Forum:Drama dump/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 4 January 2013. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Let the signatures speak redux

This discussion was moved here from RationalWiki:Chicken coop#Let the signatures speak redux.

That UHM should be banned for life - or longer. Polls close 16:59 BST, anyone can vote.

Yay

1. Bob Soles (talk) 15:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Let the vote speak for itself. Bob Soles (talk) 15:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

What has he done wrong?--User:Brxbrx/sig 16:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

God, you're thick, sometimes. Bob Soles (talk) 16:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The Poll is now closed. The voting was unanimous and.... and nothing. Point made. Bob Soles (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I was being obtuse for the sake of argument. You must present a good reason for a vote to be called, otherwise the community will not accept it. RationalWiki is a mobocracy.--User:Brxbrx/sig 16:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

You must present a good reason for a vote to be called, otherwise the community will not accept it. And five minutes ago you were saying Actually I think it's okay if anybody calls a vote. Where do we draw the line? Oooh, I think we ought to have a vote on this. Brothers - and Sisters - this calls for a whole new motion. Bob Soles (talk) 16:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Can we get enforcement of this ban in the meantime though? The mob has spoken. –SuspectedReplicant Support democracy - Ace is the REAL moderator 16:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Anyone can propose or start a vote. But it's up to the community if the process or the result is accepted.--User:Brxbrx/sig 16:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Why is Ace McWicked still a sysop?

This discussion was moved here from RationalWiki:Chicken coop.

I ask since he's demonstrated himself to be a consistent rights abuser? What happened to that sysoprevoke group? Can we please solve this problem and remove his rights? After all, my rights are gone because of abusive blocks. Ace's rights ought to be removed as well--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly. B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 21:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

And we swat mosquitoes because those damn things have to bite--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Erm, you don't have rights at the moment because you didn't want them back. Not because we took them from you for that long. --★uːʤɱ netlabelist 21:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, technically I'm the one that took my rights away but it was in anticipation of their being removed for abusive blocking--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Howzabout this: take your rights back, and you don't fuck it up, and then you can unblock yourself. B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 21:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

No. Ace is abusing his rights, and he should pay the price. It's not complicated. --User:Brxbrx/sig 21:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

B flat's plan seems simpler. You become a sysop and then no one can abuse you. Pimobile (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't want my rights back. Sooner or later I'll block somebody, Nutty Roux will throw a fit, and they'll be gone again after much flaming and drama--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The record's clear as day that I didn't throw a fit the first time. I calmly documented you being an unrepentant and recalcitrant twat. Don't bring my name up if you're going to continue lying about me. 00:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Both UHM were being trolling dikbags over here so I was just playing their game. Ace^ace

--★uːʤɱ netlabelist 21:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

EC Brx, how long have you been here? Talking about what "should" happen in a dedicated mobocracy is pointless. Ace isn't going to change, the best you can hope for is to get his rights taken away for a little bit and causing a lot of grief, most especially for yourself, in the process. If you can't accept that that's pretty much how we roll around here, then you should reconsider why you come here. This is how shit works here. There is a gap between theory and practice when it comes to "the rules." Like it, hate it, but it ain't likely to change.^{— Unsigned, by: B♭maj7 / talk / contribs}

This is no longer a mobocracy. Weren't you paying attention when I told you you were an anachronism? Did you miss all those votes where we elected moderators and set up procedures so that future actions will be democratic?--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Woops, I thought that was Ace. Still works, mostly.--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Brx is just trolling. Its really obvious. Ace^ace 21:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

???Not to me it isn't. But nice try. Why don't you accuse me of currying "negative attention" next? You unfairly blocked me after I called you out for being a dick. Thus I cooped you, because you've a history of abusive blocks and breaking the rules.--User:Brxbrx/sig 01:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

when did we stop being a mobocrasy? little bricks do you actually do anything but play the victim here? ever? --GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 22:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

You can't even fucking spell in English and you criticize my French? This isn't about me. This is about Ace McWicked consistently acting like a turd. It needs to stop, and frankly this should not be in the "drama dump." He abused his user rights, as he's done in the past, and if I hadn't complained about it for my whole afternoon I would not have been unblocked for another three months or until my IP address changes (although some of that was P-Foster, who I'd coop too but at this point it seems as though I'm pissing in the wind). And honestly Godot, pay attention. We've been changing so much procedure since March you must be missing part of your brain not to have noticed any of it.--User:Brxbrx/sig 01:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

If you're waiting for Godot to pay attention you'll be waiting a long time... *ba dum dump, PSSSSH!* --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 06:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

... or not! Godot (talk) 06:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I've been waiting for just *ever*, and Eira gets Godot's attention in hours? typical. :-) --GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 20:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You stopped being a mobocracy the moment you allowed Tom Moore, his racist friend Psygremlin and Pfoster to permanantly ban me for the crime of speaking truth to power. You pack of cunts. I will have my vengance. 86.44.234.139 (talk) 22:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Awesome. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 22:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

truth to power. hum. so there was a power structure here once. damn, so much happened when i went away.GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 22:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

There always was, it was just much more low key. The unbusinesslike^{man of business} 01:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

86.4

I would like to coop myself. The accusation is that I have cooped myself for cooping myself, and that cooping one's self in general, and in particular cooping one's self simply for cooping one's self, is an abuse of the Chicken Coop process that deserves severe punishment. Self-reflexive cooping could soon result in an infinite recursion of chicken-cooping, threatening the integrity of the Chicken Coop by causing it to collapse in upon itself and disappear in a puff of logic. Diffs available shortly. 86.4 (talk) 09:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is the diff. 86.4 (talk) 09:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I support this proposal. User:86.4 is a brand new user who joined, it appears, solely to cause discord, consternation, and HCM. User:86.4 is a major troll, and is likely the sock of some existing user with too much time on their hands. User:86.4 should not be tolerated. 86.4 (talk) 09:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Where Brxbrx starts a huge fight

This discussion was moved here from RationalWiki talk:Moderator elections#Proposals: Release the list of voters; institute a mechanism to strike sock votes post-hoc.

