RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive29

Ace McWicked
After vandalising and edit warring over Brxbrx's talk page and user page, and my user page, he blocked me for 9 hours and removed my sysopship. -- Nx  / talk 11:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * He deserved it. Acei9 11:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Who deserved what? -- Nx  / talk 11:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As a note, Ace repeatedly reverted Nx's post at the start of this topic without explanation. Please stop wheel/edit warring, Ace. I hope we can resolve this in a way approaching civility.
 * It is also worth noting that Nutty Roux was party to the vandalism and user rights abuse. 11:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It is worth noting that Ace used his moderator powers to remove all of my user rights a few minutes ago. Repeatedly. 11:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've taken away his sysop/mod abilities temporarily so he can't keep taking away other people's.  11:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Can I have my rights back then? 11:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. 11:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Much obliged. 11:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * How about you freaks suck my throbbing mammal. You nihilistic wet-bags. Acei9 11:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, let's not use the word "nihilistic" in a negative way. DickTurpis (talk) 12:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Like nihilistic is a bad thing. Acei9 12:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

What a fucking mess. Ace should be removed as a moderator, but I am very strongly inclined to think that he is less of an evil than the alternate who would replace him (Human). Punky should lose his tech rights, but he already pulled a Brxbrx and removed them himself. Nutty Roux should lose his sysopship and face a ban ranging from ceremonial to significant, and so should Rpeh and socks. I think it should be obvious that the amount of time wasted and people alienated in their ongoing effort to drive one editor away renders them no better than trolls at this point. I do wonder how much more of this bullshit this site is willing to tolerate. 13:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * A lot, apparently. And it's easier to just block Brx and me (the "troublemakers") than to deal with the popular guys, who are the real problem. -- Nx  / talk 13:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * (EC, reply to Blue) None of that is particularly desirable or likely to happen, and would result in a lot more time wasted & people alienated if it did. How about everyone finds something better to do for an hour or two, onsite or offsite?  Then think about whether it's really worth holding any grudges over this mess or just forgetting about it.  13:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps your sage advice is better delivered to the people who actually instigate these conflicts, rather than the ones who are always tasked with the cleanup, Weaseloid? 13:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm addressing both & all parties. It's disappointing that there seems to be basically nothing going on at RW today that isn't related to this not-even-interesting little drama.  13:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * So we just wait it out, Weaseloid? So it can happen again next month?-- "Shut up, Brx." 13:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Shrug. Is this really a crisis?   13:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You aren't the one whose page is getting vandalized or who is getting blocked with his rights removed. So perhaps for you it isn't a big deal.-- "Shut up, Brx." 13:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

See, this is why I didn't vote for Ace. DickTurpis (talk) 23:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Coup
And he's removed Blue's and my rights again. Sigh. -- Nx  / talk 13:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Is this going to go on until Ace stages a coup and removes everyone's mod rights but his own and instates his sbires? Because then Trent will have to step in-- "Shut up, Brx." 13:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you know, he actually fucking did it-- "Shut up, Brx." 13:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * He started. He was woodely interrupted. --Abd (talk) 16:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ace, buddy, you knows i loves ya and we've broken bread together, but seriously? Yes, Brx is an annoying little twat, but is he really worth setting everybody off on another HCM and having everybody pissed at you? Don't end up being the bad guy in all this. Take a break, have a cup of coffee, lie on the grass and look at the stars, close your eyes and think of the All blacks kicking Springbok ass. Let it pass. You're bigger than this crap. Psy 82.145.208.245 (talk) 17:57, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What Psy said. I love you like a brother from another mother, but this really didn't need to happen. Smoke a fatty and chill. Theory of Practice Haters gonna hate. 18:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Uh, Brx did absolutely nothing this time. -- Nx  / talk 18:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Ace wouldn't take no for an answer. Relying on his being the most popular user, he kept revert warring, removing the rights of anyone who disagreed with him, and eventually, when moderator Blue started tapping him on the shoulder, removing rights from her and other moderators and RWF board members. He's still got friends, but, I notice, they haven't unblocked him, it's been almost six hours. Maratrea? Who's that? I looked. Blew my mind, or what's left of it. --Abd (talk) 19:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Moderator
Ace's moderator rights are currently removed and it's unclear whether or not this is intended as a temporary measure. If not, there needs to be a clear proposal on this & a vote. Options would seem to be restoring his mod abilities, appointing one of the alternates (Human and Reckless Noise Symphony) as moderator, or carrying on with six mods until the next moderator election in December. 11:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

