User talk:Stabby the Misanthrope/Archive10

Bot
You're a bot now? Mei 23:00, 11 February 2009 (EST)
 * For the time being.  23:03, 11 February 2009 (EST)
 * Yeah, he just reverts into Bot mode when he is moving around articles, then removes the rights, reventing him from spamming up the recent changes.
 * Can I do that? Mei 23:15, 11 February 2009 (EST)
 * If you ask, I'd be happy to 'bot you (at least temporarily). Or, you can make a separate account, get a bureaucrat to enbotten it for you, and use that whenever you'll be making repetitive edits en masse.   23:19, 11 February 2009 (EST)
 * RA and I are what is known as Bureaucrats. We were kicked down the stairs (turned into sysops), then we landed in a bucket full o' crap (crats? Crap? get it? he he). Bureaucrats have the ability to change user access abilities, in other words, we can make sysops. Sadly, I dunno what the criteria is for becoming a Crat. I was kicked down by Trent when I asked to become... I don't even remember. We hand out sysopship like candy, but Crats, I dunno about.
 * Here is a list if you want to see it, bureaucrats and sysops
 * He does it so his repetitive "chore" edits can be ignored easily by people.  ħ uman  23:38, 11 February 2009 (EST)
 * Always with the unpleasant subtexts, Human.  23:43, 11 February 2009 (EST)
 * Jacob, you misinterpret me without allowing for "good faith". You do it so people can click on "don't show bots".  I was merely explaining to people that you do it for their own convenience.  ħ uman  00:00, 12 February 2009 (EST)
 * Sorry, Huw. I though you meant that I did it so I could slip unpopular edits past people's radar.  I apologize for taking you in bad faith.   01:36, 12 February 2009 (EST)
 * No blood, no foul. But, you were the person who added "assume good faith" to the guidelines.  ħ uman  02:36, 12 February 2009 (EST)
 * We never did work out a standard for bureaucratizing people... I think we all have our own standards, though I think most would agree that Mei shouldn't be bureaucratized.   23:43, 11 February 2009 (EST)
 * No? Mei 23:47, 11 February 2009 (EST)
 * I'm sorry, Mei, but no.  23:50, 11 February 2009 (EST)
 * Why? Mei 23:54, 11 February 2009 (EST)
 * My own standards are fairly high, so they're not widely accepted: For a person to be a sysop, they need only be "mostly harmless".  But for a person to be bureaucratized, they should meet a higher standard.  They should :(1) have made contributions of some substance; (2) be a good enough judge of character (i.e. able to avoid sysopping  vandals); and (3) most importantly, participate in working with the site on a meta-level (good business sense holds that only those who actively work to maintain the health of the community should be given any sort of "administrative" powers like demoting/promoting people).  (That last one is the main reason I opposed bureaucratizing Ace McWicked—my impression of him is that unless some random subject piques his interest, he rarely ventures outside of the I-just-got-off-from-work-now-it's-time-to-party train of thought.)   23:43, 11 February 2009 (EST)
 * You can take your impression of me and shove it up your fucking arse RA. I edit from work BTW and if it means so much to you, Promote me to sysop. I havent used my powers and only aske because I felt like I should. Ace McWickedRevolt 01:25, 13 February 2009 (EST) (I would like to apologise for the above RA - I typed it early morning upon waking with a furious hangover and after necking two stiff knocks of J&B whisky - though my sentiment remains the same, the language could have been more convivial. Love Ace)
 * You have got to admit those naked ass pictures are good though. - User   00:02, 12 February 2009 (EST)


 * This from the guy who demoted CUR... standards? he wasn't "mostly harmless" yet.  And still isn't. Anyway, back on topic, sort-of, perhaps we should juggle together some general idea of what constitutes cratworthiness?  We could have awesome new debates!  ħ uman  00:04, 12 February 2009 (EST)
 * I think the name bureaucrat speaks for itself, we are the people that do all the paperwork around here. - User   00:06, 12 February 2009 (EST)
 * The standard I use for "mostly harmless" is whether or not I trust them to not tear through the wiki deleting a bunch of pages and/or block innocent, non-sysop users. It seems to me that the standard you're applying to CUR is "do I like them", not "do I trust them (not to screw up horribly)".   00:19, 12 February 2009 (EST)