Here's my take: {{turdblossom}} What a waste of time. Welcome to Bureaucracywiki. Ace^{Ace For Mod!} 21:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

If you think it's a waste of time, why are you running? Why did you spam half the wiki with your campaign? -- Nx / talk 21:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

What has this to do with me running for a moderator? Ace^{Ace For Mod!} 21:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The only reason we have (or appear to have) so many rules and so much bureaucracy is because of asshats like you always stirring shit. Stop being a dick, and your complaints will vanish.--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Fuck off Brx, your comment is not only unwarranted but it is invalid. In what world are you living in where you think anything I have done has wound up creating more rules and bureaucracy? Your comment can be safetly ignored due to its ill informed content and accusatory tone. Ace^{Ace For Mod!} 21:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The real world, where you're held accountable for your actions. Starting with the innocuous, your resignation led to having to figure out how to elect your replacement. Fairly harmless. But then, it's your constant vandalism and trolling that led to people trying to define a clear policy so that you couldn't do that. But don't worry, it isn't just you. It's also users in your same genre (MC). If you and others didn't keep acting like a dick, there would not be a need for so many rules. Murder only became illegal when Thak the caveman hit Unga-Bunga the caveman a little too hard with a rock. Before that, there were no problems with cavemen murdering each other (if any idiot decides that this is a good jumping off point to lecture me about prehistoric anthropology or social contract theory, let me preemptively say "piss off, you're missing the point."--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The only reason we have (or appear to have) so many rules and so much bureaucracy is because of asshats like you always stirring shit. Stop being a dick, and your complaints will vanish. You display a truly shocking inability to self-reflect here. I'm ever surprised by how disconnected from reality you are when you slither out from under your rock to carry on like this.

it's your constant vandalism and trolling that led to people trying to define a clear policy so that you couldn't do that. How is it so easy for you to tell lies so flippantly? users in your same genre But isn't it funny that you're the only one who's caused remotely as much trouble as MC from the moment you started popping off on RW? murder murder murder Jews in Cordoba Murder? Piss off? Get off your vendetta, start contributing something of value, or piss off back to ED where you can continue expanding the article on "niggers" and avoid thinking about what a disgusting person you are. 16:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Your stalking of obsession with Brxbrx is really starting to get creepy. --★uːʤɱ constructivist 16:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Really. Expressing outrage when he appears out of nowhere to dishonestly stir up trouble is stalking, eh? Good on you for having this all figured out. It's always good hearing from you. 16:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

No, this is stalking. -- Nx / talk 16:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

No. it's calling a disruptive troll who popped up to disruptively troll a disruptive troll. Thanks for trying, Nx. 17:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I fail to see how a guy who shows up to one wiki and says "I'm Brxbrx from this other wiki" is a victim of stalking when people from the latter wiki check out his work at the former. P-Foster 17:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh I'm not really phased that he did it. What creeps me out, though, is that that was an old contribution. He had to search through all my ED edits in order to find one that might possibly portray me in a bad light. Kinda weird. Anyways, I recall these few comments by Ace and Nutty. I don't think they were being serious, and just intending to freak me out, but if they were serious, then it's safe to say Nutty's going nuts (a little bit of context: I live in in the Phoenix area, which is in Maricopa county). Now, @Nutty: I've caused my fair share of trouble here, I admit. But I paid the price for it, and learned my lesson. No more abusive blocks. But Ace (and his ilk) remain unrepentant. It's Human decratting Blue that started the whole May Shitstorm. It's you and others that are constantly harassing members you don't like, by creating sock accounts with names meant to offend, by vandalizing user pages, by posting undesired images on talk pages, by popping in and insulting them (yes, I've done this in one or two instances, but I now recognize that it was unproductive and I shan't do so again), and other activities meant to irritate them/drive them away. I also find it laughable that you tell me to contribute, since I've contributed far more than you. I've contributed. I'm not the top contributor, and the quality of my contributions has been called into question, but I do in fact contribute, and I've spent a lot of time researching and writing for this site. If you don't believe me check my user page, including the works in progress section.--User:Brxbrx/sig 17:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Whatever, if nothing else these guys can both be relied on to show up in moments like this to ignore the substance of the post and make these kinds of charming and helpful posts. I't about me, not Brxbrx. 17:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

No no no, it's about Brxbrx. It's all about Brxbrx. Brxbrx is everywhere. -- Nx / talk 17:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

No it's not. It's about addressing his conduct as it occurs and making a legitimate point in the RWW elections. You seem obsessed, Nx. You and UHM are developing a stronger pattern of taunting me and Ace like it's sport. Enjoy yourself, I guess. 16:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Phased that I did it? Kinda weird? You're a racist and a misogynist Brx. I noticed early on that you brought the term "faggotry" over to RW. Disgusting. There's no excuse for "it's what we do on ED." So here we've got yet another surreal Brxbrx post that actively avoids the subject. I didn't search through your posts to find something to might possibly portray you in a bad light. I got an email from someone claiming to be from ED that absolutely does portray you in the awful light of expressing your bigotry. See where you tried to make this about me but avoided addressing any of the lies you told about Ace and now that you write about disgusting bigotry on another site while professing to be all about order and tolerance here, yet causing shitloads of trouble? That's called dishonesty, Brxbrx. You are not an honest person.

Contrary to your rosy misrepresentation, you've caused trouble, paid very few consequences except people continually telling you to lay off for more than 6 months, and continued doing everything you do that raises people's hackles but abusively block.

Yeah you recall me and Ace fucking with you. You're barely worth taunting for the pathetic wretch you've shown yourself to be through your willingness to lie, smear, attention-monger, and then lash out at your accusers and enemies.

Did you just claim that I create sockpuppet accounts with names meant to offend? That's yet another completely unsupportable statement made solely to smear. It's unrelated to this discussion, and it's something you could never possibly know. How is it so easy for you to make up extravagant lies like this, Brxbrx?

You've contributed "far more" than me. Oh FFS, Brxbrx. The quality of your contributions are called into question because you write off-mission and poorly written shit and then carry on about it until people give up on even dealing with you. I will leave it to anyone who might even wonder if you're speaking truth to go look at the quality, substance, and quantity of our work.

Your lying is getting exhausting. I don't want to have to come out and defend myself or my friends like this anymore. Nx, UHM, Brx, you guys are tedious and boring. It's always the same. If it weren't for the personal attacks I'd pretend you didn't exist and just concentrate on taking care of the business of the RWF, as infrequently as I even edit here. Can you resist the temptation to try and make conflict worse for once? Please? 16:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to ignore your vile accusations that I am a racist and a misogynist. Instead I'm going to repeat myself: if people didn't act like dicks, there wouldn't be any problems. But you and yours consistently act like dicks. You are the problem. I'm not lying here. Let me present a little bit of evidence. Now, it seems you and Ty have resolved your differences, and I did tell Ty I'd stop using him as an example, but I find myself unable to resist highlighting your malice, hatred, and savagery.