This has been sorted: Ace will step down, Human will replace him (as the alternate), and if people want Ace back, they can vote him in again next election.--talk 04:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Links? DickTurpis (talk) 11:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * RationalWiki:All things in moderation . The joys of having two dispute resolution pages & duplicating the same cases on both.  12:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Just found it. Someone should close this clusterfuck. It does indeed seem to be resolved, but you'd never know from looking at it, as it's tucked away under this small, early subheader few will actually read. DickTurpis (talk) 12:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Nx
Because the guy (or lady) is an asshole in first degree. Acei9 11:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * So glad I logged into RW today. I'd hate to miss out on all this excitement.  11:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd have missed this too were it not for a timely email from our dear friend Brx. 11:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I hesitate to suggest that maybe brx is the problem. Acei9 12:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's all his fault, he just forces you and Rpeh and Nutty to troll him. -- Nx  / talk 12:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Om nom nom. He feeds us such lovely meals. rpeh •T•C•E• 12:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course he does, troll. -- Nx  / talk 12:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * So Nx has blocked me from posting without it appearing on Recent changes. Who gave him these rights? McWicked (talk) 13:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? -- Nx  / talk 13:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You're a sysop, are you too drunk to find the unblock button? -- Nx  / talk 13:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * (EC)Well, you are currently blocked, and you generally can't post while blocked, so by extension you can't appear on RC while blocked. That should explain it, unless this is a pathetic attempt at trolling, which it very likely is. 13:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, Nx, I haven't done jacksquat. These attacks came completely out of nowhere-- "Shut up, Brx." 13:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The gang's all back!
sterilesporadic heavy hitter 12:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * [[File:Goodpost.gif]] Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 12:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * sterilesporadic heavy hitter 13:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Why don't you take your own advice then, instead of making things worse? -- Nx  / talk 13:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * (a) I didn't raise the alarm at RWW. (b) How many hours have you been doing this now? sterilesporadic heavy hitter 13:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Seriously, though, no one takes this seriously because of who it is. Any conflict between you all is just ignored. It's just conflict because of difference in personality at this point. You've all been tuned out. No one cares. It's just silliness at this point. sterilesporadic heavy hitter 13:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You seem to care an awful lot. -- Nx  / talk 13:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Really? Because I blocked you once instead of spending hours going back and forth with all of you? That's hilarious. sterilesporadic heavy hitter 13:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Also because you keep trying to convince people there's nothing going on, both here and at RWW-- "Shut up, Brx." 13:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You're all delusional. You've been doing this for hours. And taking it seriously. 95% of the folks here don't give a shit and ignore your faux drama. sterilesporadic heavy hitter 13:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, because Nutty Roux and Ace McWicked have been vandalizing, blocking, and removing user rights for hours. Has the thought that this is their fault ever entered that pretty little head of yours?-- "Shut up, Brx." 13:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't get it: I DON'T CARE. sterilesporadic heavy hitter 13:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's why you keep posting here? -- Nx  / talk 13:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Because it infuriates you. It's hilarious. sterilesporadic heavy hitter 13:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Who's screaming in caps lock? -- Nx  / talk 13:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Let the record show that Sterile and Nx do not care about this. Their simultaneous nonchalance shall be set down in stone and is beyond question.--talk 04:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

So how is it then....
...that Nx can block me, without it appearing on recent changes, and without me being able to unblock myself? Who gave him these rights? Acei9 13:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't. It's there on Recent changes, look harder. And I don't know why you were unable to unblock yourself. -- Nx  / talk 13:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * He probably tried changing his block, which is no longer possible with the last MediaWiki upgrade.-- "Shut up, Brx." 13:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Nx1.PNG Acei9 13:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're blocked. Doesn't mean you can't unblock yourself. -- Nx  / talk 13:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Weird, it never showed up on recent changes?

Acei9 13:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes it did. It's there on your screencap, at 12:42. -- Nx  / talk 13:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * So....kinda weird I couldn't unblock myself though eh? Acei9 13:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you try the block log and the unblock button? -- Nx  / talk 13:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Why did you remove my sysopship again? -- Nx  / talk 13:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Because he's Ace McWicked, isn't that obvious? Who did you think you were dealing with, User:Deuce McSweet? --Abd (talk) 17:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In a few minutes from his comments above, Ace was truly blocked, and unable to unblock himself. I thought of unblocking him, out-of-process blah blah, but ... then I looked at who blocked him. Holy Maratrea! Literally. I don't think so. Not today. Someone else can risk the lightning bolts. --Abd (talk) 19:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Tyrannis
For removing Ace's mod rights and adding him to sysoprevoke. Nowhere is that in the remit of techs. rpeh •T•C•E• 14:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This is why we can't have nice things. -- Nx  / talk 14:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, the reason we can't have nice things is tiresome idiots like you and Tyrannis. rpeh •T•C•E• 14:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Says the person who started it all because it was so damn important that his trolling not be trolltop-ed on Brx's talk page. -- Nx  / talk 14:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You really have a problem identifying starting points, don't you? In your world, the problem with the voting system started way before YOU abused it, and Brx being a fucking idiot only started when I made one - and only one - reversion. Idiot. rpeh •T•C•E• 15:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Two actually. And no, in my world, called reality, it started when you posted on Brx's talk page for no other reason than to troll. -- Nx  / talk 15:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Way to go, everyone. You've all managed to convince me that Brx and Nx are the reasonable ones. And if you mess with my boy Tyrannis, I will cut you. (... figuratively speaking, of course) Theory of Practice Haters gonna hate. 14:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Tyrannis is a fucking moron. End of story. rpeh •T•C•E• 15:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Y'all look like fucking morons. Look at yourselves.  15:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not the one who abused my user rights or deleted half the site's history. Tyrannis is both. rpeh •T•C•E• 16:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Says the guy who outed an editor's IRL info. At least Ty keeps it in-house. Theory of Practice Haters gonna hate. 17:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've admitted that was a mistake, but Nx had brought it on himself by lying in order to link me to a BoN. rpeh •T•C•E• 17:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC) idiots gonna idiot
 * And besides, that has nothing to do with this discussion. Try harder next time. rpeh •T•C•E• 17:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Deleting half the wiki has? -- Nx  / talk 17:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, but I didn't mention it in my original coop submission for the idiot - just in response to a followup. Or are you redefining the starting point again, Nx? rpeh •T•C•E• 17:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Accusations against Tyrannis that I see: normal shenanigans on RationalWiki, and a lot of ad hominems from rpeh. I vote this cooping ends due to irrelevance. ±[[File:knightoftldrsig.png]]KnightOfTL;DR yeah, well you fight like a cow! 23:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Techs have no remit, so he couldn't have acted outside of them. We should dismiss this case outright. Or, let's make Ty a mod, then he will have acted within his remit retroactively. DickTurpis (talk) 23:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * An unelected functionary removed the rights of a democratically elected official. Tyrannis' tech rights should be removed immediately. rpeh •T•C•E• 04:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Run with that. Let me know how it works out. DickTurpis (talk) 04:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ace's removal of everyone else's mod rights meant that one of us "unelected functionaries" were going to have to undue his actions. From there it would seem that the other mod's would be the best place to start working out how to handle Ace's actions and whether or how to return his user rights or sub in an alternate. Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * People who voted for Ace knew what they were getting - this is scarcely a one-off incident. It's not Tyrannis' decision to remove Ace's rights in the face of a democratic decision. rpeh •T•C•E• 05:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You voted for Ace because you knew he'd be an asshole? What is wrong with you?   05:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * More to the point: it wasn't Ace's right to remove the other six elected mods, either.  Ace isn't more important than any other user.   05:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, Brx is an asshole, Ace is a fun guy. And darn sexy too. No, it wasn't his right to remove the other mods but that's irrelevant in this section, which is about Tyrannis. Please stay on topic. rpeh •T•C•E• 05:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "Brx is an asshole." "Please stay on topic." Yeah. Whatever. DickTurpis (talk) 05:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It was already off topic. Please don't drag it further off. rpeh •T•C•E• 05:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a great example to why we can't do nice things on RW. --Revolverman (talk) 05:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You're the second person to use that phrase. Please strive for more originality in your posts. rpeh •T•C•E• 05:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Didn't you hear what Rpeh said, Rpeh? Stay on topic!   05:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You're doing it again. Please stay on topic. Consider this to be your final warning. rpeh •T•C•E• 05:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright. Formally propose some sort of censure for Ty. Let us vote on it. Let's see how it turns out. DickTurpis (talk) 05:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * He should lose his tech bit. That is all. rpeh •T•C•E• 05:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Either put it to a vote or quit yer bellyachin'. DickTurpis (talk) 05:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You asked for "some sort of censure". I gave you one. Off you fuck now. rpeh •T•C•E• 06:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you going to put it to a vote, or just whine about it for the foreseeable future? DickTurpis (talk) 06:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I did what you asked me to do and you're still not happy. What's your problem? rpeh •T•C•E• 06:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * So your big concern is making me happy now? Well, you can start with a hand job then, and we'll work our way up from there. If you'd rather stay on topic, then propose a formal motion to strip Ty of his tech rights. So far you've done no such thing. DickTurpis (talk) 06:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If you had wanted me to set up a vote you should have asked for it in the fucking first place instead of pissing about. rpeh •T•C•E• 06:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I did. Repeatedly. Glad you finally got the message. DickTurpis (talk) 06:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No. You didn't. Not in the first post on the subject, which is what I'm talking about. Is an inability to read one of your problems in addition to your obsession with hand jobs? rpeh •T•C•E• 06:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, don't knock hand jobs. When the economy tanks what do you think people will use as legal tender? Fiat currency? Not likely. Gold? It looks pretty but it's of very limited practical use. No. Hand jobs will be the new universal currency. Mark my words. (OK, it might be methane and oversized crossbows. But hand jobs will will be the standard they are measured against.) DickTurpis (talk) 06:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Votes
That Tyrannis be stripped of his tech rights