A brief intermission

 * By the way, Human: for someone who opposes the implementation of enforced rules, you seem all to willing to make up your own rules and brutally force them on other people.   00:19, 12 February 2009 (EST)
 * Why do you persist in this meaningless pissing contest? To what rules, which I "brutally enforce", do you refer?  ħ uman  01:09, 12 February 2009 (EST)
 * I refer to your forced sysopping of Cayce Pollard. Wherein, you made up your own rule (that non-vandal users must be sysopped, even if they don't want it), and brutally forced it upon another person (Cayce Pollard, who explicitly stated they didn't want to be a sysop), who then left the site  because of you.  It was clear to me that you really didn't give a shit about their feelings.  Adding insult to injury, you, bizarrely, blamed the problem on Cayce, diagnosing her with "issues".  (Human—closet authoritarian and psychologist to boot!)   01:36, 12 February 2009 (EST)
 * Wow, dig back as far as you can? And call names, blame me for someone leaving... Whooee.  Please forgive me, but go fuck yourself, "Almighty Glowing Cracker".  ħ uman  02:36, 12 February 2009 (EST)
 * (1) RationalWiki is almost twenty months old. Three-and-a-half months ago is not that far back.  (Nor is it as far back as I can go.)   03:25, 12 February 2009 (EST)
 * (2) As for "calling you names", I think that your actions on Cayce do qualify as "authoritarian"—how else would you describe it? You had power (the power to demote/promote other people) and you used it to enforce your own arbitrary rule to the detriment of another person.  Concerning my sarcastically calling you a "psychologist", remember that you did ascribe emotional problems to Cayce that I doubt even an actual psychologist would have trouble diagnosing, what with only 4 sentence-long posts and a template to go off of.  Yet you presumed to know her well enough to say that the reason she left was because of "issues".
 * Rereading that post again, I am struck that at the end you idly speculate that "Maybe they just got bored of us anyway?". So, after callously disregarding Cayce's feelings and thoughtlessly forcing your arbitrary rule upon them, you had the nerve to say what amounts to "maybe they would've left anyway".  How much shit were you willing to make up to justify your actions?   03:25, 12 February 2009 (EST)
 * (3) I also find it bemusing that you use the word "blame", as if I was wrongly accusing you of something. Unfortunately, as is clear to anyone who reads the talk page, Cayce left as a direct result of your actions.  In other words, it's your fault.  Suck it up and quit pretending otherwise.   03:25, 12 February 2009 (EST)
 * (4) Is that all you can think to say—"Go fuck yourself"? What I described was a gross injustice (by wiki standards), yet you don't even try to defend your actions.  You can't even own up and apologize for it.   03:25, 12 February 2009 (EST)
 * Does any of this matter right now? Cayce Pollard isn't a good example of anything: it was SusanG, who obviously had a few issues with site authority at the time, having already "left" shortly before.  I don't think a genuine new user would have reacted the same way she did.  But the whole thing should be ancient history by now, to everybody involved.  We now have a clause in the Community Standards that users can ask not to be sysoped, so the situation shouldn't come up again.  What good is stirring up the past?   10:13, 12 February 2009 (EST)
 * Cayce Pollard was SusanG? That... certainly does explain a lot.  (*sheepishly*  I really need to work on my ability to "read" people...)  However, my argument still stands:  Human was an incredible ass about the whole thing.
 * Regarding the use of "stirring up the past"... there isn't one. But I am very, very bitter, and no amount of advice to "get over it" is going to remedy that.  I have witnessed what to me are many injustices (the Cayce Pollard incident is but one) and I refuse to let them go—injustice should not fade with time, especially when those who participated in it are still here, and have not changed all that much.   22:14, 12 February 2009 (EST)
 * My original point (which I unfortunately drowned in bitterness) was that Human often utilizes his own interpretation of the rules (as so many of us do—the sometimes vague nature of the community standards almost guarantees that everyone have their own interpretation), but then assumes his personal interpretation is a site-wide standard. This was the thrust of my post that touched this discussion off: that Human considers the idea of rules to be a big joke (judging from his not-so-subtle sarcastic comments), yet he has no problem criticizing other people for not following his interpretation of them.   22:14, 12 February 2009 (EST)
 * To address Human's original criticism—that it was unwise of me to sysop CUR, because he was not "mostly harmless"—:  This is your own interpretation—that CUR being a pest disqualifies him as "mostly harmless".   Yet my interpretation of "mostly harmless" is strictly technical:  will a potential sysop vaporize half the site, or block a bunch of non-vandal non-sysops?  (Blocking sysops is, at worst, an annoyance.  And as I recall, he stopped blocking them when he was asked to stop.)  Thus, I concluded CUR to be no more harmful as a sysop than he is as a non-sysop, and accordingly demoted him.  I continue to hold that there was nothing wrong with doing so.   22:14, 12 February 2009 (EST)