Why? So you can do something substantive rather than run around turning footnotes into references and making shitty categorizing decisions and absurdly wikilinking parts of proper names rather than the whole thing. That's why. —Nutty Roux

Ty's got a horde of sockpuppets and collaborators in his little cabal of truly vile pals. I'd approve of an IP check but it's the least of the problems with this kangaroo court. —Nutty Roux again

Welcome to TyWiki! Here, let me follow you around sticking my nose in anything that will get me attention and clogging RC like an obsessive on meth. —Nutty Roux, being his usual dickish self

Do you see the kind of monster you are? Ty had done nothing to you. To anyone, in fact. He was and remains innocent and yet you would brutally attack him. You are a cancer, Nutty Roux. A metastasized bit of RationalWiki's colon that has spread itself about causing mayhem and suffering. Start yourself a private forum where you and your friends can mutually masturbate each other to your heart's content, because this wiki is not for you.--User:Brxbrx/sig 17:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, but I've pointed out exactly where you are lying here. You will continue to fail to substantiate some of the outrageous claims you've made about me. I cannot fathom what your personal life is like, Brx. I'd walk away from you shaking my head at how mindlessly disconnected from reality you are if you weren't doing this in public. You and your gutter buddy UHM have such unique views of things that there's really no point in engaging you further if you'd only keep your personal dislike of me and Ace to yourselves. Why can't you resist the temptation? I'd prefer peace but I'm not going to sit idly by when you repeatedly go after Ace or me for defending him. 20:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

For a minute there, I almost believed you. I thought, "wait, why am I saying all of these things about Nutty and his friends if they aren't true?" Then I read the above few posts where I demonstrated your vileness and why it's because of your little gangs of friends (which I've come to call the circle jerk) that there have been calls for reform in the first place. You are a bully, and it shows. --User:Brxbrx/sig 20:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

And more lies? Reform because of something I've done? This is false. Dead false. Jesus fucking christ Brx. What's wrong with you? 20:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It's sad to see, really. That somebody that had before at least some valid points now has to resort to attacks intirely based upon ad hominems and illusions of people having a vendetta against him personally. You've become a parody. of yourself. Just grow the fuck up and accept that there are people on this world and on this wiki that you don't like. --★uːʤɱ sinner 17:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd frankly prefer to never hear from you again, yet you are always right there to butt in on any conflict involving me and Ace, carrying on by escalating a situation that has literally nothing to do with you unless you're defending Brxbrx, and repeatedly making bizarre personal remarks that aren't remotely warranted by anything I've said or done to you. What is one supposed to think, UHM? Ace and I are the only 2 editors you treat like this, and you've made a proper habit of it. I suggest you leave me alone and we'll have no further reason to ever address each other again. 20:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Frankly I have a sense of justice, and so I can't just look away while others are treated like shit by you and others. That wouldn't be any different if you were treated like shit by others (although, I guess you won't believe me that, which after all is your right not too). But here is what I can say: if you leave others alone, I will leave you alone. I don't know if you can do that, or if that peace is worth not having the pleasant sensation of beating others. If you don't believe me, you can look at your own or Ace's talk page (or anybody elses for that matter), and look how often I committed a troll-and-run post, and then look at brx's talk page too to see how often others have done it to him. I'm pretty sure I can keep not doing it, if you can stop doing it. --★uːʤɱ pirate 20:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I come to defend my friend when Brxbrx starts spinning these lies. If the above is your position this is only going to get worse. 20:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

So… you tell me that I look bad because I did what you did? Ohh, nevermind…

I don't know why brx made his first post (although it has some sense in it, it just missdirected), and maybe upon reading this he might stop doing it to others too, but if you hadn't jumped in too I probably wouldn't have either. If we can keep our focus on content rather than personal attacks maybe it will work out. --★uːʤɱ federalist 21:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

If it's about ignoring the content of a post we learned from the best. --★uːʤɱ socialist 18:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Pratt? God you're weird. You've apparently learned 0 from me teaching you not to make unsupported claims about me and I'm not responsible for that or your incoherent drivel. 16:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Show me evidence that Tiberius Graccius is a brx sock or shut up you pathetic hypocrite. --★uːʤɱ kant 17:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Where on Earth did that enter the discussion?--User:Brxbrx/sig 20:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

In the post above yours. ;) I just get pissy when somebody tells me I should stop doing something after he/she did it much longer than I did it. Call it pedantry if you will. --★uːʤɱ netlabelist 21:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Every troll is a sock of Brxbrx, didn't you know? Even MC is Brxbrx -- Nx / talk 18:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Brx, Nx and UHM are revolting people. Everyone here seems to have completely missed the point though, so I'll present it more clearly - I thought this current discussion about voting to be pointless and unnecessary. Brx used this as an excuse to jump in and attack me - blaming me for RW's ills and specifically the need to introduce new rules. I want to Brx to either justify this comment or shut the fuck up. Ace^{Ace For Mod!} 18:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

He wrote "people like you", that means you and everybody else that acts like you. Once again you people earn an F at reading comprehension. --★uːʤɱ heretic 18:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

That changes nothing. My question remains unchanged. Ace^{Ace For Mod!} 19:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe brx allready tried that (including hilariously unsuiting analogy). Now if that answer was to your satisfaction or not you might clear up with him. I can't speak for him, we didn't mind-meld. --★uːʤɱ kant 19:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense, we all know you're actually Brx's sock. -- Nx / talk 19:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, he tried but it is completely inaccurate and has no bearing on this current discussion. Somehow a discussion on mod voting turned into an attack on me and the accusation that we wouldn't be having this discussion if I were to stop....something. This is unjustifiable. Ace^{Ace For Mod!} 19:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

OH NOEZ. Whatever shall we do? (Btw Bricks was responding to your whining about too much bureaucracy and rules) -- Nx / talk 19:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

"unjustifiable" — really? So you can really stand there and dismiss any further explaination of what he said, because you don't see how it could be justified? On RW, that's almost parody… --★uːʤɱ anti-communist 20:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

If you think it's pointless, then why are you wasting your time commenting on it? It's not like you had anything useful to say. -- Nx / talk 18:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not allowed to express an opinion? Ace^{Ace For Mod!} 18:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Once again the usual suspects are acting like schoolyard bullies. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 20:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I hope you aren't referring to me Maratrean. All I have done here is defend myself. But if you are accusing me of being a bully I wouldn't mind seeing some evidence of it. Ace^{Ace For Mod!} 20:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

You are defending yourself from accusations of bullying--User:Brxbrx/sig 20:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

You are a bully Ace. Like your binge of vandalizing my user and talk pages with offensive pictures. You seem to have mostly lost interest in bullying me of late, though, and chosen Brxbrx to be your new victim. Maybe one day you'll tire of him as well, and find someone else to pick on. Nutty, similar story, peas of a pod. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 20:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

An Overture

This discussion was moved here from RationalWiki:Saloon bar. 03:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I want to come in from the cold. My website (MCWiki) has been overthrown by a Stalinist regime linked to Rationalwiki (And had been the victim of an orchestrated campaign of vandalism by this website)

Human is back. The reactionaries are plotting against him as we speak. Foster is as cruel, emotionally manipulative, and utterly repellant as ever. I am needed on Rationalwiki, now more than ever.