Yay

 * 1) rpeh •T•C•E• 06:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) [[file:Nuttysig.svg|95px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 14:11, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) sterilesporadic heavy hitter 17:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC) Techs are not moderators.  Sysoprevoke supposedly requires community vote. I didn't really that "Explorations of authoritarianism" in the missions statement meant practicing it.
 * 4) Techs should not be kingmakers, they have absolutely no remit for this sort of action. The fact they have no written remit at all still doesn't mean they should be stepping into drama fests like this. If this is left to stand then there's nothing to stop Ty or another tech in future removing everyone's 'rights' on grounds it causes less drama and it's better to abandon the mobocracy in favour of their ivory tower rule. The correct course of action would have been for Ty to return the rights of those who had them stripped without due process, not Ace's. Yes, Ace would have just taken them off again next time he was online, but fuck off, if Ty was out for a stress and effort free life he wouldn't have become a tech in the first place. --  I scariot   Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012! 17:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Nay

 * 1) I'd say he deserves a hand job. DickTurpis (talk) 06:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Tmtoulouse (talk) 06:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Still awake. Why am I still awake? ±[[File:knightoftldrsig.png]]KnightOfTL;DR more at 11 06:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Tyrannis did nothing more than take appropriate action when no one else did.  06:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * NFW, Ty used his rights in appropriate manner. Генгис silverbrain.png 06:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Ty 2012  Sam   Tally-ho!  06:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) I say, we build a statue in Ty's honor. With... a Fine horn! -- Mikal Harass  Follow 06:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) na. Acei9 06:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Motion for dismissal on the grounds that "yay" isn't a real damn vote. Peter Subsisting on honey 07:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Probably the only one in that whole HCM with his head screwed on tight. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 07:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Why the fuck are we voting on this and not on Ace? -- Nx  / talk 11:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Acted in good faith, was trying to calm a volatile situation. Stop fucking with user pages and user rights and people won't bring out the big guns. Theory of Practice Haters gonna hate. 17:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Greater then a 4-1 vote difference --Revolverman (talk) 18:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Where is the vote on Ace? For real. Tielec01 (talk) 00:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) Obvious. As to the vote on Ace, regarding what? --Abd (talk) 04:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 11) Give me a break.--[[Image:adsig.png|25px|link=User:AD|AD]]talk 04:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 12) No. I like Ty. :-) He's got good sense and he's a decent guy. Refugee talk page  05:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 13) This was a perfectly innocent act of and should thus be applauded. — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talk  Do You Believe That? 14:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Goat

 * guidelines on tech remit needed 07:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Seconded. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 18:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been saying this for eons. DickTurpis (talk) 02:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

A question on the above
Am I wrong, or are "rpeh" and "Sterile" the same person? Theory of Practice Haters gonna hate. 17:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. Rpeh is the former SuspectedReplicant.  17:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right. My bad. Theory of Practice Haters gonna hate. 17:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't stuff ballot boxes like others do. sterilesporadic heavy hitter 18:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, my apologies. Theory of Practice Haters gonna hate. 23:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments

 * It strikes me as odd that those calling for Ty's blood are not as eager to go after Reckless Noise Symphony, who also used his tech powers to reverse the actions of a moderator during this business. Now that they have been made aware of this, I expect one of them to start a vote presently. However, I suppose it is much more likely that their personal dislike of Ty's previous actions, not a love of fairness, is the source of their desire to strip him of his tech rights.
 * It also strikes me as strange that these same people are not calling for a trial of the man at the center of the conflict, Ace McWicked. By all accounts, he went far beyond anyone's conception of what a moderator is empowered to do, demonstrating what Sterile calls "practicing authoritarianism" quite well. Had a sysadmin or tech not been on hand, Ace could have done serious damage of a kind he had previously been unwilling to attempt. However, since Ace McWicked is a member of their "team", I should not be surprised that it is not Reckless Noise Symphony or Ace McWicked that these people target for punishment, but Ty, one of the few who acted in the best interest of the site rather than to further a personal vendetta or alliance. 17:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Gee, nice ad hominem. Does is say in the rules that sysoprevoke requires communitiy vote? Yes. Does the tech have the authority to do this? No. And you want more rules. (Apart from that, since you have done this before, your conflict of interest is apparent; you should have lost your tech and moderator rights for that.) sterilesporadic heavy hitter 18:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you think your ace in the hole is, but I have never unilaterally added anyone to the sysoprevoke group when it wasn't following a community vote to revoke sysop rights. Check the logs. Again, why call for my blood and not Ace McWicked's when Ace very clearly abused his mod bit too, and far moreso than I? 03:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice attempt to reframe. You abused your tech rights to moderate and you removed your own Tech designation.  You absolutely knew what you were doing. Can no one who haz power own up to their misgivings? This is sad. sterilesporadic heavy hitter 11:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sterile, I actually was an elected moderator, so even if I did "abuse" my tech powers, I did so in a very different situation than this. 14:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Did Ace have the authority to remove Blue's rights? Did RNS, a tech, have the authority to give back Ace's mod rights after another moderator took them away? (and then he removed his tech rights and LANCB-ed to avoid taking responsibility for his actions) -- Nx  / talk 18:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This page is enough of a bugger's muddle already without debates about Ace's, RNS's, or apparently Blue's conduct crammed into the vote on Ty. If you want to propose sanctions against any of these, post in the relevant section or start a new section accordingly.  18:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't remember that incident. If it happened in the way described here then yes there should have been a vote to remove his rights. OTOH, the Weasel is right that this isn't the place for it. rpeh •T•C•E• 04:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) What a clusterfuck this page is. RationalWiki is supposed to be a site dealing with rational thinking and we have this playground drama with trolling, bullying and wikilawyering; a lot of you need to grow the fuck up (or sober up) and learn to get along like adults rather than petulant adolescents. Thank goodness there are some sensible people like Weaseloid and Dick around. Генгис silverbrain.png 12:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Another of the site's goals is to discuss authoritarianism, and if you're claiming that an unelected person has the right to depose an elected one with no discussion you have no concept of what the term means. And while you're complaining about it being a playground, you'd have more stature if your chosen nickname wasn't a worn out, never-funny joke. rpeh •T•C•E• 12:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Uh, rpeh. You are arguing that someone not in power sticking it to someone in power is authoritarian. That's the opposite of authoritarian. ±[[File:knightoftldrsig.png]]KnightOfTL;DR going galt: the literal crazy train 13:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Good grief, did you even think about that comment before making it? He is in power. Power to which he was appointed with no discussion. He used that power to remove the democratically elected rights of another user. Incidentally, had the situation been reversed I wouldn't make an issue of it, as that would be the elected user dealing with an appointed one. rpeh •T•C•E• 13:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ... who was using his powers to take away the rights of other democratically elected users but himself, which without ty would have made him the sole moderator in power. Rpeh, seriously? Ty pretty much stopped an abuse of power. This is ridiculous, rpeh. Knock it off. ±[[File:knightoftldrsig.png]]KnightOfTL;DR critical thinking is the key to success! 14:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You really don't know what you're talking about, do you? Go and read a book and don't post until you've learned something. rpeh •T•C•E• 14:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, KoTD made my point. Ace usurped power from all the other mods so he could get his own way, if that isn't authoritarianism then I don't know what is. Ty returned the rights to the other mods which they were entitled and temporarily removed Ace's to prevent a recurrence. In the meantime Ace has stood down, yet you continue to troll as you did previously under your Suspected Replicant name and make ad hominem comments on my user name which you have no idea why I chose. You are extremely tedious and childish. Генгис silverbrain.png 14:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ace usurped power from all the other mods so he could get his own way, if that isn't authoritarianism then I don't know what is.  Incorrect. I did it because I am an asshole. Plain and simple. Acei9 19:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Yay! Rpeh has proceeded to try and insult my intelligence rather than debate my point! I hereby consider myself the winner and shall be buying myself a medal and flowers shortly. Also Ghengis is cool and gets flowers too. ±[[File:knightoftldrsig.png]]KnightOfTL;DR lavishly loquacious 14:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You're the one who peremptorily ordered me to "knock it off", and if you're going to take the discussion to that kind of level don't be surprised when I continue. The fact is you obviously don't understand authoritarianism so your view is utterly worthless. And Genghis, it's a silly, childish nickname no matter why you picked it. This discussion is about Tyrannis, not Ace, so I have no idea why you brought him up. rpeh •T•C•E• 14:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, rpeh; we can't talk about ace in a conflict that involves Ace as well as Ty. And Authoritarianism according to you is now defined as somebody taking personal responsibility to take down those in power and restore voice to the people he silenced. Are you sure you aren't some kind of bizarro-rpeh from the world with the bizarro superman? Or maybe from conservapedia? Or someplace similarly backwards, where 'shut up and read a book because I am smarter than you' constitutes as a valid refutation of somebody else's point? ±[[File:knightoftldrsig.png]]KnightOfTL;DR garrulous en guerre 14:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The issue under discussion has nothing to do with Ace. I've already explained the problem with Tyrannis' actions. The fact that you happen to agree with them in this particular instance doesn't mean he did the right thing. The tech roll is there to deal with technical issues - hence the name. It has nothing to do with being a kingmaker. Supporting this kind of action now sets a dangerous precedent. rpeh •T•C•E• 14:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ... except he did the opposite of being a kingmaker and instead returned power to all of the other elected moderators, putting a brake on the person who removed their power... who for a second was the only moderator and was closer to anything like a 'king' present in your piss-poor metaphor. And how the hell can you claim that Ace has no bearing in a discussion on the topic 'Ty put Ace in Sysoprevoke because Ace took away every other mod's power?' That's issue evasion to the extreme.±[[File:knightoftldrsig.png]]KnightOfTL;DR sufficiently advanced argument still distinguishable from magic 14:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not my metaphor - I borrowed it from Iscariot's vote above. Ace's actions aren't relevant because we're talking about Ty's actions now. I can't explain it more simply: he overrode the democratic wishes of the RW community. He did it without consultation, permission or explanation, and yet people are happy with his actions because (to quote one Nay vote) "No. I like Ty". Pathetic. rpeh •T•C•E• 14:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, if most people in the vote think he did the right thing, I think that's evidence that the democratic wishes of the community see his actions as justified. Why are you making up crap about a community that isn't there? You're behaving identically to the asswipe who made up a 'I SPEAK FOR THE PEOPLE!' speech in my SSA I talked about on Ty's talkpage when no one but him even cared about the issue, much less agreed with him. ±[[File:knightoftldrsig.png]]KnightOfTL;DR lavishly loquacious 14:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * But Ty's actions only make sense in the context of Ace's actions. You can't remove all the context when judging the appropriateness or not of the action. — Unsigned, by: <font color="Red">ORavenhurst / <font color="Red">talk Do You Believe That? 14:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The vote is about whether or not he should lose his rights; that's not the same as believing he did the right thing. To both of you, I disagree that you need the context here. I'm saying that Tyrannis' actions were inappropriate in any context. rpeh •T•C•E• 15:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ... the vote is about if he should lose his rights because he did something. Trying to exclude that 'something' he did from the conversation just obfuscates the issue at hand. If you want to propose the change, 'techs should not be able to do anything to mods,' please make it in the moderation/infrastructure pages. Not where we intended to discuss actual conflicts that happened. From your comment, your argument isn't about Ty at all, but about the rights of techs. Go move it to someplace that's not about Ty.<font face="MS Sans Serif" size="3">±[[File:knightoftldrsig.png]]KnightOfTL;DR garrulous en guerre 15:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well at least you've moved on from misunderstanding authoritarianism. You don't seem to have read the full discussion, however. rpeh •T•C•E• 15:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyone else get the idea this is going nowhere? Rpeh says Ty abused his power. So he put it to a vote and got trounced. End of story. DickTurpis (talk) 15:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree totally. All was quiet until the discussion was needlessly restarted. If people choose to cast their votes because they think somebody is a nice guy, that's their problem. You get the government you deserve. rpeh •T•C•E• 15:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's the exact same system that got Ace elected. You think people voted for him because they thought he displayed talents in conflict moderation? Ha! He got elected because people like him. DickTurpis (talk) 15:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There's probably some truth in that. Personally I voted for him because I thought he was going to try to get rid of the moderation system altogether. Hopefully Human will have better luck with that. rpeh •T•C•E• 15:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't believe that my old buddy Marcus Cicero hit the head of the nail when he said Now this site is over-run by boring little charlatans and attention whores like suspected replicant, and you people are too cowardly to do anything about it. And he's still fucking at it! Steven Kavanagh (talk) 15:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Being called boring by MC is something of a compliment. rpeh •T•C•E• 15:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I say we mace this discussion completely. rpeh is talking about something that only he cares about and people are telling him that the discussion is over, but he's just insulting the people and continuing to shout bullshit. <font face="MS Sans Serif" size="3">±[[File:knightoftldrsig.png]]KnightOfTL;DR free guybrush threepwood! no new taxes! down with porcelain! 15:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The discussion is over but the problem lives on. rpeh •T•C•E• 15:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It sure does. Steven Kavanagh (talk) 15:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