This discussion has been copied to RationalWiki:Administrative_Abuse. If you are going to charge me with abuse, etc. (brutality?), let's have a clear process and location where it can be pursued and discussed, and if any censures are appropriate, let them be made. I am sick of your endless accusations which you only bring up when you feel like it. If you have a case, make it.  ħ uman  23:38, 12 February 2009 (EST)
 * Why bother? All that's left is old wounds.  Nothing will come of me officially leveling charges against you—we both know that.  People will cry "ancient history", you'll be martyred, I'll be belittled, recentchanges will be flooded, and nothing will have changed at the end of the day.  Much better to keep it here, between two users.   23:51, 12 February 2009 (EST)
 * 1. Because you keep bringing it up, in so many ways it ought to be dealt with. 2. You have levelled charges, and keeping them "unofficial" is a sneaky twist that lets you keep whining without making your case in public, and letting the chips fall as they may. 3. Predicting the outcome is silly, you are essentially claiming to not trust the "system" that probated CUR with honor.  4. I don't respect your "right" to keep endless claims of admin abuse to be "between two users".  Put up - or shut up.  At least if you accuse me of it again, I can link to the Star Court archive (or you can, for better or for worse).  There's no rush, take your time to collect the charges and submit them.  If you seriously do not intend to follow up on your publicly made charges, I will expect a public apology, and to never read this sort of tripe again.  Make your case or rest it. This EC'd with the next comment.  ħ uman  00:05, 13 February 2009 (EST)
 * On second thought... perhaps the process will prove cathartic. And I realize now that is only fair that grievances against you be aired publicly.   00:00, 13 February 2009 (EST)
 * Thank you. And, yes, it might do good.  ħ uman  00:05, 13 February 2009 (EST)
 * Guys, I blocked both of you for 20 minutes, which I hope will be enough for BOTH OF YOU TO FUCKING CALM DOWN. In short, this conversation has already hit the floor, hard. RA< that recent edit attack on Human was unwarrented, and your agressive tone, Human, is also unwarrented. Just take the 20 minute break, calm down, get something to drink, relax, and try to come back in a better mood for the collective sanity of RW. PS. Why does the Wiki always explode right before I have to go to bed...

And now back to your regularly scheduled programming!

 * Can I be a bot? Mei 00:52, 12 February 2009 (EST)
 * I'm a little... uncomfortable with botting a human user. If you had a second, alternative user account, to be used just for making repetitive edits, then I would bot that.  If you don't want to do that, then I'm willing to 'bot you temporarily, with the understanding that after a little while I'll de-bot you.   01:02, 12 February 2009 (EST)
 * I'd rather be a permanent bot. Mei 01:08, 12 February 2009 (EST)
 * Then no.  01:36, 12 February 2009 (EST)

BTW, what did your bot-identity do? 10:41, 12 February 2009 (EST)
 * Are you asking what I did as a bot? Mostly fixing redirects, and fixing whatever else I happen to see while doing that.   11:53, 12 February 2009 (EST)


 * Ah, now I get it, a man disguised as a bot: I was surprised that the fixes lacked the regularity I'd expected :-) 12:45, 12 February 2009 (EST)