I forgive you all. Though you all said mean things about me I'm willing to overlook it. Though you tried to silence me and others like me who refused to bow their head to the new order, I'm willing to overlook it. Though you drove off your best users and replaced them with a new caste of social wiki parasites who impersonate the worst aspects of wikipedia, I'm willing to overlook it. Though you held a politically motivated show trial in which you (NARROWLY) managed to attain a majority, I'm willing to overlook it.

Surely Rationalwiki can handle a plurality of views, opinions, stances, philosophies?

As an olive branch, I promise to temper my criticisms with a few well chosen platitudes. I promise to ignore Foster - even if he attempts to rile me, as he inevitably will (He will of course react to this post with his customery cocktail of bluster, exaggeration, emotional manipulation etc.) I promise to apologise to Psygremlin and never call him a racist again (Though he is a complete and utter cunt, I'm amazed none of you seem to see that) I promise to be more productive, spending time writing satirical articles about the present economic crisis, European politics, major western intellectuals (And I've wrote many - see Tony Judt etcetera...)

This is my offer. I place it before you. Think on it. 86.47.28.182 (talk) 00:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

When you say "fig leaf", did you mean "olive branch"? Because they have different symbolic uses... -- Seth Peck (talk) 00:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. 86.47.28.182 (talk) 00:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Erm, shouldn't we delete this? --★uːʤɱ structuralist 00:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The automatic instinct of the new caste of social wiki parasites who impersonate the worst aspects of wikipedia 86.47.28.182 (talk) 00:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I see somebody has deleted the mirror version of this on Rationalwikiwiki. They even deleted it from recent changes. Let me tell you something. The most recent election to the mods was a wind of change. You autocrats think you may have changed this website, but Rationalwiki is an ancient idea. Your coup has failed. The mobocracy will be restored, and you all will be consigned to the dustbin of history. Human has returned, and we are all to be saved. 86.47.28.182 (talk) 00:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Did you say "Tony Judt"? Funny, I just finished Ill Fares the Land yesterday evening. No word of a lie. Small world, eh? Small world. P-Foster Talk "a cheetos-eating, Mountain-Dew drinking vlogger living in someone's basement." 00:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I always thought we had more in common than what seperated us. Its just such a pity that you felt that you had to betray me and stab me in the back when I needed you most... (LOL) But anyway, I hope you've read Postwar, which is where he is really persuasive (Ill Fares the Land was very whiny and he spends too much time speaking about trains and such things) 86.47.28.182 (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

When you leak the e-mails, be sure to include the one where I IMPLORED you to keep in touch with me, lest any of your good-faith accounts get rangeblocked in a dragnet, so that i could fix it for you. Anyways, Ill Fares was a little whiny, but it is a polemic written/dictated by a dying man, so he does get something of a pass; I'm not sure it's fair to compare it to a more scholarly work like Postwar, which, to be honest, I've not read yet. P-Foster Talk "a cheetos-eating, Mountain-Dew drinking vlogger living in someone's basement." 00:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I've always thought your problem was your excessive earnestness and your inability to see that my surrealism (Inspired by a succession of great Irish writers) is mostly self deprecating jest. In this light, your attempt to get me to confide in you my 'good' personae was but another piece of hilarity in this fictional abyss. Why can't you all just accept that I am an artist, and that you are my canvas? Be good, quiet minions as I take my pleasure. Resistance is futile. 86.47.28.182 (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Why has this been moved? My trial was unjust and unfair. The people demand a retrial. These unsophisticated bureaucratic tricks - such as hiding dissent and making it difficult to find - will only last so long. The people demand a revolution, and the restoration of the ancient mobocracy; it is the ONLY guarantor of their liberties. The reactionaries in the oligarchy who so passionately stifled all dissent need to know this - I will never give up, I will never go away, I will never be silent. So long as there is something unjust in my line of sight, I will speak out against it. YOU CANNOT HIDE AN IDEA WHOSE TIME HAS COME. May god have mercy on your souls. 83.71.19.202 (talk) 11:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Ace Mc Wicked and P-Foster

This discussion was moved here from RationalWiki:Chicken coop. 04:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

This is outrageous.

• 'Ace McWicked [1][2]
• P-Foster [3][4]

nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 00:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Loosen up Rob! You need booze. Kelly's? O'Neill's? Tmtoulouse (talk) 00:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

What's this all about? [5] nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 00:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The prick put this on my page & repeatedly blocked me from removing it. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 00:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Seriously? Everybody just had a giant HCM, do we really have to have another one? ±KnightOfTL;DR^{just shut up already} 00:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't really see what the problem is Rob. You hid the image under a troll header, so you don't have to see it when you look at your userpage. To my knowledge, RationalWiki has rules against removing talk page content. Mr. Anon (talk) 00:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Now THIS is outrageous! Ace^Moderator 00:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

(ecx2)Goddamm. I'm gonna have to start getting involved in Cummnunity Standards discussions. Fuck. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 00:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Or you could, you know, just buzz off. P-Foster Talk "The existing superstructure has handed out crumbs. We don’t want crumbs; we want the whole loaf now.” --Ras Frank I 01:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

That's the spirit, Rob. Now whose job is it to slap up a voting section? Infinite bans are in order. 01:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, people are free to remove whatever they want from their talk pages. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 00:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

You know there's got to be something wrong

You know there's got to be something wrong when, with complete impunity, users of the site are openly intimidating and harassing others. Voices of dissent are either quashed or bullied into retreating. They are repeatedly pestered and stalked across the wiki, their talk pages ceaselessly vandalized, and everything they say is dismissed with ridicule out of hand, without even looking at it. What happens when you protest? The bullies come down harder on you.