We're back in the coop!
It's been too long. Osaka Sun (talk) 17:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

So - what is the issue?
I read this page and see a lot of flames between the people who are actually involved in the issue taking shots at each other. Multiple fingers are pointed with people saying stuff like "He started it!" or "She called me fat!" or whatever.

But I can't seem to find anybody calmly explaining exactly what everybody is shouting about in unemotional language. Does that happen?--Weirdstuff (talk) 20:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I think two people got into an edit war over blanking Brx's user and talk pages, they got mad at each other, one of them blocked the other one, and took away their rights, someone took away everyone else's rights and someone suggested they be de-modded and...


 * ...yeah... -- Andy not Schlafly 20:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * well, welcome to RationalWiki! --Revolverman (talk) 20:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This is what I've been saying all along. This thing today doesn't even seem to be about anything.  Just a lot of "you started it", "no, you started it", "oh, but that other time it was you who did something nasty", etc.  Are we really no better than this?  00:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Apparently not. Peter Subsisting on honey 01:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I've got no opinion on who started this particular mess, but Ace has been Ace for a long time, he could be relied upon to troll and insist and revert war and wheel war, and a few RatWikians love it. Because of them, the only way to stop him was to sysoprevoke him. His friends will blame everyone else, though, for "provoking" him. He is, hands down, the most provocative troll I've ever encountered.

