User talk:Bicycle Wheel/RationalWikiWiki UZ

=Victims of May 2011=

Kels
Is Kels a permanent retiree? Ty 18:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * She has not edited the Wiki since posting notice of retirement. 18:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh. *smacks forehead* . Ty 18:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Isn't it kindof early to identify anyone as a permanent retiree?  w easeLICIOuS B ite M e 20:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ADK isn't coming back. Ty 20:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Really? What else do you see in your crystal ball?  Is there anything about me in there?   w easeLICIOuS  B ite M e 20:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * the fact that they resigned from the board cemented it for me. That kinda sounds like someone is done with the site. Of course, that's me. Make of that what you will, people seem to consider me to be of dubious mental health as of late.Ty 21:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI, there are some very practical reasons that Armondikov will not be returning to RW ever. Armondikov 14:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * They blocked you server side? Ty 14:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing that dramatic, scrambled the password and removed the email. Armondikov 14:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh. Damn. Ty 14:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not a problem. -- Nx  / talk 14:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh. Damn. Armondikov 14:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Does this mean I can stop work on a eulogy for the shrine? Ty 14:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, whadyaknow, I still have server access. -- Nx  / talk 15:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The scrambling of passwords & the compulsion to announce having done it is one of the funniest parts of the whole LANCB phenomenon.  w easeLICIOuS B ite M e 06:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hardly a "compulsion" to "announce" it. There were questions about who had gone and who just hadn't returned yet (LAYCB), so I explained why I would be highly unlikely to return. Armondikov 10:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, is this anything to do with the email I received saying someone had just registered an account in my name? Armondikov 11:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I just broke into your account and set your email address again, so if you confirm it you can use the password reset function. -- Nx  / talk 17:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's one month on from the Putsch tomorrow. I'll think about it. Armondikov 14:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at the ucl, I don't see an Armodikov2 or somesuch. Ty 12:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Consulting the crystal ball on you... you shall be cast in an as yet announced Redwall film, created to satiate the desire for another fantasy epic after the Narnia movies fail to deliver. Ty 22:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool. Do I get to crush mouse-monks & rip their heads off with my teeth?   w easeLICIOuS  B ite M e 23:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. You also have a badass sword and marching song. Ty 23:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Just like in real life.  w easeLICIOuS  B ite M e 23:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * how's about we make a new acronym, "LAYB?" It stands for leaving and yet to come back--Brxbrx 22:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Left but returned later
Should we distinguish between those who came back to argue their corner re the May upheavals, and those who came back to contribute as before? Rrose Selavy 20:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure. Ty 20:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Shall we add a section for users who should have retired but didn't?  w easeLICIOuS B ite M e 22:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * that wouldn't really fit RWW's new niceness policy. And I also suspect I'd make a prime candidate for such a list, so I don't want it to come to be :)--Brxbrx 22:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Retired?
I never retired, I just got sick of the bullshit and went away for awhile. Now I have come back to troll Nx and basically be a shit tossing fuck-knuckle. Is there a section for that? Ace McWicked 21:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There wasn't before, but there is now good sir! Punky McPunkersen 21:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

=War of the Rules= ESL? Chris 17:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Can we get a better name? Chris 18:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes and "go for it" --Bratislover 18:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Tragically I haven't a create bone in my body. Chris 18:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Me neither, well proven by my first picked title. --Bratislover 19:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Rewrite
I think Han's rewrite is pretty far from accurate. Including MC and Eira who haven't been active for nearly a year? Including me in with MC even though I was vocal in his removal? Rolling back unless someone can justify Han;'s revisions. Ace McWicked 21:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, nope. Passiveaggressive 21:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Speak of the devil Passiveaggressive 21:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Serioudly, this rewrite is extremely inaccurate. Ace McWicked 21:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine, fine.  22:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I reset that whole thing as it was not salvageable. Gang of Human? WTF? Ace McWicked 22:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's still pretty inaccurate. These "gangs" don't exist, at least not in the groupings here.   W easelicious  B ite M e 01:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Goodness! I might have accidentally shoved people into the wrong completely artificial boxes!  I'm so ashamed!   01:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There is, indeed, so much wrong with this article that it makes it perfect for RWW. If anything I would suggest adding more slanted misrepresentation. 217.115.65.15 10:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * True dat. I hesitate to correct the pervasive misrepresentation of my positions here and elsewhere lest I have to deal more personally with some of the creatures who lurk here waiting for opportunities like that. Nutty Roux 13:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Phone editing - I don't have the will to edit war an aspie. The article continues to misrepresent several of our positions. Nutty Roux 18:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait what? Pointless jab? The part about the Jews in Cordoba? If the thing is going to misrepresent our positions, it might as well be even more hyperbolic lest you all get to control the whole dialog, which you're apparently bent on anyhow. Why don't you at least pretend you're trying to speak truth or at least be funny, RA? Nutty Roux 22:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Problem
This page makes it sound like Blue's Politburo is part of the T.P., among other similar confusions of purpose. Tobul Oltarolin, Expedition Leader 09:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, this should be forked, but I am too much of a lazy bastard to do so. Mbwun 00:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't get it
What's a "federalist" up there in crazyland? Tobul Oltarolin, Expedition Leader 04:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The Federalists were those favoring a strong central government in the early days of the US, i.e. the current Constitution. Passiveaggressive 04:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * They sound like real arseholes. Tobul Oltarolin, Expedition Leader 05:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The previous government was likened to a "rope of sand" Passiveaggressive 05:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The Federalists were arseholes, but the Anti-Federalists/Democratic-Republicans were even bigger arseholes. Night Film 05:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorta rules folks
Other users are also open to new sets of rules or systems. Reckless Noise Symphony, Sterile, AD, Weaseloid, DickTurpis, Tmtoulouse, and TheoryOfPractice have all taken turns supporting new rulesets. This is not because of any particular ideological approval of rules; you were to ask any one of them whether RationalWiki "needs more rules," most of them would probably grunt noncommittally (or write a nuanced paragraph-long soliloquy in AD's case). But collectively, they slowly nudge the site toward having more rules. Could someone tell me what exact rules I've supported? I am most certainly for where the rulezfans want the wiki to go. Mostly, I think this article is far more nonconstructive to the wiki and will just generate more conflict. Sterile 12:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