 * RA did you just make manual edits as a bot or did you use something like AutoWikiBrowser? I've never been able to get AWB to work on RW or CP although it works fine on WP. Any geeks that could fix it for me would get a dozen virtual beers. Генгис    13:09, 12 February 2009 (EST)
 * Why must AWB not work on Macs? End discrimination against Mac users! 13:18, 12 February 2009 (EST)
 * Well I believe AWB uses MS .NET framework so probably needs Winedoze. Of course if you are an Apple style junky why can'you just be happy with your white & silver plastic, you don't actually need to do anything useful with it other than wave it around in front of other people do you? BTW right now there is a glowing Apple logo no more than 18 inches away from my nose on the other side of the desk. Генгис    13:55, 12 February 2009 (EST)
 * Genghis, you wound me. Macs do lots more than look pretty, and at least I don't have to carefully vet everything I download in case it's a virus. 14:24, 12 February 2009 (EST)
 * I did everything manually. It never occurred to me to use an external editing program.   20:09, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Criticisms
Editing as a bot, you are making substantive changes. Making yourself a "bot" should mean you are doing pretty much exactly the same thing over and over again. PS, why not create a "RAbot" or some such user account for the real bot work?  ħ uman  01:20, 19 February 2009 (EST)
 * I feel that having a separate bot account should be a matter of personal choice, and I chose not to have one.  01:25, 19 February 2009 (EST)
 * I think you are wrong, as long as you make "normal" edits as a "bot". Your feeling in this matter is not important, what matters is honesty. If you constrain yourself to simple repetitive edits (like the userbox ones) as a bot, fine.  But you also make edits that change things (ie, substantive ones) as a bot - that is an abuse of your ability to make yourself a "bot" and hide your edits from those who are ignoring them.  I ask you to cease and desist, and please make a bot account for chores.  Don't worry, Jacob, we'll add in the bot edit counts when comparing belt lengths, if that matters to you.   ħ uman  03:22, 19 February 2009 (EST)
 * I agree (if somewhat reluctantly) with what you say — that I shouldn't make substantive edits while editing as a bot, and that I should create a bot account. I'll do that right now...  Yes, it does matter to me : }   03:34, 19 February 2009 (EST)
 * Could you make me a MeiBot as well? User:Mei 03:37, 19 February 2009 (EST)
 * Do you actually need a bot account, or do you just want one?  03:41, 19 February 2009 (EST)
 * Does anyone need a bot account? User:Mei 03:42, 19 February 2009 (EST)
 * Just those who make so many repetitive edits that they fill up Recentchanges.  03:46, 19 February 2009 (EST)
 * I could do that.User:Mei 03:47, 19 February 2009 (EST)
 * In theory the group is for actual computer script bots. - User   03:48, 19 February 2009 (EST)
 * Well, I am a rather old-fashioned...  03:57, 19 February 2009 (EST)

Thanks RA, I appreciate it.  ħ uman  22:55, 19 February 2009 (EST)

You were right
I should have signed up ages ago. So now I have. TAFKA bunchofnumbers --Ebon 01:49, 12 February 2009 (EST)
 * Glad to see you join up! I am tickled pink that you joined after I prompted you.  You really made my day.   01:53, 12 February 2009 (EST)

No sweat
CaycePattern 05:19, 12 February 2009 (EST)
 * Yay! You're back!   05:21, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Susan
Yes, it is called comment on Toast's talk page. Or caius'. --"CURtalk 21:07, 16 February 2009 (EST)
 * I had rather hoped to keep our discussion off-site, but that is appearing less and less possible.  21:14, 16 February 2009 (EST)
 * What about the e-mail this user feature? And why should it be off-site? --"CURtalk 21:15, 16 February 2009 (EST)
 * The "e-mail this user" feature has been disabled since the move. And it should be off-site for the simple reason that it involves the discussion of personal information.  (Specifically, what information she would be okay with me sharing as evidence against Human.)   21:20, 16 February 2009 (EST)
 * If you two revive that fight one more time, I will block you both. Shoo. And ask Trent to get it back online if you want it. --"CURtalk 21:23, 16 February 2009 (EST)
 * Oh for Christ sake, yes, why don't you set those two against each other again. 21:35, 16 February 2009 (EST)
 * Yeah, RA - please don't go hounding Susan over this, and please don't abuse the intercom with continuing this ridiculous pissing contest - now both you and Human have done so - it's just shamelessly self-important.  "Sharing evidence against Human", "developing your case" - get off the computer and smell the flowers.   DogP  21:36, 16 February 2009 (EST)
 * Why can't we all just get along? Ace McWickedRevolt 21:38, 16 February 2009 (EST)
 * For the exact same reason TOP and I can't, probably. Pissing contest. --"CURtalk 21:39, 16 February 2009 (EST)
 * How is asking a question on the "random" channel of the intercom "abusing" it?  21:45, 16 February 2009 (EST)