He'd blanked his Talk page. Ace had taught me about removing his trolling from my own Talk page, supported by other users, so ... I undid it. He then archived his Talk. Fine, but he missed one post that he'd removed first. So I restored it. He reverted. So I restored the post, but to the archive, so it could just be left. He reverted. So I restored it and blocked him for 9 hours. Ace is still insisting on His Way, which has no consistency other than I Do Whatever I Want. Personally, I don't care. I'm just applying consistent standards. --Abd (talk) 01:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

So close and archive this headless chicken. It's stopped twitching.
The mods will need to address Ace's summary promotion. I don't see anyone continuing to seriously question it -- it was obviously necessary to prevent him from removing all the moderator rights -- and nobody is seriously supporting any other action here. I think this should be closed by a moderator, so I'm requesting that. --Abd (talk) 01:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Rationalwiki, where a pederast justifies himself after blocking a drunk. Acei9 02:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You can tell him to shut up as much as you want, Ace, but you don't get to defame people. Abd is not a pederast, in fact, he specifically cut ties with Tisane over the latter's pedophilia.   02:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Go fuck yourself RA. I like you, I really do, but take a broad view of RW. Do you like what you see? Acei9 02:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep. An ad hominem from Ace will definitely close things in Ace's favor. Please, please don't pretend that your goofy, overall inconsequential-at-best-disruptive-and-pointless-at-worst shenanigans somehow improve RationalWiki, Ace. Unless they somehow generate articles as a byproduct.<font face="MS Sans Serif" size="3">±[[File:knightoftldrsig.png]]KnightOfTL;DR going galt: the literal crazy train 02:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What makes you think I give a shit about 'closing things in my favour'? I am going to wrap my knob around RW in a pretty bow, hack the fucker off and present it to my worst enemy as a Christmas gift. Acei9 02:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And now non sequiturs. Ace, seriously. You aren't being entertaining and you aren't getting yourself anywhere. Until your crap ferments into quality articles, genuine community improvement, or something other than rolling around the saloon bar or provoking our token dumbasses like it's somehow an important thing to do, I don't want to hear any of your obfuscating garbage. <font face="MS Sans Serif" size="3">±[[File:knightoftldrsig.png]]KnightOfTL;DR longissimus non legeri 02:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * (massive edit conflicts) I'm withdrawing this request to close, because there is the little matter of User:Nutty Roux, who supported and enabled Ace through this affair today, and who just unblocked him, to allow him to again remove talk from your talk archive, and to call me a pederast, which is a silly drunken slur. There is more to be sorted out here. Ace didn't do this thing alone, he was egged on. I'd hoped that with 9 hours of rest, Ace might sober up. (Thanks, Stabby. The explanation of cut ties isn't quite accurate, but I'll leave it at that.) --Abd (talk) 02:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with me. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|95px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 02:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * When did Abd cut ties with him? Osaka Sun (talk) 03:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Once it became undeniable that Tisane wanted to use R-Triple-W solely as a platform for pedophilia stuff, rather than for any serious critique of RW/RWW.  03:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Abd is now in charge
Unilaterally blocking people, removing rights, all of which outside RW guidelines. But the real problem is me and Nutty. "Ace didn't do this thing alone, he was egged on". Orly? Acei9 02:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * So coop me. Oh, wait, this is the coop. --Abd (talk) 02:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Nutty Roux
Nutty Roux was totally involved in egging on Ace McWicked in the mess today. Because Ace was clearly still impaired, I blocked him for 9 hours, maybe he'd sober up. Nutty Roux unblocked, and Ace proceeded as could have been predicted, on this page. I'm the wrong person to block him again, but somebody needed to stop him, unless we really want this drunken disruption. To prevent Nutty from unblocking again, I've promoted him. I'd ask, at least let the night pass. Ace needs a rest, and so do the rest of us. --Abd (talk) 02:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Nutty Roux was in no way involved in my meltdown. End of story. Acei9 02:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I see nothing worthy of getting your panties in a not over in those links. Moreover, Ace is his own man who bears full responsibility for his actions. Theory of Practice Haters gonna hate. 02:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Aw, no panties. Going to sleep. Mikal re-opped Nutty, who then unblocked Ace. Sure, he's responsible, if people hold him to account. For quite a while, they have not, and that's a general wiki problem. If someone unblocks someone who then goes on a rampage, do they bear any responsibility for it? Good night. --Abd (talk) 02:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Nutyy has done nothing. I'm going to go get drunk...I'll see you all....very soon....Acei9 03:11, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see...
It's the weekend and some people are bored yet again. -- ★ &#117;ː &#676;  &#625;   11:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I seem to have missed this, I was in London. Was this the usual nonsense or has anything changed? Sophie  Wilder  15:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Incredibly pointless edit war over Brx's user and talk, followed by a while later ace doing it and then removing peoples rights, which is why Ty removed His and dumped him into Sysoprevoke. So just a bit more then the usual-- Mikal Harass  Follow 16:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Than the usual. THAN the usual. FFS. This isn't difficult grammar. rpeh •T•C•E• 18:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC) Bait set...
 * It could of been much worse. Sophie  Wilder  23:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I still don't see...
...an accurate, neutral description of what happened. -- Andy not Schlafly 00:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Over the course of two days:
 * Rpeh posted the image frot.jpg on my talk page.
 * I used Template:Trolltop to hide the image
 * He reverted me
 * There was a brief edit war over this
 * After a break in the edit war, I placed Rpeh's post in the trollbox again. Ace McWicked and Nutty Roux joined in the edit war, reverting my attempts to trollbox Rpeh's post.
 * I gave up, and emailed several users in the hopes of getting Nutty Roux, Ace McWicked, and Rpeh to cut it out. By this time they had started vandalizing my user page as well as my talk page.
 * Other editors, Blue at first, and then Nx, began reverting vandalism to my user and talk pages.
 * Block wars ensued. Saturated, Nx removed Nutty Roux's sysop rights, so that he could not unblock himself and resume vandalizing my user page
 * Ace McWicked then removed Nx's sysop rights. They were restored by Nx
 * Ace McWicked removes all of Blue's rights, including her moderator rights.
 * Weaseloid strips Ace McWicked of his rights.
 * Reckless Noise Symphony, a part of the tech user group, restored Ace's rights.
 * Ace McWicked proceeds to remove the rights of all moderators but himself.
 * Tyrannis, also a tech, removes Ace's rights, restores everybody else's, and places Ace McWicked into the "sysoprevoke" group, a group which nullifies most rights given to a sysop.
 * I've highlighted the more controversial parts of this sequence of events.-- "Shut up, Brx." 02:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I had to trawl through a lot of logs and revision histories to make sure this information is accurate and in the proper chronological order, by the way. I deserve a pat on the back-- "Shut up, Brx." 02:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not fully accurate. Nutty removed my rights first, then blocked me. PeterL gave me my rights back, after which I removed Nutty's. Peter then gave it back to him a bit later, but the edit war was over after that. Ace removed Blue's rights after she came in to restore my sysop rights. -- Nx  / talk 05:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