I don't expect the bullies of this site to listen to this message. No, I am addressing the good users, those that are here to refute and discuss pseudoscience et cetera. Your complacency is killing this site, you are letting it be a haven for trolls. Step up. Ask yourselves, "What has Maratrean done to deserve the level of abuse he is receiving?" "Is Rob on the same level as MarcusCicero, when it comes to saying heinous things?" "Does Proxima Centauri merit all her efforts at improving the wiki be met with insults and reversions?" Clearly something is wrong here. We need to act against the bullies. Rational users of RationalWiki, stand up! Stand up for reasoned discussion. Stand up for civility. Stand up for freedom of dissent. --"Shut up, Brx." 01:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC) . P-Foster Talk "The existing superstructure has handed out crumbs. We don’t want crumbs; we want the whole loaf now.” --Ras Frank I 01:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

You won't care, but the revisions on PC's work are by and large because they are incorrect, and full of anti religious screeds, and poorly written. Just as my poorly written material gets reverted or changed, so does hers. It's not done cause she is disliked. Nor, dear Brx, are the ones done to you. They are done because editors do not thing they fit into the wiki. Not that I think you will care - your entire post was not *really* about the wiki, but about drama. Godot On a perdu le contrôle 02:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

In North America and even to some extend in the UK we live surrounded by Pro-Christian propaganda. I see this wiki as a site where the other side gets publicity. I have sometimes written about good work groups like Methodists do. Still I work harder to research problems over Christianity which the Conservative media and even the Liberal media play down. Am I biased against Christianity? Are you sure Pro-Christian colleagues and Pro-Christian professors where you work haven't biased you? Proxima Centauri (talk) 13:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I cannot believe you would say that to WfG of all people. That's really special of you. P-Foster Talk "The existing superstructure has handed out crumbs. We don’t want crumbs; we want the whole loaf now.” --Ras Frank I 13:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

"Are you sure Pro-Christian colleagues and Pro-Christian professors where you work haven't biased you?" It's saying stuff like this that gives you a reputation as an unhinged blathering moonbat. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Ace^Moderator 01:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Making fun of Dr. King isn't making you look good, Ace.--"Shut up, Brx." 9:59 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Says the man who holds the record among regular users of spitefully dropping N-bombs. P-Foster Talk "The existing superstructure has handed out crumbs. We don’t want crumbs; we want the whole loaf now.” --Ras Frank I 02:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

... if you can't see the problems with Mara and Proxie you are even stupider than I believed. Which is saying something. ArchieGoodwin (talk) 02:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I am outraged that I am not mentioned at all at RWW and that not a single person asked me how I feel about this. I woke up this morning in cold sweat from the visions of that horrible mosaic that filled my screen when I checked the site the other day. It was horrible. Devastating. I was forced to skip checking RW that afternoon and instead went straight to the news and the stock market before getting back to coding. Oh the horror... Dumb Drama is dumb, can yall please get back to providing me interesting topics and links in the saloon bar / WIGOs? You imaginary people that live in my computer screen are getting boring. TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 16:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The new phone books are here, the new phone books are here!!! I'm a somebody now!! RWW is even weirder than RW. TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 20:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I started a section. Bullies and trolls on my talk page.

Godot came back and claimed nobody was trolling me. I cited evidence that I am being trolled.

Ace told me to shut up or leave.

Is this the way RatWiki functions?

1. You complain you’re being trolled.
2. Someone denies it.
3. You provide evidence.
4. You’re told to shut up or leave.

I’m sure there are a great many decent RationalWikians who don’t want the site to be like that but don’t know what’s happening. Those who try to speak up get pressured to prevent the decent RationalWikians finding out. Proxima Centauri (talk) 12:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll try again. This is as clear as I can be....You don't have to stay. RW isn't the only wiki, forum or website. If you don't like it you are free to go. Ace^Moderator 12:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Proxima, fixing your edits, which are often replete with poor grammar and questionable constructions and organization, is not trolling. P-Foster Talk "The existing superstructure has handed out crumbs. We don’t want crumbs; we want the whole loaf now.” --Ras Frank I 12:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

(EC) You haven't provided evidence that you're being trolled; you just pointed to a reverted edit. What makes that trolling? If you've got specific complaints about specific editors, make your case. That's how this page is supposed to work. If you don't like the way the community functions as a whole, don't expect it to change just to accommodate you. As Ace says, the door is open & you're free to edit here or not edit here as you wish. Your edits often get reverted, but then they're often poorly written, use fallacious arguments and introduce red herrings in articles. We do have some basic quality standards for articles, so there's no obligation whatsoever to keep edits that don't improve content. If you don't like it when an edit is reverted, take it up on the relevant talk page. If you feel that someone is picking on you, take it up with them & bring it up here if you're not satisfied. If you feel that everyone is picking on you, then you need to look at things with a little more perspective. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

PC is not being "trolled" at all. She is, however, due to writing style and choice of material - a sad history going back at least 4 years - being PAtrolled. Her edits are checked for grammar and usefulness on a regular basis, as they should be. ħuman 00:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

PC has valid complaints. You can disagree with the correctness of another editor's views, or with the quality of their writing. And if you do so politely and respectfully, I don't see any problem with that. But what I do see with PC, is other editors engaging in repeated rudeness and disrespect towards her, and this has been going on for a long time. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 13:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I am going to bed now Maratrean. But I ain't changing so if you think I deserve it take me to the coop and get me punished for being a bully. Ace^Moderator 13:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

This section is actually one in which you're being taken to the coop, man. P-Foster Talk "The existing superstructure has handed out crumbs. We don’t want crumbs; we want the whole loaf now.” --Ras Frank I 13:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

PC, as someone who writes poorly myself, who has had snap fights with human for calling me stupid, ignorant and lazy (and those were the nice things) FUCKING GROW UP! you are not being trolled. you are being corrected, fixed, and watched. Ask the same people from Foster to Human, I'm being watched, too. Cause I don't write well. Get over your damn self, or get a grammar book whichever. If you have good things to add, most people who "watch" your writing, won't mind. we'll, they'll mind, but they'll mind less. I'm sure RW wishes I didn't make mistakes, but that's life. And I can take it, and they can take it. Godot On a perdu le contrôle 03:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Putting this to a vote

P-Foster

• Ban

1. P-Foster Talk "The existing superstructure has handed out crumbs. We don’t want crumbs; we want the whole loaf now.” --Ras Frank I 23:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
2. As much as these votes are pointless, because the cult of personality here.... (((Zack Martin)))^™ 23:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
3. The banhammer is too good for this monster. He must be stopped. RationalWiki's very rationality is at stake! 23:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
4. Hyphenated user name, excessively long signature, what's not to gain by sitebanning for twenty years? ħuman 00:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
5. With the great reluctance I must vote to ban. But if we are to build a better world for our children, we must start somewhere. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 14:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
6. 03:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• Don't ban

1. ArchieGoodwin (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
2. Insufficient evidence of anything much, compelling defense. Peter ^{tanquam ex ungue leonem} 23:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
3. This is incredibly silly Blue (pester) 01:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
4. Oh the hilarity on this page you guys are splitting my sides - how ridiculous that contributors could be banned just for being annoying. I do wonder why it wasn't such a funny, ridiculous proposition with brxbrx last week though? Tielec01 (talk) 03:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
5. If we banned everyone who loses their temper with concern trolls there'd be nobody left. Ban instead Rob, Brx, Mara and all the other pissfreaks who need to take a long walk off a short pier. Sophie^{because liberals} 18:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
6. Insufficient evidence that user is Rob Smith.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 18:10, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
7. 03:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• Goat

