Debate:Block Earthland permanently?

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I've viewed Earthland's archived talk pages and contributions. He is only here to keep arguing that abortion is murder, and anyone who points out how bad that argument is based on what else he says is called a parodist, blocked, their additions to talk pages vandalized, etc. He inserts copyrighted images over and over to the essay he has. The only reason he's here is to troll as an anti-abortionist, and will continue disturbing others who dare point out that he can't even make his case properly.

I therefore argue that Earthland does not contribute in any fashion to the goals of this project.

Vote whether he should be permanently retired. --Irrational Atheist (talk)

Aye Votes[edit]

  • Aye. Maybe some winger wiki would love your contributions and idiocy. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 15:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Not really, but I'm trying to stay in character. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 15:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • If what you say is true, then Aye. While I think we should try to bring more dissenting views to RW, if only to rip them apart, vandalism needs to be limited.--Mustex (talk) 16:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • He's here to intentionally piss people off. δij 16:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Nay Votes[edit]

  • I think we should TP his house instead. --Kels (talk) 15:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Ironically, despite the fact that my socks are one of his main protagonists, I say let him have his space. Much as it's not on mission he's hardly a CUR, let alone an MC, and, outside of his Kendom he's pretty harmless. Hey, he's a fucked up adolescent with a lot to get off his mind. Let the poor guy rant. Jack Hughes (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Earthland? You have got to be kidding me! What has Earthland done, other than take a staunch anti-abortion stance, to merit a permaban? Especially when compared to certain other folk who actually cause intentional mischief here? "Oh my, Earthland has an opinion on abortion that differs from my own! Let's block him!" Since when did we adopt Conservapedia's ideillogical block policy? Gooniepunk2010 Oi! Oi! Oi! 16:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The punk has a good point. If there's a serious intention to ban abortion guy then I reckon we're headed down a nasty road. Vandal bin perhaps if there's justification for it, but I just don't see that right now. He uploaded a couple of pictures, but if we blocked everyone who did that we'd end up with with a pretty lonely saloon bar. --ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 16:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Earthland is accused of repeatedly inserting false information into the mainspace. Also, there have been some allegations of EL altering talk posts by other users. I don't care how much he pisses off the cabal (in fact, I enjoy it), but if those claims are true, something needs to be done. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 16:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Repeteadly inserting false information into the mainspace? This is pretty much everything that I've inserted into mainspace. And this about altering talk pages. Ooh, block me, I couldn't live with the shame over what I've done! I don't think that you'll be ever able to recover from such devastating insults. --Earthland (talk) 16:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not the one accusing you, fucktard. I'm just stating the charges. If you can't contribute to this debate constructively or shut the fuck up I'll ban you until it gets sorted out. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 17:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for making it clear. Now, I've seen you uploading child porn, that means a new debate is on its way. Muhahaha... --Earthland (talk) 17:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 17:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Nay Hamster (talk) 17:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Btw, what about repeatedly calling another editor a "retard" and "fucknut" and other such things? Or maybe all the rules, suggestion to be civil etc. are only for me? --Earthland (talk) 17:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Earthland , you are posting to people who are SUPPORTING you. I barely notice you on this site, I have looked at your essay and I think commented. Its not an issue that people will change their views on so largely a waste of time arguing and not fun. Hamster (talk) 17:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I actually only responded to Neveruse's comment about me inserting false information etc. But other people commented before I managed to submit my comment. --Earthland (talk) 17:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • What the fuck? Hell no. Scarlet A.pngmoral 18:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
But if having a one-track mind was criteria for blocking, there's a few others I'd start with first. Scarlet A.pngmoral 18:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Arm: It's not the one-track mind. It's being the nuisance in addition to the one-track mind. It's like Ken without the constant need to revise. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 18:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not convinced that this is a serious proposal, but either way, the answer is nay. Earthland's pretty irritating to deal with, but really only engages with users who respond to his essays anyway, & it's good to have some dissenting viewpoints represented among our user base. We kind-of need to clear up the mess he's made of the abortion article, but other than that, let him be. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Don't we have a policy against permabanning? If the person is too awful a troll, bin them, otherwise whatever. Researcher (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Nay. Unless the claims in the intro are substantiated and truly serious violations of wikiquette. But as it is all they are is unsubstantiated claims, so, to the remedies the claimant seeks, emphatically NO. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • What? Fuck no. I've never seen this guy off the talkpage of his essay, and occasionally on the user talkpages of some of those he debates with. Opposing abortion does not equal a legitimate reason to ban someone. He's not disruptive beyond the debates, which are kind of like the purpose of this site. It's pointless and stupid. Why is this even being considered? --User:Theautocrat/Sig 03:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Permabanning just for disagreeing? nooo way. Ever. If he's editing others' comments then the bin, and then temp bans if that doesn't work. But ABSOLUTELY NOT a permaban. Totnesmartin (talk) 15:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Baaa Goats[edit]