discussion moved to Forum:Drama dump "Shut up, Brx 04:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Atheism Plus edit war now completely out of control
Long story short (you can read the long story in the history or the nauseatingly long argument I've been having with him on the talk page), User:Ronin_Zanoh appears to be an anti-Atheism+ zealot who is determined to make the page explicitly anti-A+, and has acted in a manner consistent with a zealot who doesn't care to seek consensus. I'm tired of edit-warring with him (I'd characterize his additions as argumentum ad linkspam, and his debating tactics as obtuse bordering on outright lying, as well as consistent with the sort of trolls that plague A+ and feminist bloggers), and somewhere in the kerfuffle someone gave him sysop rights, which he is now using to outright threaten me. I had hoped for third-party assistance before it got to this point but couldn't remember where to post it till just about now. I'm going to step back from the article unless my attention is requested because I'm too involved in it to be trusted. (I think I can stay objective, but I don't expect anyone to believe me.) EVDebs (talk) 02:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I do want to understand the argument you both are putting out, as someone who doesn't know anything about A+ besides its Atheism with Social justice. What exactly is he trying to add that you feel is inappropriate? --Revolverman (talk) 02:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * one representative diff Essentially, my problem is that he's misrepresenting the aims of both A+ and feminism and using a pile of other opinions as proof. His debating style, as best as I can figure it out, seems to keep reiterating that social concerns in the atheist/skeptic community aren't important to worry enough and that people who bring it up are being divisive. Basically Derailing for Dummies with a janitor's mop. That, however, is not my main problem with him; it's annoying, but not banworthy. It's the fact that he keeps adding in his bit without trying to seek consensus on it -- he seems to think what he says is inherently true so he has a right to have his content in there. And now that someone has given him sysop rights for some reason, he feels empowered to threaten me over it. EVDebs (talk) 02:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I did send him a message about that, and I'll keep an eye to make sure no more ban threats are thrown about. How about this? Both of you take two days off the argument about A+. There is growing bad blood between you two and that helps nothing. --Revolverman (talk) 02:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. It'll give my SIWOTI issues some time to subside, and hopefully get some other people in on the article to develop a consensus. EVDebs (talk) 02:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You should probably alert a mod so they can lock the page if the parties continues edit warring. Acei9 03:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What Ace said, and that's a good idea EV, since its just been him, and you. No one else who cares about A+, positively, or negativity have weighed in. If Ronin agrees, can we consider this closed? --Revolverman (talk) 03:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine to me. There's nothing more I can really say anyway, barring a significant event in the A+ community. EVDebs (talk) 03:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Ronin_Zanoh's defence:

I have repeatedly said to User:EVDebs that I, on principle, am neutral and skeptical of the A+ community. That being said I do not disagree with their goals, just their application and principle. What I have in my defence is the revised post as follows:

After much discussion with several users, including one whom I have a row with at the moment, I post for the community's eyes a post that keeps getting vandalised and removed when it invokes no controversy, and addresses rational criticism to the allegations made by FTB, Jen McCreight, and PZ Myers. I leave it to you fine individuals to comment, critique, and discuss this post's inclusion.

The movement has attracted dissenting opinion and criticism from Humanists, as evidenced by the article, "Atheism Plus. What's the Point?". Quoting from the British Humanist Association, the authors, Perseus and Io, challenged the claims made by Free Thought Blog authors Jen McCreight and PZ Myers on the allegation that Humanism, on its own grounds, was not exclusively skeptic/atheistic, and its organisations had "religious trappings". Their response was argued out by the following three key points that Humanists adhere to: [Harold J. Blackham. . British Humanist Association!. 2012.] While it is true that there are religious institutions that share humanistic principles, Humanism is a secular philosophy and principle derived from the stance of Atheism. The fact that Free Thought Blogs invoked logical fallacies on these grounds, led these humanist authors to challenge the principles on which Atheism Plus was trying to establish itself on. [Perseus & Io. . Amplified Atheist!. 2012 August 23.]
 * Trusts to the scientific method when it comes to understanding how the universe works and rejects the idea of the supernatural (and is therefore an atheist or agnostic)
 * Makes their ethical decisions based on reason, empathy, and a concern for human beings and other sentient animals
 * Believes that, in the absence of an afterlife and any discernible purpose to the universe, human beings can act to give their own lives meaning by seeking happiness in this life and helping others to do the same.