What about those who don't care about how many rules there are?
Like myself? Fairly sure most users who aren't regulars or aren't emotionally attached don't care about this conflict at all. I've ignored it so far. The local celebrities are not the extent of RW's population.TheCurtlyKnave 12:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Switzerland. Mbwun 15:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

What is an "authoritarian"?
Seriously. I've seen this term bandied about with respect to innumerable editors and I have yet to see a good definition of it. Human won RWW's "Most Authoritarian" award a couple years back. Now people like Psygremlin are being called authoritarian? Promoting a rules-based structure does not an authoritarian make. Promoting a hierarchy in which a small number at the top wield the power? That's authoritarian. This nonsense that those who promote rules are authoritarian is starting to get to me. Night Film 14:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * See here Mbwun 15:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * An authoritarian is someone who wishes to impose a strict obedience to authority on the public. It is clearly not meant literally, any more than the anarchists actually favor anarchy (Eira excepted).  It's just hyperbole.--AD 23:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * See here for a serious account of how to identify one. SJ Cogs 00:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 20. I remember when that was linked ages ago. Passiveaggressive 00:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * A person who only eats authors. VoxHumana 13:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * My use of authoritarian in this context is to describe someone who takes full advantage of the relative vacuum in policy discussions to press for rules to advance their personal interests. Disagree as much as you like whether anyone meets that description. @AD, that's a self-serving characterization of the "anarchy" Eira may have advocated. She and I use the term in similar ways that have nothing to do with chaos or disorder. We viewed the prior system as essentially collectivist, focused as it was on individual responsibility, consensus (however difficult you think it was to reach if it even was), and the lack of any power structure. Our ability to edit freely was our power. Now it's sysoprevoke and tech bits. Now it's pushing to expand the role of moderators. And lest someone continue claiming that crats were an overpowered boys club, let's see some evidence that any of them ever flexed their muscles or that they were even generally perceived as being a difference class of user. I don't think what happened last year had anything to do with crats at all. It was a response to the power vacuum that arose after Huw's coop. Crats had few powers that sysops didn't and none of them, not one, set them apart in any hierarchy of power. Nutty Roux 16:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So if I'm understanding this correctly, it's not the rules you find "authoritarian", it's the expansion of power for a certain group. Thanks for the clarification, but that means that this article is inaccurate.
 * And actually 'crats had all the powers of moderators and techs, and sysops couldn't make and demote other sysops. Effectively 'crats wielded much more power over sysops than moderators do today. Night Film 17:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No they didn't. Yes they could make other sysops. Who cares. Nobody permitted them any moral authority to do anything sysops couldn't do and they certainly weren't abusing their rights the way these moderators do. You won't find any good support for the claim that a significant number of people viewed them as a different class of user. I would probably view most proposals to expand moderator power as power grabs, which are authoritarian by their nature: the purpose is to further impose one's will on others through officially sanctioned means. So some proposals certainly are indicative of an authoritarian approach. I guess they're authoritarian, though I'm mostly describing people and what they do. The article is at least inaccurate insofar as it misrepresents several people's actually approaches. Getting things right would be a moral victory but it's not worth the waste of time that is engaging some of the people in control on this site. Nutty Roux 18:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's really bizarre what people think 'crats did. The reason it didn't occur to me to be a 'crat until May 2011 despite having been there the entire time they existed was that it was no use to me. Simply put, the only "power" was to appoint sysops  and change names, and I trusted the 'crats at the time to do so.  There simply wasn't the hyperobession over user rights and wikiwonkery. Sterile 18:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Paranoid RationalWiki celebrities want or fear power because they are afraid of others smashing them in the soft parts that they have exposed to RationalWiki.TheCurtlyKnave 19:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Nutty Roux - so your position is that while 'crats did have much more power than mods superficially, they really didn't because they didn't actually use those powers? Night Film 22:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)