RA, what are you hoping to achieve with this? 21:47, 16 February 2009 (EST)
 * Look, take this from a CP user, it is this same hatred between two users that is making CP into more and more of a cesspit. There is no point I can imagine in two (from what I see, established) users getting into a pointless spat with one another. Seriously... oi. CP user 21:53, 16 February 2009 (EST)
 * I think its mind boggling that this has been taken as seriously as it has. As I said Jake Gittes once - "Forget it Jake, Its Rationalwiki". Ace McWickedRevolt 21:58, 16 February 2009 (EST)
 * Closure.  21:58, 16 February 2009 (EST)
 * Take it for what it is worth. I don't really care about what happens in the long run, but I have been stopping by now and then for about 6 months, and you guys have a nice community here, and even though I may disagree with your ideas and perspectives, regardless, I don't want to see people who are obviously friends (for the most part) arguing about a pointless trifle. CP user 22:05, 16 February 2009 (EST)
 * "Closure"? You sound like my ex-girlfriend. Ace McWickedRevolt 22:11, 16 February 2009 (EST)
 * My personal opinion is to look ahead and stop looking back. I know a little bit about what happened between you and Human--not that much, really, but a little.  But to be honest, dragging the community through a display of "he said-she said" is not going to help your case at all.  The community standards revamp is done.  If there is another policy that could prevent the sort of gripe you have with Human in the future, than propose it there.  But very few are going to have patience or interest in reading your list of who changed what page when and how.  A long protracted affair will just make people not want to be here--I'm certainly tired of it.Sterilewalkie-talkie 22:14, 16 February 2009 (EST)
 * I don't really see where closure comes into this. I doubt you'll be saying anything to Human that you haven't said before, & vice versa, especially if you're digging back into old events.  Human isn't going to be debureaucratted or desysoped, and I can't see that either of you have anything to gain by dragging this baggage out into the open.  Looking back over the discussion above, it looks like this current conflict flared up suddenly over some inconsequential remarks.  Is it really worth the trouble this is going to cause?   22:39, 16 February 2009 (EST)
 * At this point, no. The only reason I haven't dropped it already is that I told Human I'd be going through with it.   01:19, 17 February 2009 (EST)
 * That's not really much of a reason.  11:38, 17 February 2009 (EST)
 * I know. That's why I've reshuffled it to the bottom of my priority list.   11:40, 17 February 2009 (EST)
 * Closure sounds great in teen angst poetry, but it doesn't happen in real life. And by God, you would think you weren't just talking about a bunch of internet bullshit to begin with, listening to this drama.  Seriously.  Take a walk, get laid, get some perspective.  Make some bad decisions, then come back and consider dominionism and fundamentalism.  Corryundefined 01:31, 17 February 2009 (EST)
 * I will also post this on Human's page. What's good for the goose... (not that I'm considering you the bottom...)  Corryundefined 01:33, 17 February 2009 (EST)
 * I am not kidding about blocking you. I don't give a dahm in hell about your petty fights, but this is not behavior expected of burrowcrats. I suggest that we strip them both of power for ten minutes, and block them for those ten minutes. --"CURtalk 17:17, 17 February 2009 (EST)
 * I dont know about that CUR however I do suggest that is taken off-site because, frankly, I dont think anyone else cares. Ace McWickedRevolt 17:21, 17 February 2009 (EST)

Jacob, STFU
As you might have picked up from my email reply, right at this moment Terry, (aka SusanG) and Ihave other things on our minds than your petty squabbles. Kindly stop it! Marghanita Laski 01:11, 17 February 2009 (EST)
 * I apologize. (I assumed it was an automated "away message"—my mistake).  I'll drop it.   01:14, 17 February 2009 (EST)

Thank you for my demotion
As a rare contributor, I was quite surprised to see I had been demoted. Never having held sysopship anywhere before, I'll have to read a bit before I know how to use my (largely defensive) weapon of mop, but I hope I can use it to the best of my ability. Bluefish 16:49, 17 February 2009 (EST)
 * You're welcome! You'll get the hang of it quickly enough.   16:54, 17 February 2009 (EST)

On Being Paranoid
I have this strange sense that I'm being followed. Muwhahahahahaha....-- 17:12, 17 February 2009 (EST)
 * Yes, we should really get Trent to deactive Recentchanges... it makes stalking far too easy : )   17:16, 17 February 2009 (EST)