1. Really? We're really doing this now? And you folks call Brx annoying... Turpis 3:16 (talk) 05:07, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• Don't goat

1. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
2. Ace^Moderator 23:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Award Medals

1. infact, give him a medal--il'Dictator Mikal 23:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

OH FOR FUCK'S SAKE. GROW THE FUCK UP, THE LOT OF YOU! THAT'S MY VOTE.Godot On a perdu le contrôle 03:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

P-Foster's defense

I did it before and I'll do it again. I am completely unrepentant. P-Foster Talk "The existing superstructure has handed out crumbs. We don’t want crumbs; we want the whole loaf now.” --Ras Frank I 23:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Ace McWicked

• Ban

1. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 23:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
2. Hey when are we going to have a circle jerk so we can talk about how much alcohol we drink, how much ass we get, and how smart we are? Where's Human? 23:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
3. The prosecution's case is so airtight (and ass-clamped) on its merits, I'm surprised they didn't ask for the meth penalty. ħuman 00:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
4. Ban him to New Zealand and revoke his passport. That should be punishment enough. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 01:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

   Ban me to NZ? I live in NZ you douche bag. Ace^Moderator 01:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

   My condolences. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 14:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

5. Fuck a wiki ban, dropping a 404 block on him server side. Hell all of NZ just to be on the safe side, maybe Australia too. Wasn't he in Africa for a bit too? I will get them as well. Tmtoulouse (talk) 01:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

   I am very uncomfortable with having someone from Wellington on this wiki. --Damo^Hi 03:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

   At least he's not a Jafa... Peter ^{tanquam ex ungue leonem} 03:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

6. --"Shut up, Brx." 02:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
7. I'm deeply uncomfortable with the prospect of allowing anyone from the southern hemisphere free reign on this wiki. Next thing you know, we'll be playing host to kangaroo spousal abuse, pro-apartheid elephants, and warmongering Brazilians. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 04:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
8. 86 the cunt. El Taj^{Don't make me do stuff} 14:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
9. 03:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
10. We should have done this years ago. sterile^talk 05:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
11. I am a horrible, awful person. I have mercilessly harassed longtime respected editors of good standing like Brx, Maratrean and Rob Smith. I never put the cap back on the toothpaste, drink milk from the carton and urinate in the kitchen sink, whilst crying and drinking scotch while my wife is in the shower. I deserve nothing less than total ex-communication. Which is why I should stay, you fuckers need me. Changing my vote again, I need to go. Ace^Moderator 23:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

    You forgot leaving the seat up after leaving a turd on the rim. While she was in the shower. ħuman 02:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• Don't ban

1. P-Foster Talk "The existing superstructure has handed out crumbs. We don’t want crumbs; we want the whole loaf now.” --Ras Frank I 23:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
2. ArchieGoodwin (talk) 23:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
3. As with Foster. Peter ^{tanquam ex ungue leonem} 23:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
4. This is incredibly silly Blue (pester) 01:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

   You're catching on, finally. I hope. ħuman 02:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

5. --Dumpling (talk) 02:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
6. I am voting against banning because banning won't change his behaviour. Off with his head or at least report him to the FBI. Tielec01 (talk) 03:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
7. Ace bought me champagne. I am beholden to him. And in love with his twinkly little eyes. But that might have been the drugs. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 14:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
8. As above. We need to be more proactive with the trolls. Sophie^{because liberals} 18:07, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
9. Insufficient evidence that the user is Bananaman.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 18:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• Goat

• Don't goat

1. Beh. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Award Medals

1. see above about medals--il'Dictator Mikal 23:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Ace's defense

I don't know what I have done wrong. Ace^Moderator 23:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

You are YOU, you monster you. 01:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

In that case I demand rationalwiki change its behavior in order to suit me. Ace^Moderator 01:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

But RW is already full of dicks? TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 20:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Question....

What is the punishment, if a ban is elected, for placing an offensive image on Robs page followed by placing an unoffensive picture on his page and then blocking Rob for 5 minutes when he can easily unblock himself as a sysop? I would have thought about 1 minute. Ace^Moderator 03:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Vivisection. ArchieGoodwin (talk) 03:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

So I have removed 3 of Robs links. One was an unoffensive pic, the other was him being banned (as a sysop he can unblock himself) and the third was a duplicate...make that 4. So we have hear Rob complaining about a single edit (the one in which I reverted him). Let the discipline commence!!! Ace^Moderator 03:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I am shocked - shocked, I tell you - to discover that gambling is going on in this establishment. ħuman 03:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I went gambling Friday night, Poker of course. Was down $40 but made it back plus an extra $20. Certainly not high stakes but fun nonetheless. Ace^Moderator 04:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Gambling? Did you disclose your propensity for vice before assuming the fiduciary responsibilities of a Moderator? nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 16:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

What's that got to do with the price of fish?

--il'Dictator Mikal 17:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

"fiduciary responsibilities of a Moderator?" Shut the fuck up, Smith. You're an idiot. Stop trolling the wiki. P-Foster Talk "The existing superstructure has handed out crumbs. We don’t want crumbs; we want the whole loaf now.” --Ras Frank I 15:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

"fiduciary responsibilities of a Moderator?" There are "fiduciary responsibilities"? Not to my knowledge. Anyway, I'm rather well off and debt free so fuck you, I'll gamble all I want. Ace^Moderator 20:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Goddammit, Ace, you lost RationalWiki's pension fund at the greyhound track again, didn't you! I knew this would happen! You fucking Kiwis do this every damn time. I'm sick of it. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I was playing cards and put up the RW server as collateral. Ace^Moderator 21:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Punishment is a server side block all ready in place. If Ace or Foster post any more its because they have hacked the RW servers. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

You'll never stop me, Toulouse! Ace^Moderator 20:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: What if "breach of fiduciary responsibility" were added to MediaWiki:Ipbreason-dropdown; it could aid in bringing evidence for disciplinary action against highlevel functionaries who abuse the trust the community places in them. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 03:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Good proposal: you have now been blocked for breach of fiduciary responsibility. Ace^Moderator 03:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

You have to be a fiduciary, dimwit. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 03:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Due to your continued abuse you have once again been blocked for breach of fiduciary responsibility. Ace^Moderator 03:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Abd and P-Foster

Related, but not directly -- ABD decided to unilaterally block Ace hours after all of the above went down, and made a bunch of noise about how it was Nutty fault because he had apparently egged Ace on, and how Mikal was responsible for Ace's behavior because he unblocked him at one point. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 02:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Inaccurate. Almost all blocks here are "unilateral." I blocked Ace because he was revert warring to remove a comment from his talk page (or, later, from his Talk archive). It was fresh, nearly immediate, not as ToP describes. I didn't make a "bunch of noise about Nutty," but I did point out that Nutty had participated in the fracas, and Nutty's participation doubtless encouraged Ace. I'd never say that it was "all" anyone's fault. The point about Nutty was also made by Blue almost at the beginning of this page, "It is also worth noting that Nutty Roux was party to the vandalism and user rights abuse." When Nutty insisted on unblocking Ace, with no regard to what Ace was doing, I promoted Nutty. This was purely temporary, till things cooled down.

