User talk:John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt/Archive1

Welcome to RationalWiki, John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt!
Please see  our guide for newcomers and our community standards.

If you are interested in contributing, please read what our articles are intended to be.

You can tell us how you found RationalWiki here.--ZooGuard (talk) 11:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but I wouldn't consider myself a sock. More like a born-again user from a previous account here who left a long time ago. With all the hoopla about measles and anti-vaxxers, I decided to come back and go after them some more. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 11:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Yo man
I see there's someone else taking the "new identity" approach to RationalWiki. Right on! Oxyisabitch (talk) 14:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, whoeveryouare. Cheers! John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 10:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm torn over whether to allow Mikemikev's crap to be visible
Because it serves as such a good illustration of his crank anti-Semitic racism. I was considering reverting your delete of his latest rant on Talk:Arab supremacy, because it's so off the rails and not even trying to relate to the thread at all that it serves to demonstrate that Mikemikev is obviously trolling. Or perhaps there's a good "Hall of Shame" where we can dump his crap and then use it for further reference? I'm thinking of something similar to what Forum:Cult of Satorn: A Conspiracy Theory became for GoodFight310 (okay, in GoodFight's case it was more of a Hall of Ridicule, considering the bizarre conspiracies and level of crank magnetism). It would essentially mean having a page where we can "safely dispose of" Mikemikev's race-trolling (or possibly only the worst of it, e.g. "gems" like "You are anti White scum and you should be put up against a wall and shot"). A benefit of the Hall of Shame approach would be to document and track his behaviour on RW, so that if someone at Seoul National Library wants to stop the constant RW blocks of their IP, they have a handy reference list of Mikemikev taking up valuable time on their equipment for no (good) purpose. ScepticWombat (talk) 11:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ugh, the problem is that leaving it alone and/or putting it into a "Hall of Shame" will only encourage him. Then again, nothing seems to be able to get rid of him (look at how long he's spewed nonsense at Wikipedia). I suppose if you want to dump it somewhere, and give a name like "Mikemikev's Steamy Mouth Dump," that would be more defensible than leaving it up wholesale. Still, I'm not sure it's something we should be hosting on RationalWiki in any form. I am unconvinced we have anything to gain by hosting it (it's screeds so batshit crazy that even stormfront thinks Mikemikev is mentally ill), and Mikemikev has everything to gain. So, it's a lose-lose for us. However, my old pal Lumenos has a Wiki and I'm sure ey wouldn't mind hosting Mikemikev's screeds. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 11:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I see your point, and to be honest I'm not too keen on trawling through Mikemikev's ocean of shit, not even for a long shot "good cause"-scenario such as the one involving Seoul National Library. Since he's not only obnoxious, but extremely persistent, would it be useful to have a sticky list somewhere of his oodles of IP addresses (as he does seem to reuse them when they get unblocked)? Perhaps even headed by a "How to spot Mikemikev posts and suggestions on how to deal with them"-section? I'm just throwing around ideas because I can't see a quick fix to this problem either. ScepticWombat (talk) 12:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Office actions
Don't RMF members already do this, and doesn't the community usually support them? FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 15:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes on the first point; absolutely not with a kicking and screaming fight on the second point. Exhibit one. Exhibit two. I can find more examples, but I think these suffice. Honestly, it's what has completely trashed my respect for this community to the point that I can no longer respect this project. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have to admit that it seems like a nice-to-have now that it's clear we need the RMF to have the occasional top-down interference for legal reasons. I'm not sure I agree with your deal-breaker perspective on it, but that's your prerogative.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * But WP's policy wouldn't change the kicking and screaming; it only prohibits undoing an office action, not protesting it.
 * WP's policy has a couple of useful things:
 * "Office actions will be clearly indicated[.]" Many times it's been less than fully clear if an action is official or not. Very clearly indicating might reduce kicking and screaming.
 * "[T]he page will be protected." Same as above, and prevents reversion.
 * Might be useful to write these up into a policy here.
 * I'd still like to know what was libelous in my proposed John Duffield article. Ah well. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ﹐ Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 22:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * So JJJS, you still want that policy? Because if there's nothing else I love, it's drafting wiki policy, as everyone appreciates. FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 00:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Go for it. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 09:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Chicken Coop
21:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

So he went on a rampage against me this morning and left me blocked for 3 days because he didn't like my writing. What's up with that?— Ryūlóng (琉竜 ) 19:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't be silly: He knows you're a Sysop so could unblock yourself. You should have been around 5 years ago - everyone was blocked @ least 1ce a week! Scream!! (talk) 20:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hm. Okay.  Have you asked them about it?  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * His whole "IF HE GOES AGAINST ME IT'S TOTAL WAR" gives me pause.— Ryūlóng (琉竜 ) 20:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sysops do stuff like this pretty often, though usually minus the polemics. It's not a big deal unless JJJS keeps doing it or otherwise harasses Ryulong. FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 21:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. I do not approve. --Castaigne (talk) 21:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * With? 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 21:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Of the banning. --Castaigne (talk) 13:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The three (four?) extra clicks Ryulong had to make? PacWalker 14:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Pedantic nit: Banning is a long-term remedy for toxic individuals, who shall here remain nameless. Blocking is more like a time out. Ryulong was blocked. @Castaigne, FYI, the easiest way I've found to check a user's rights (when not logged in as a sysop) is from their contributions page, by clicking the "block log" link, and changing it to show the user rights log. Alec Sanderson (talk) 14:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

