty thinks he's stupid" to the brxbrx article--Brxbrx 21:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I was calling you a Modron. No mis-spelling. Ty 21:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well now I'm just plain confused.-Brxbrx 21:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Just as planned. Ty 21:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

One use of modron followed by the comment "you called me a modron" does not a meme make. I mean, there are six mentions of anteaters and that ain't a meme. Rrose Selavy 08:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Poorly-written, schizophrenic post
Is now a meme.--Brxbrx 01:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> W easeLiciouS <font color=brown face=Mufferaw>B ite M e 17:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

=Mob= Best explanation of this that I have read. Armondikov 14:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Uh, Eira, you do realize that LP was mocking you, right? Ty 18:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't realize that, because the gist of what she typed out was actually correct. You do know that a creationist coined the term "The Big Bang" right? The scientists kept it because well... it wasn't actually that too far off from the truth. --Eira 18:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * LP is female, but ok, didn't know that. Ty 18:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh no, I wasn't mocking this page! This is actually a very good explanation, as ADK said. I was mocking Eira over on RW. Liveware Problem 19:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I need to stop doing 47 things at once. Ty 21:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

=Moderators= Tee hee. Ty 12:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the world didn't end at least. Armondikov 12:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, but human gave you some new nicknames. Ty 12:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * He was on better form before I LANCB. Not sure what he wanted to achieve with that latest barrage as I already quit the Foundation over that crap, stopped editing the wiki for a month and talk pages for a further two weeks. Though that's the sort of thing we need moderators to stand up to. If they can't or won't then there is absolutely no point at all. Armondikov 18:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As most of several of them appear to be off-wiki friends... Ty 19:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoa... off-wiki friends doesn't mean incapable of calling a spade a spade; it's not fair to take a preemptive shot like that without evidence that the mods are going to be biased toward their friends. I'm about to propose some guidelines that in any event would address a mod's disqualification from refereeing certain disputes. Armondikov, I haven't seen that kind of behavior since mods were elected. If you have please let us know. Nobody's able to patrol every edit on the wiki to be able to immediately identify hot spots. Nutty Roux 15:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, there is now the inevitable disagreement over how votes were counted. sigh. Refugee 12:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I surprised it took that long... Ty 12:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

lj
I wasn't around for the LJ, but it seems the problem is and has been entrenched members votng for their friends and refusing any change.--Brxbrx 13:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Or you could call that situation "established members trusting similarly established members as opposed to people who have done very little of the heavy lifting that got the project to where it is." 24.203.93.112 18:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Another specious content-free slam. When have entrench members voted for their friends when they weren't entitled to, what evidence do you have that their votes were in bad faith, and when have they refused change? Who are you actually talking about in all these posts about unidentified oldfags, veterans, and entrenched members? Last time I checked, the people I suspect you're talking about were perfectly happy with change but were expressing concerns about how it would be effected. And last time I checked the most important recent change was mandated by Trent... I think you just don't like the result. You should have run for mod. Nutty Roux 15:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No shit I don't like the result. I'm not contesting anything, I am just expressing my frustration with the site's sociology (no, I'm not sure if that's the right word).


 * Nx nominated me for moderator but I declined, because
 * I knew I couldn't possibly win
 * More would have been expected of me

As for me not naming names, I think it's better that way. Slightly less flaming. You'd think you'd know who I'm talking about.--Brxbrx 16:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah. You're talking about me. All because I've never taken your shit since the moment you decided you didn't like me after being on the site for less than 3 months. Nutty Roux 16:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually about the LJ
I think the problem is just that afterwards it got quiet and most people just let it slip by/forgot about it. Ty 19:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