Problems With TK
TK has been emailing me claiming that I must be you and that I'm a "Nazi" to deny it, and he produced a screenshot of your comments regarding Skype as "proof." He doesn't believe the fact that we aren't the same person, so I was wondering if you could tell me if there's any chance we could have ended up with the same IP. Perhaps proxies are to blame for this misunderstanding. --IlTrovatore 22:15, 18 February 2009 (EST)
 * Well, for starts, RA is my sock. You must be AmesG, and TK is just konfused, as usual.  ħ uman  22:27, 18 February 2009 (EST)
 * Both TK and Bohdan thought I was Ames, too--forget about it. Nothing you do or say will get rid of the delusions. TheoryOfPractice 22:32, 18 February 2009 (EST)
 * Best way to deal with TK's emails is to mark them as spam. Problem solved. --Kels 22:36, 18 February 2009 (EST)
 * Or print them up here so we can all have a chuckle at his raving paranoid delusions...TheoryOfPractice 22:38, 18 February 2009 (EST)
 * I thought you were opposed to posting emails on RW. . .  23:03, 18 February 2009 (EST)
 * I was. now I'm not so sure--part of me thinks it's a violation of privacy, but part of me thinks a little "outing" that reveals some profound hypocrisy might do a little good. TheoryOfPractice 23:08, 18 February 2009 (EST)
 * I guess I should have saved the ones where he called me a "dried-up cunt" and worse. --Kels 22:40, 18 February 2009 (EST)
 * Excellent. No, I'm not AmesG. My only RW account is IlTrovatore, though I go by a different name at CP right now. --IlTrovatore 22:57, 18 February 2009 (EST)
 * TK is suffering from some delusion that there is only about a dozen or so editors on this site - all the original cabal - and everyone else is one of their sockpuppets, all the while failing to realise that CP only has 20 editors that aren't RW trolls/vandal/parodists. He hasn't told me who I am yet. - User   23:12, 18 February 2009 (EST)
 * I wonder who he thinks I am. --"CURtalk 16:22, 20 February 2009 (EST)
 * I think he agrees that none of the cabal would muck it up so badly. They would all infiltrate the community easily, rather than edit-warring with pretty much everyone. 02:56, 21 February 2009 (EST)
 * Wow. He watches things that closely?   23:21, 18 February 2009 (EST)

Suggestion re TK: Do not feed the uber-troll. Sterilewalkie-talkie 23:07, 18 February 2009 (EST)

Cascade protection
Could you please remove the cascade from your user page it is interfering with a lot of templates. - User   02:31, 19 February 2009 (EST)
 * Done. I apologize — I knew it was protecting the templates in my userspace, but I hadn't thought of how it also affected the public templates on my userpage.  Sorry.   02:36, 19 February 2009 (EST)
 * That cool. - User   03:31, 19 February 2009 (EST)

Nemokifa evitcaoidaR
Why did you decrat him? 16:33, 20 February 2009 (EST)
 * Why? Why? Why do you promote me? 16:53, 20 February 2009 (EST)
 * I decratted him because he is only a sock.  01:48, 21 February 2009 (EST)
 * Socks are people too. 02:57, 21 February 2009 (EST)
 * Really? All evidence would indicate the opposite. That is, that people are socks, too.  Or something like that. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  03:38, 21 February 2009 (EST)

Personal info
Copied from saloon - VERY unhappy RA. So what, I make a violent sound on the internet and what do you go and do...YES! I fucking know, give away some personal information about me on the internet. Nice fucking work you dick. I am not a cop, I do project management for the police. REPEAT - I am not a sworn member of the NZ Police. I work in an office fixing PC's etc. Nevermind, screw you RA. Ace McWickedRevolt 22:35, 23 February 2009 (EST)
 * I apologize again—I was under the impression that it was public knowledge.  01:57, 24 February 2009 (EST)
 * Sorry, didnt know someone else had blown my gambit. I am still no cop though. Hell no, I wear a tie and drink far too much to be a policeman. Ace McWickedRevolt 02:07, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Botswitcher script
The script you requested here is ready. All you have to do is add the following code to both your accounts' monobook.js (or monobook_adfree.js) var botswitch_altacc = "NxBot"; importScript('User:Nx/Scripts/Botswitch.js');