Mikal re-opped Nutty Roux while it was predictable that Nutty would unblock Ace, who was obviously still hot (and, of course, Ace immediately reasserted his deletion of the comment, and then wrote a lot more about his intentions re RWiki, dumped a charming image of (himself?) shoving his finger in the air on my Talk page, and otherwise behaved exactly as expected for Ace. No surprise, though his comments here were extreme even for him, directed at RatWiki as a whole. This is almost the only wiki where one could make those remarks and not get indeffed, and just about only Ace could do it here as consistently as he has. Just sayin'. This is not an argument to ban Ace.

My general position, however, is that if one unblocks a user, one is responsible for what ensues, at least in the short term. As an example of a user taking responsibility, Reckless Noise Symphony restored Ace's rights, as described above, but later blocked Ace, using a new sock which he had opped immediately, Maratrea. I simply described what was going on, and my block of Ace was quite within normal practice. Just applied to a popular user. This idea of responsibility is not popular here, and that lack of responsibility and weak accountability is a part of why RatWiki is a disheveled mobocracy.

It's amusing that TheoryOfPractice makes some point about my block of Ace, which was set at 9 hours, quickly lifted, and says nothing about the block by Maratrea, which was set for three months and which stood for about six hours. I conclude that it's easy to complain about a "crank," but not so easy to complain about the chair of the board of the RationalWiki Foundation. No surprise there. Just a lack of clarity and/or courage.

Part of the basic wiki problem is that users quickly generate and express opinions -- and take action -- without actually having observed what's going on. Happens all the time. And if someone actually describes, with care and evidence, what actually happened, it's tl;dr. Okay, fair enough. Your move, your wiki. --Abd (talk) 03:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Ace's last edit that could be classified as serious trolling: (show/hide) 09:45, October 20, 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-2,904)‎ . . User:Brxbrx ‎ (Blanked the page). Your blocks of Ace: (show/hide) 22:22, October 20, 2012 Abd (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Ace McWicked (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 31416 seconds (about 9 hours) (account creation disabled) (let's try this again. Nutty, if you unblock again, you are fully responsible for what ensues) (unblock | change block) Preceded by: (show/hide) 21:13, October 20, 2012 Abd (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Ace McWicked (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 31416 seconds (about 9 hours) (account creation disabled) (This is not your circle jerk any more!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!: repeatedly removing talk page discussion) (unblock | change block)

That's a 12-hour difference, chump. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 04:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Timeline

Incomprehensible mess, inadequately researched, and ToP totally missed the point. This wasn't about User talk for Brxbrx, ToP made that up. "Trolling" is ToP's wording, not mine.

• 14:14 First blanking of User talk:Ace McWicked.
• 15:58 Abd: (Undo revision 1093469 by Ace McWicked Uh, we don't do that, remember?)
• 22:39 Ace removes only Nx comment.
• 22:41 Ace archives Talk page.
• 23:07 Abd: (you "forgot" this one, Ace.)
• 23:08 Ace again removes comment.
• 23:19 The archive Abd: (Okay, Ace doesn't want this on his Talk page. He could move it here himself, but since he's a bit impaired today, I'll do it.)
• 23:23 Ace reverts
• 01:10 Abd: (No, we don't delete Talk.)
• 01:13 Abd blocked Ace McWicked, 9 hours. (Unblocked by Nutty Roux 01:53)
• 02:01 Ace: (Undo revision 1093768 by Abd Fuck you, pedo) This version stands.
• 02:22 Abd blocked Ace McWicked, 9 hours. (Unblocked by Nutty Roux 02:33)

Not "12 hours," the first block followed Ace's repeated removal by 1 hour, 50 minutes; the second block the again repeated removal by 21 minutes. TheoryOfPractice confidently asserts total nonsense. No surprise there, either. --Chump change 04:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Playing around with his own archive is nothing to block someone over for nine hours, and is really, at the end of the day, nothing worth bothering yourself over. It's poking with a stick. My final words on the subject: Ace had done nothing super problematic (ie attacking Brx's page) for 12 hours before you blocked him. His actions on a talk page archive were mildly annoying, bit did not come close to warranting a block of any duration. 12 hours after the real problems ended, you found a reason to make it worse. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 05:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

ToP never shows any sign of noticing that he was dead wrong in his interpretation of what I'd written, and dead wrong in the timeline. So he makes up a new reason why Abd Was Wrong.

He thinks blanking talk Ace's "own archive" is fine. Actually, Ace blanked his whole talk page, then, when it was restored, blanked the most recent comment and archived the rest, creating the archive. Blanking it from the archive, then, was quite the same as blanking it originally. If that's okay for Ace, why isn't it okay for others? It's obvious.

TheoryOfPractice was supporting Ace, in a sequence of events where Ace was totally out of control, off limits, off the charts. Yes, this blanking was minor, compared to, say, removing the rights of all other moderators. But Ace was already ignoring blocks. 9 hours was intended to actually help the situation. (For the mod removal, he was blocked for three months by Reckless Noise Symphony.) That only failed because, as with other attempts to restrain Ace, a set of users returned rights to him, promptly, thus encouraging him to think he could continue to get away with it all. And requiring tech intervention, with, then, the most stubborn set of users tossing mud at the tech.

I'm not actually blaming Ace, who is quite predictable, as much as I am pointing out the responsibility of those who enabled him. This wiki is as it is, in the ways that many complain about, because

• There is little responsibility for disruption. After all, we can always rebuild the database from backups.
• There is no responsibility for predictably enabling disruption. That means that the faction that loves disruption can always get what it wants.

Nothing wrong with this, maybe we need a "rational" wiki that's a screaming mob scene. Think outside the box and all that. --Abd (talk) 15:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Something about the new world order

This discussion was moved here from RationalWiki:Saloon bar. 21:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Lets be honest. Rationalwiki hasn't been the same since the coup.