First case
Let the pool begin Ty 19:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Role
"They have succeeded in getting MarcusCicero banned for more than five minutes at a stretch. They also have appeared to have created a "no troll sanctuary rule. The have are also starting to show an effort to reform the community standards." Each of these things was done by the community, not mods. Reforming community standards is beyond the mod's mandate. At most some have enforced community consensus. Nutty Roux 17:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll get to it. TyrannisAn iron, yet caring fist 17:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No. Moderators were responsible for galvanizing and organizing the community.--Brxbrx 17:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, they weren't. Some individuals who happen to be moderators might have been. It's not within the moderator's mandate to lead or do anything but enact or enforce policy to achieve short term ends. Nutty Roux 20:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Moderators, in consultation with the community and each other, can begin to help us develop a structure of procedures for running the site." I took that to mean that while the mods aren't directly responsible for reforming community standards, it is well within their prerogative to look for ways to improve the community standards. This is not an exclusive moderator job, but the mods are encouraged to take the lead. Liveware Problem 22:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And I take it to be consistent with and give context to our mandate to bootstrap policy sufficient to aid the community in running its own site. That much moderators have done, but I completely disagree that we're in a leadership role, as much as a few people seem to dearly wish we were. I'll hold the fire hose as a moderator and participate in the community as an editor. Nutty Roux 22:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You may be a crap moderator that wants to let people flame and troll each other into oblivion, but that's not what the role was intended for and it's not how others are filling it. Even Ace made a half-decent moderator.  You spent most of your time sulking.--Brxbrx 22:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * When will this vendetta shit end? Of course you'd think I'm a crap moderator because you're the one person who wouldn't accept anything I did as a moderator under any circumstances. You laughed in my face when I tried to preserve the status quo by preventing you from shitting on someone's contribution to the template discussion like you were a partisan zealot and without any justification except "BONs don't vote," which is hardly so clear. We've got no rules on that, and in the absence of precedent it's hardly fair for you to do whatever you felt like. But there you were edit warring as usual. You even had to put some personal nonsense directed at me in your edit comment. So of course you're going to do whatever you can to slag me. You've been doing it since you decided you hated me in May and made our first interaction be you posting "You're a dick" on my talkpage. As for your misunderstanding, all I can do is point you toward our job description. Have you read that? Repeating yourself and making nasty personal taunts doesn't change reality. Nutty Roux 23:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * We've got no rules on that, and in the absence of precedent it's hardly fair for you to do whatever you felt like. But it's fair for you to do whatever you felt like? Like blocking brxbrx for a day for breaking a rule that doesn't exist? -- Nx  / talk 23:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose you think you're pointing out a speck in my eye while ignoring the beam in yours. It looks more like an irrelevant diversion. We were talking about the role of moderators. As for the substance, I explained this, though apparently disagreeing with me means you should just repeat yourself. We don't have rules for everything under the sun. We do have basic customs and practices. Everyone gets to chime in on the direction a page takes. Whether that includes voting, especially for something as trivial as deleting or modifying a template, is an open question. We have specific precedents that were hashed out in long discussions about who gets to vote and how in coop proceedings and elections. But there was absolutely no precedent for Brxbrx (or you) removing a simple vote on a template page, though there was years of precedent for it being cast. Brxbrx insisted on doing something he had absolutely no right to do, regardless of whether you think I was also wrong (you really should have cooped me). I attempted to preserve the status quo by maintaining the Cheerleader Troll's vote in the face of Brxbrx's unprecedented effort. Seems simple to me. I'm hardly the right person to take up for doing whatever I feel like, Nx. Nutty Roux 00:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Where's the rule that says he doesn't have the right to do it? Oh yeah, it doesn't exist. And in the end the vote was removed, in spite of your threats, because people agreed with Brxbrx (shocking!). -- Nx  / talk 00:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You made my point for me. Thanks. But honestly you should have cooped me if you thought I was so wrong instead of popping up out of the blue to carry on about this. Neither you nor Brx are raising points relevant to my suggested edit, and honestly I really do get that you both dislike me. But I've already explained my position and you're repeating yourself. And a few people agreeing doesn't make something right. Nutty Roux 01:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * @Brxbrx: Even Ace made a half-decent moderator. - you so sure about that? Maratrean 23:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Effectiveness of individual moderators so far
Here are my views, obviously biased by my own perspective. Maybe with the addition of some competing perspectives, we can produce a more rounded picture: I know people are putting credit on the Mods for the MC-ban, etc., but to be honest looking at it I don't think the mods played any standout role here, it was basically a community decision, and could just as easily have happened the same way without them. Maratrean 02:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * AD - despite our mutual personal dislike, and my disagreement with some of his individual calls, I can't deny he has at least been trying
 * Blue - has not been a mod for long, but already she has impressed me with her level-headedness
 * Ace - looking back, I see he started out with some seriousness (OccasionalUse), but quickly devolved into being more of an anti-moderator than a moderator
 * the rest - what have they done?
 * Weaseloid is/was moving house, so he has not been around. TyrannisAn iron, yet caring fist 03:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well that's fair enough, then. Maratrean 03:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

It begins anew...
Any predictions? Tobul Oltarolin 06:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Bootmii, definitly will be the strongest winner. --Mikal 06:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Games, games? And I wonder if Sophie knows that bots are disenfranchised..? Tobul Oltarolin 09:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * So many comments I could make. TyComplain 18:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Most of a few
While (according to xkcd) 5 is "a few," it's also "most" which is a better reflection of the situation. You are, after all, telling people how to find them/know if they are a mod. Tobul Oltarolin 07:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was on my phone, that was an accidentally revert. Liveware Problem 20:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)