Replace NxBot with the other username, e.g. in your bot account's monobook.js it should be Radioactive afikomen, in your normal account's monobook.js it should be RAbot. Clear your cache and you'll see a switch link to the right of log out in the upper right corner. The script will ask for the passwords and optionally store them in a cookie. If it succeeds, it'll add a " - switched to  " notice after the userpage link, and you will get an error message if it fails. You can also click the link again to switch back. Since it doesn't refresh the page, you can switch while editing a page, and then click save page to save as the other account (you may get a loss of session data error though, just try saving again if you do). If you want to cancel the switch while it's asking for a password, just close the password window. If you enter a wrong password, it'll clear the cookie, and allow you to enter the password again next time you click switch. -- Nx  talk 09:40, 25 February 2009 (EST)
 * Wow. I think it's time we started a list of these little tricks you've been building.  At RationalWiki:Scripts or RW:Help/scripts? <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  19:51, 25 February 2009 (EST)
 * It should probably be in the Helpspace, so the page would be "Help:Scripts".  23:12, 25 February 2009 (EST)
 * Yes, that one. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  23:30, 25 February 2009 (EST)
 * Oh, thank you thank you thank you, Nx! I really appreciate it!   23:05, 25 February 2009 (EST)
 * Does it work properly? Have you tried it yet?  <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  23:30, 25 February 2009 (EST)
 * It works wonderfully—it's everything I was hoping for. Thank you again, Nx!
 * You're welcome. However, if you don't trust your sysops, you can try the Greasemonkey version, instructions here -- Nx  talk 03:49, 26 February 2009 (EST)
 * Thank you, I'll try that version—I already have Greasemonkey, anyways.  13:02, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Speaking unto the Almighty Glowing Cracker!
Regarding "unsigned", I can't believe we had it this long without the timestamp option. Especially considering how easy it is to use - copy, paste, type, add a pipe after the username/IP. OK, it's not that easy, it takes two copy/pastes I guess. Shame MW doesn't list "editor timestamp" in line in the difflink. We should whine at them about that. Nice catch, anyway. Heh!:&mdash; Unsigned, by: human / talk / contribs 23:07, 28 February 2009 (EST)

Trouble is it leaves a if you don't include the date. Sorting. 23:07, 28 February 2009 (EST)
 * Test &mdash; Unsigned, by: Toast / talk / contribs
 * Test2 &mdash; Unsigned, by: Toast / talk / contribs 23:11, 28 February 2009 (EST)

Insults
Why did you tell me to piss off on RWW? 08:50, 1 March 2009 (EST)
 * I only barely manage to tolerate you here, and won't stand for you following me wherever I go.  15:56, 1 March 2009 (EST)
 * What did I do to provoke this acrimony? 16:00, 1 March 2009 (EST)
 * You get him, RA! --"C, U Rthe,. 16:01, 1 March 2009 (EST)
 * What? I haven't done anything provocative! 16:03, 1 March 2009 (EST)
 * Anyway, I didn't follow you to RWW, I joined to discuss my article. 16:04, 1 March 2009 (EST)

Are you here RA? ʇɐqɯoʍıuɯO Wombats come from Austrailia, see? Leave a message at the beep. 16:05, 1 March 2009 (EST)
 * For the moment.  16:11, 1 March 2009 (EST)
 * Ah, you, your sig is bleeding.
 * Mine or theirs?  16:15, 1 March 2009 (EST)

You still haven't explained why you can barely tolerate me. 16:22, 1 March 2009 (EST)
 * I think it would be Wombat, I had to put in  on Morse's talk page, so I think thats the guy.

True
Bunchanumbers 00:24, 2 March 2009 (EST)
 * Eh?  00:25, 2 March 2009 (EST)

"Verb"ing
I don't know if you noticed, but someone whipped up a "gerund" template to deal with those pesky fellateing verbs ending in "e" (etc.). <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  23:02, 2 March 2009 (EST)
 * Really? I didn't notice.  ""...  Heh, I'll have to thank Yossarian for that.   23:37, 2 March 2009 (EST)
 * CUR's sig was driving me crazy, so I spent a few minutes ctrl+p-ing...-ing. :) I hope you can make good use of it. -- 01:11, 3 March 2009 (EST)
 * I shall. And thanks for making it!   01:49, 3 March 2009 (EST)