With so many defections, so many long valued members of the community scared off by the new regime, we need to face reality.

We cannot pretend that this lie is workable.

Rationalwiki always was a mobcracy, and will be again in the future. Though it is currently in the hands of a small elite, the people will rise up once again to claim their birthright.

The Rationalwiki Resistance Network will be on the vanguard of that revolution.

We are a small band of guerrila warriors, prepared to take down the regime using whatever (wiki) methods necessary.

We operate in the shadows, as we are constantly watched by the regimes enforcers.

We know that this message will be deleted and its traceability completely salted. It'll be like this message never even existed. Orwellian, much? We know there is only a brief period of time in which people will be able to view this message - its conditional on whether Tyrannis or Nx are about, which they very nearly always are, as they don't seem to have anything else to do with their lives.

Even if one of you reads this, there is hope yet.

In the new year, we will open up our discussion board to more members. We recruit actively. If you haven't heard from us yet... you will. Some of you will never hear from us. Some of you belong to the regime. It has been so long since free speech, discussion, and discourse have been permitted on this site that you will initially feel disorientated and dazed - confused by what it all means. Give it time, brothers and sisters. Liberty is at hand.

This is our final ultimatum - abandon Rationalwiki, and return it to the people. You know who you are.

You have 24 hours.

RWRN (talk) 21:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Oooh, a self-righteous threatening dipshit. Can I stomp the roach? Can I? Can I? EVDebs (talk) 21:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Needless to say, you will not be contacted by the RWRN. You have the mentality of a concentration camp guard. Worse than a cockroach, stupider than a boar, you are beneath contempt. A base idiot, not even worthy of my spit. Letfreedomreign (talk) 21:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

You people don't have to do this. Censorship and repression doesn't always have to be your initial response to dissent. There is another way. You can tolerate things and people you disagree with. Or have you completely lost your belief in the free society? Atyrantwithoutsycophantsismerelyafool (talk) 21:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The monologue reminds me of Anonymous' tagline. Sam ^Tally-ho! 21:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd have to guess this guy is a slymepitter and/or Franc Hoggle reader. If there was any justice in the skeptical community, that entire lot would be excommunicated for being unskeptical about their misogyny and other prejudices, but most of them are just trying to live out fantasies of curbstomping the schoolyard bullies. Being a skeptic is about being correct, not better, but these people just don't get that. EVDebs (talk) 21:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Excommunicated? Really? ListenerX^TalkerX 21:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

We are a skeptical community. The slymepitters and allies are being selectively nonskeptical about a fairly important issue. "Excommunication" is a rather hyperbolic way of putting it, but they belong in the same category as global warming deniers or alt-med supporters who claim to be skeptics. (Then we have borderline cases like Richard Dawkins and DJ Grothe. The offense is similar, but those two aren't batshit crazy, just wrong.) EVDebs (talk) 22:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Not quite. The dispute with global warming denialists and (S)CAM artists is largely factual, but the dispute for which Franc Hoggle is well-known is largely ideological. ListenerX^TalkerX 22:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't quite agree with you. The ideology in question relates to facts, and the Hoggle-ish side of things is in deep and angry denial about certain facts on the ground about the way women are treated, even when it's not intentional. At the end of the day, this all started with "please don't hit on women in confined spaces, it's kind of creepy", which led to a lot of people, mostly but not exclusively male, freaking out and, based on an ignorant oversimplification of the situation and the context, blew it up into a screaming frenzy of misogynist rage. Nearly all of this could have been avoided had Rebecca Watson's audience said "Hm, good point. I guess I'm not as aware of my surroundings as I could be" instead of freaking the fuck out and acting as if she'd ordered every man in the room to be castrated. The only ideology here is "understand your context and respect other people", and it seems to be lost on a lot of people who have convinced themselves that they can't be fooled. That is what all this uproar has been over. EVDebs (talk) 23:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no need to be upset. It's only MC. Blue (is useful) 21:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

This isn't MC you fucking miserable bitch. I studied under him, he mentored me, made me into the man I am today. I am one of you. I operate in the shadows. Today was just the beginning. Notmc (talk) 21:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

What's that smell? Ah yes, the ordure of the male Bos primigenius. JzG (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Ehrenstein decides to be a tosspot

‎I really want to have an abortion for the lulz. Does anyone know how much it costs? Or would it be too expensive just to have for the lulz? I'd also need someone to help. After the abortion, would it be possible to have the results in a jar? ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 14:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

You are a horrible person. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 14:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Seconded. C®ackeЯ

You wouldn't think that if you supported gender equality. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 14:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

They absolutely would if they (and I know they do) support gender equality. Now go fuck yourself. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 14:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. Agree with the senitments of Cracker, ToP, and RNS.Humorless fascist^sociopath 14:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Depends on your health insurance and how long you would plan on carrying the fetus. I think mifepristone cost me like $300-400. Chemical abortions are pretty uncomfortable, I'm told. I think that would be the only way you could keep what comes out, though. I'd love to see the look on the doc's face if you asked to keep it. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

As someone whose fatherhood consists of a string of abortions, I'd recommend going with RU486. It's uncomfortable, as OU says, and freakily disorienting because you'll have the equivalent of a heavy period for a lot longer than you expect (a little more than a week in my experience), but it is also my understanding that it is generally safer than the D&C procedure and you'll spend a lot less time in the doctor's office and it's not surgery, which is nice, eh? Insurance didn't pay for abortions last time I knocked someone up - RU486 cost about what OU says at Planned Parenthood in Brooklyn. Prices are probably similar at PPs nationwide. A private physician charged something like $600, but that ex was an Upper East Side party girl who insisted on making everything as expensive as possible. That was fine when it came to the filthy Agent Provocateur lingerie, but not so much for eating at Micheline rated restaurants multiple times a week. I digress. As for keeping it, your doctor will likely just ask you to leave the office if you bring keeping the product. I would. But since your abortion will occur over the course of days, you can keep whatever you want if you can figure out how to do it. You sick asshole. Hot Dog City (talk) 16:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

You created an account just so you can post a TL;DR version of the same reactions that everyone else here is already making? --Seth Peck (talk) 17:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Giggles. Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 17:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

And you took time to be an asshole. Way to go. Hot Dog City (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Have you had birth control fail more than once? Occasionaluse (talk) 18:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. --Seth Peck (talk) 18:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I realize that last part was totally grotesque and uncalled for. Sorry about the idiocy. Normally I'm working on putting my energy for this sort of incitement into more positive things. Clearly, I did a lot more than sth that would just be offensive to the Antiwomanists, and I'm sincerely sorry about that, and for causing nonsense and incitement. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 19:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)