  • I don't follow his work very closely, and really just know him as abortion guy. If he's posting demonstrably untrue info in mainspace, and reverting corrections to it, then perhaps a binning is called for. Also, repeated and irritating edits to the user pages of others would warrant a binning. I wouldn't block him if he's happy to continue arguing away in the talk page of his essays and avoid spilling his pet subject over the rest of the site. --ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 15:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Agreeing. If he really is continuing to post false information in the mainspace and warring over it, he should go to the bin. If, from the bin, he continues to post false information in the mainspace, he should be blocked for some period of time. After a couple of chances, he should be blocked permanently. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 15:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
The copyright thing is a problem as is the blocking bit, although thats not a real problem for all the sysops is it ? Its a violation of wiki manners to edit other peoples talk page entries in his essay but he could be left alone to enjoy his article. Perhaps he needs to be desysopd instead ? If he is messing with other peoples talk pages then that needs to stop Hamster (talk) 15:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
There are plenty of debate pages here that lie dormant of inactivity. Why not his as well? That would solve a lot of problems. I have followed the debate but haven't chimed in. Let him shout at empty street corners for a while if you don't like what he says. As for the editing users comments on talk pages, yeah, that is a problem, and he will be binned if that persists. Aboriginal Noise with 4 M's and a silent Q 15:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
He shows no need to have sysop. He doesn't add anything to the project. He disrupts talk pages. He adds copyrighted images without permission. Why do we need to wait to see whether he persists? He's persisted. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 15:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Can't he be limited to so many words (10?) per edit. His interminable screeds are the very essence of TL;DR. yummy Toast&  honey(or marmalade) 15:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC) EL half an hour between posts might be a horrible idea... — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 15:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I do support de-sysoping EL. --Edgerunner76Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter 16:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


  • He is only here to keep arguing that abortion is murder . No I'm not. At first, although 95 % of all the comments I have made are concerning abortion, I'm not here only to argue that abortion is morally wrong. Secondly, if you only had read my essay you should know that I do not argue that every abortion is a murder and that all women who have chosen abortion are murderers.
  • and anyone who points out how bad that argument is based on what else he says is called a parodist, blocked, their additions to talk pages vandalized, etc. Absolutely not. I have called two people parodists - you and cgb (I really don't remember his full user name). If my maths isn't really pathetic, I can say that two people are not "everyone at this wiki". I have not vandalized talk pages, perhaps only my own where I struck some lines...
  • He inserts copyrighted images over and over to the essay he has. I inserted once pictures that I thought to be free to use. You can read about the "sign usage terms". However, I have contacted the CBR to ask their permission to upload some of these pictures.
  • I therefore argue that Earthland does not contribute in any fashion to the goals of this project. Expect that "We welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue."

4400 characters of crap and sniping moved here

This is the stupidest idea I have ever heard[edit]

  • What the fuck? What asshole proposed this? Acei9 19:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
It was a joke, right? Broccoli (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
We welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue. Who does not understand this? If you need help I can beat it into you? EL hasn't vandalised, doesn't bait like MC and isnt a fucker like TK so why are we punishing him? Because you disagree? Hope this is a joke. Fuckers. Acei9 20:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I go to sleep for 12 hours and suddenly there's a debate over banning essayists... ~ Kupochama[1][2] 22:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
There'll be a debate over banning people that sleep next. --Kels (talk) 03:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Don't even get us started about you womanfolk. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 03:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
There is a much greater evil to be dealt with here, I'll have you know. --Kels (talk) 03:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Great, now I've got Atilla the Stockbroker singing Motorhead's "The Ace of Spades" as done by Jean-Paul Sartre running through my head. --Kels (talk) 03:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Dammit Kels, that should be "Atilla the Engineer", not stockbroker. --User:Theautocrat/Sig 03:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Did he change his name? He was Attila the Stockbroker when I heard him. --Kels (talk) 13:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

This does not sound like a joke and is malicious. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 21:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


  • 4 yay 11 nay a couple Baaa Goats and a "What the Fuck" Hamster (talk) 20:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
And a bit of interest in removing the sysop. So not a "WHY???" but a "He hasn't annoyed enough of us yet." --Irrational Atheist (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
A pizza hut, a pizza hut, Kentucky fried chicken and a pizza hut. EddyP (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Ooooh, I love KFC! Lord Goonie Hooray! I'm helping! 22:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, but fuck Pizza Hut. Aboriginal Noise with 4 M's and a silent Q 22:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Pizza the Hut is a about the lowest grade of pizza on Earth. The last time I had some, the grease from it leaked all the way through the box and left a nice slick of it on my kitchen table. The Goonie 1 What's this button do? Uh oh.... 22:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Pizza Hut in Halifax used to be the best in town, because when the franchise got sold out to Pepsi, the particular regional manager held on to it and was able to maintain quality control. There was a deal in place, so when they retired, the region would revert to Pepsi's management, and the quality dropped like a stone. --Kels (talk) 03:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I demand a recount! Oh, and chain pizza restaurants quality depends on the employees and local management, I'll have you know I never served a better than excellent pie! (But you should see the crap the Friday and Sat. night crews were willing to serve as "food" to people...) ħumanUser talk:Human 04:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Eh, even so, when you've got overall management like Pepsi who push lowering ingredient cost and introducing new, gimmicky products every month or so, it's a struggle for employees and regional/local managers to keep quality up. KFC used to be miles better too, and look what happened. --Kels (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Which all leads obviously to[edit]

Debate:Ban Irrational Atheist permanently for wasting everyone's time and bringing false, or at least, unsupported, charges against poor defenseless Earthland. WHo is gay, so IA is also guilty of homosexyphobia. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)