It was my understanding that Ryulong was a sysop and could unblock themselves. If I was mistaken on this point, then I offer my apologies. However, the message is quite clear. There's some things Ryulong needs to get through their heads: John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) The Gamergate article is RationalWiki's version of Atlas Shrugged: too long and too poorly written to be of any use to anybody. Why is it this way? Because, looking through the article's fossil record, any time anybody makes any changes to the article, Ryulong engages with them in an edit war. Fuck, that article has had the same problems for months now! And only because Ryulong acts as if he's some sort of clearing hour of Gamergate information.
 * 2) Ryulong may know about Gamergate, but goddamn, he's such a terrible writer and such a hog of the article that our current Gamergate article is useless. End of story. If you compare what Ryulong says about Gamergate in hundreds of words to what Wikipedia says in dozens, you get the point.
 * You, Ryulong, need to understand that, while you have the right to edit the Gamergate article (for now, at least), you have no more right to edit it than others do. You are not the guardian of that article, and frankly, it would be best for the Wiki and yourself if you stopped pretending you are. That article is no more yours than it is mine. It's RationalWiki's article, and as the advisory says "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here."
 * 1) So what does all this mean? It means that you have 48 hours from this post to stop hoarding over that article. What happens after that? After that, I will put my driver hat on and fight you just as much over that article as you fight everybody else. While it is true that nobody wants to see an edit war, I know for a fact that the majority of RationalWiki is far more sick of you acting as the tyrant of the article than they'd be of seeing me stand up to you. In fact, the only reason nobody else has so far is because you've been so effective in edit warring them that they'd rather give up than continue to have their time wasted. But I'm not afraid to stand up to a bully, and that goes for internet bullies, too.
 * Why? Why do you and everyone else here have to complain non-stop that the article is too long? What is the purpose? Why do you personally give a shit JJJS? Why have you decided to be my parole officer on this? And people have been spending the past day and a half cutting it down to size. My opposition has been to details being cut out and reinterpreted wrong. I'm not going away from the page because some random jackoff (that's you) demand that I do.— Ryūlóng (琉竜 ) 22:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You don't even get it, do you? It's not that it's too long. It's that you are such a little bitch about letting anyone but you editing it, and such a terrible writer, that the article is still junk months after we all agreed it's junk because you keep making it junk and ensuring it remains junk. Why do I care? Because I helped build this site and won't let an asshole like you ruin it. As I look at it, until you back off your pretend ownership of the article, I will be just have to keep taking out the trash. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 22:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe I wouldn't have problems with others if they had any fucking clue what they were cutting out and rewriting. If you looked at any fucking edits today you'd see there was an edit war over something as insignificant as the word "fairweather" or figuratively referring to the stock of an online retailer as its "shelves". I mean have you even fucking looked at the page after AgingHippie, Weaseloid, CorruptUser, and ConfusedLiberal tore it apart? And how I had been removing content wholesale during that time? Seriously, get off of your fucking high horse, and if I have to deal with you blocking me every day for bullshit reasons this will be back at the coop as I had initially intended it.— Ryūlóng (琉竜 ) 22:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * JJJS, you're being a huge dick. Please desist - David Gerard (talk) 23:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Because that's the only way to get the Gamergate article left alone for a couple minutes so that Ryulong doesn't micromanage it. I'm sorry, but it's fucking frustrating as hell to edit something and try to fix it when seconds after you start, some little shithead edit wars you. Don't believe that's what they're doing? Look at Gamergate's edit history. That's exactly why that article is still as shitty now as it was back in February. It's why I gave up even bothering in February. People need to call a spade a spade. Ryulong has essentially bullied people out of fixing that article by edit warring with anybody who dares to try to clean it up. It's bullshit. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 00:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Blocking someone for three days you're in the middle of an editorial dispute with is being too huge a dick, and isn't actually necessary for anything you're saying. Also, perhaps if you aren't a massive fucking prick in your edit summaries and really obviously trying to start a fight, this may make your actions look more like a sane human and less like the argumentative fuckwit you're accusing others of being. Try it and see! - David Gerard (talk) 14:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's all moot and obsolete at this point anyways. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 07:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Stop removing the fucking bronze rating you cock. You don't have the authority to do that, going by the time that I saw it go from bronze to silver and then back down to bronze.— Ryūlóng (琉竜 ) 00:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And if I was fucking told off for removing messages on my talk page then I'm 100% certain you can't fucking do it either. Enough of this petty bullshit.— Ryūlóng (琉竜 ) 00:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Answer me.— Ryūlóng (琉竜 ) 00:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Was there a question? John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 00:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Both of you stop. Have a normal conversation. Try not to insult each other in the few sentences you have to exchange. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 03:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Bad ninja
You weren't stealthy enough to get it past the all(of GG)-seeing Ryulong. PacWalker 08:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Filter 11
I do follow the filter logs! I sleep, too, sometimes. ;P

Filter 11 is actually simple: three variables which contain the text, usernames, and links, and then one conditional at the end which is true if any of the three is found in their respective places (or links in username or text in username). Merging a bunch of lists into one filter allows that cross-checking mentioned above and decreased runtime (I think). 05:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That's fine and all, but my point (smart ass as it was) was it needs to be fixed. I could fix it, or I could snuggle with my GF (latter over former, obviously). Or, somebody far more involved in RW than myself (i.e: you) could fix it. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 06:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)