Is any of that discriminating against the goals and aims of the movement? No. It wasn't. It was against the allegations the movement made against humanism.

NOW to address this in question, and for the time being I shall just focus on this one because I have feeling that if he didn't get my point in this one, there would be several in where he wouldn't get any other of my points.:
 * Essentially, my problem is that he's misrepresenting the aims of both A+ and feminism and using a pile of other opinions as proof. His debating style, as best as I can figure it out, seems to keep reiterating that social concerns in the atheist/skeptic community aren't important to worry enough and that people who bring it up are being divisive.

No. I did not say that, and User:EVDebs has kept missing the point that I have incurred upon his inquiry. To my own defence I even stated that the social issues were NOT a NON ISSUE BY ANY STRETCH of the imagination, but to say Misogyny is the cause of these social issues, I argue it is MISUSED, OVEREXAGGERATED, and, quite frankly, utilised by people that have questionable motives. I pointed out feminism's Patriarchy Theory as an example, and he asked me why is it irrational in regards to our social concerns that are present in our community. The core philosophy of feminism is the Patriarchy Theory. This theory dictates that governments and societies are made with laws that are made to favour the male populace in order to give dominance to the female populace (AKA Biblical/Religious Patriarchy). I told him outright, that this line of thinking is irrational because secular laws do not have gender bias in mind, more rather these laws are focused on the individual.

To prove my point I gave an clear cut example of patriarchy theory and misogyny (RW's favourite pet word)in action: Women not being allowed to drive in Saudi just because of their gender. It is outright misogyny and this is Patriarchy Theory because men in Saudi control all aspects of life there. With this evidence I said to him, you cannot say this is what is present in our community because such a thing isn't true. I also added on top of this, using the "privilege" excuse as a means to derail the core argument that was in my first paragraph, because women (and non muslim men at this point) have it far easier in secular countries than they do in Theocracies, in the global scale of things. They are, by definition, the privileged individual.

To prove I was open minded to the discussion of the A+ movement, I urged a comment in response to User:EVDebs response in the hopes to give his movement a better well stated position, I argued that Male Chauvinism and Sexism is much higher probability, objectively speaking. I was listening to his request to consider human behaviour, which is a valid point, so I typed the following:


 * Now objectively stating human behaviour, on the other hand: One could argue that there is indeed MALE CHAUVINISM present(albeit rare or commonplace provided evidence is granted). We do not have laws barring women from equal opportunities and if there is a sort of discrimination, it is the result of isolated male chauvinism/sexism, and not really misogyny which is outward, promotional hatred of the entire women populace (which is a popular word with the A+ movement when someone doesn't agree 100% with their principles (this comment here is based on observation of the blogs touting A+)). Lately, the people who are arguing this, Rebecca Watson et. all, I do not think understand the difference. And the fact these trollish comments are towards these individuals mostly, leads one to believe these are isolated cases by those involved and not the general populace. It also doesn't help their position that one can get "offended" by even rational critcism against their arguments (Stef Mcgraw et. all)

I'll leave it at there as my defence for now, and upon reading the terms presented, I do agree to it as it is a rational suggestion. I have no qualms against anyone on this thread, and despite being called names (which lead me to threaten an individual (and for that I apologise), I have no bad blood with User:EVDebs. However this heated discussion has clouded our judgement somewhat and I do have important things to do like university work.User:Ronin Zanoh (talk) 05:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

^I like that, its handy. --Revolverman (talk) 03:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Errol Denton
Errol Denton is a malicious lying quack who is listed as a noncompliant advertiser by the UK's Advertising Standards Authority following his failure to amend false claims. He has retaliated for this by pursuing a vendetta against two female bloggers he has decided are behind the reports to ASA. This has been ToS'd by Facebook, WordPress, Heart Internet and others. He has registered a bogus petition site to continue his vendetta, which was hosted at Heart until it was ToS'd. His thesis is that the reports are because h'es black. Close. It's actually because he's a quack, pretending to cure cancer with live blood analysis and alkaline diet. On the plus side, Trading Standards are now interested so he may be shut down or even jailed.

He has appeared here as user:81.174.162.215, user:Sceptic1 and user:Racblog (i.e. "racist bloggers").

This is the kind of thing he wants to do here:, though he'd probably prefer.

So, what, if anything, should I / we / anybody do about him on RW? JzG (talk) 14:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Ignore ToP - David Gerard (talk) 14:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * TheoryOfPractice? 14:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll tell you the same thing I told you on your talk page: 1. Please stop associating BoNs and usernames with real people without any good reason. 2. What should we do? Revert any unproductive edits, engage with any complaints that come up on talk pages. I'll add: 3. Why is this even being mistaken for an issue after, what, two mildly annoying edits? Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 15:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Because there is no way he will leave it alone - when his petitions were nuked by Care2 he set up a fake petition site of his own (thepetition.co.uk) and when that got nuked by Heart Internet for ToS violation he simply moved it to another host. The first sockpuppet having been used already, I am clarifying what is acceptable to control the inevitable. And it is inevitable. He does not understand why claiming that live blood analysis is superior to proven medical diagnostic techniques is a problem, nor does he understand why claiming that chlorophyll cures cancer is a problem. JzG (talk) 17:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Uh, so what? That's something to be covered in the article about him, not at the Chicken Coop.  17:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Demotion
Hi, could I please get redemoted? I had a conversation with another user who agreed.


 * User_talk:Reckless_Noise_Symphony

ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 20:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * User:Inquisitor Ehrenstein has since been re-demoted, but the focus should be on why they were promoted in the first place. RNS was out of line and I think it's coop worth discussing what should be done about this abuse of power. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Meh. He's been re-demoted. No need to convene the Star Chamber. Move along, folks, nothing to see here. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 21:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)