RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive11

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 8 December 2018. Please do not make edits to this page.

David Gerard 2[edit]

Banned me for suspecting that I was MC. Is that the way things work here now? (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. (talk) 16:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I just don't understand why this is happening. Not only is this giving people who actually are MC the energy to continue trolling, it's reminiscent of what CP sysops do (ie block IP's for reason). Lyra § talk 17:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
It truly is pathetic. The man has no shame whatsoever. (talk) 17:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I think it's more like HITLER, who by the way noted that no-one seems to have considered the person whose howdy was a burst of abuse worth unblocking (Mein Kampf, ch.10: "The Destruction Of The So-Called RationalWiki", p.343). Of course, he's HITLER, so I'd take no notice - David Gerard (talk) 17:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
What the fuck are you on about you twat? Nobody finds you funny. The original poster was Neveruse, the second one was Nx. This is MC. (talk) 17:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
This is getting yawnsome. If these people just didn't act like twats in the first place and some people didn't snoot about with their nose in the air on their high horse, this issue wouldn't exist. These accounts are now unblocked, are we going to see constructive activity or more butthurt, whining and personal attacks on other users? I'm not holding my breath much. IMHO, Trent isn't paying about $100 a month just to host people bitching about. Scarlet A.pngpostate 17:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I came across as "snooty" in my comment above. Lyra § talk 17:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, David doesn't buy the whole "persecution=food" axiom with respect to trolling and to boot, he's seemingly incapable of ignoring trolling. Can the coop do anything about his abuse or is this just a place to bitch? Occasionaluse (talk) 17:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

If you post like a pointless twat, it was your decision to post like a pointless twat, not me somehow provoking you. Of course, I did puke down your front when you got drunk last night. And I shat your pants - David Gerard (talk) 17:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
You're ignoring the whole "i think you were pointless, so i banned you" abuse of your administrative powers. Anything to say to that? Or is that how you really think RW should work? Occasionaluse (talk) 17:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
When you start with gratuitous abuse of a revertable level (by the wording of the LJ decision - I looked), you're not really presenting an example that speaks to a general governance decision in any way at all - David Gerard (talk) 17:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
The LJ says you can revert abuse on your talk page, yes. It doesn't say "block whoever you want". ħumanUser talk:Human 21:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
What a fucking tool... Occasionaluse (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
God forbid you should post something that isn't a blatant waste of electrons. But, y'know, I have faith in you. Go forth! Do something even slightly useful! You have before, I bet you can now. Just try - David Gerard (talk) 19:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Why does someone have to do something that you think is useful on this site? ħumanUser talk:Human 21:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Of course, they don't. But if you think being a worse than useless motherfucker is likely to work better than not being one, do say so - David Gerard (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
From what I read here you blocked someone who made a comment you didn't like. That is what this is about. That is a clear abuse of sysop rights. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
not to say he was right but the person (Neveruse) had told me to GTFO (he claimed it was sarcasm ) and later of having being a "sandy-vagina'ed old cunt.." He also went OTT elsewhere. We don't need him. 23:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
From what I read here, you are clearly assiduously informing yourself fully as to what the fuck before you pontificate. Well done, I have complete confidence in your investigation - David Gerard (talk) 23:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I have seen what you blocked them for. David, you are way out of line. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Get the fuck over Huw, who gives a fuck? Gerard blocks abusive troll, abusive troll comes back, Gerard blocks again. Abusive troll says nothing of value and gives nothing of worth to the site. Who fucking cares if they are blocked. AceX-102 01:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Ace, we have long standing ethical standards here, and David Gerrard is breaking all of them. Ace, if you had posted any of your inaurgural messages on DG's page, the pompous ass would probably have blocked you. Except, GUESS WHAT? On RationalWiki, WE DON'T BLOCK PEOPLE Dave Gerrard is an ASS and likes to use power over people, power, which we on RW have for three fucking years, not allowed people to have. ħumanUser talk:Human 07:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

This whole conversation has gotten me in the mood for loveWarning: NSFW Image!

Was that supposed to be a gambit of some sort? Lyra § talk 09:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Sounds a lot like the 90/10 rule in the making. Under the pressure, your rationality caves in. Liberal values can strengthen your mind against trolling. And I'm allegedly an abusive troll now? Occasionaluse (talk) 01:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I give a fuck, Ace. Dave broke every rule we ever had. This site tolerates dissent, it is one of our core values. DG is an authoritarian trained at wikipedia to block on sight. That assholish behavior does not fly here. In fact, it's against the rules. DG has abused his sysop privs and I think they should be removed for 24 hours. Which I will now do. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Awesome, so a worthless troll now trumps a good contributer? Nice one huw, you fucking asshole. AceX-102 06:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Appreciate my diff links or GTFO of the thread? Yeah, sounds dead serious to me... so did that. Occasionaluse (talk) 23:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Gerard, there are rules and there is a legacy on this site. Please stop taking the piss of it. Seriously. You are single worst thing that has ever happened RW. Just put down your e-Penis. (talk) 19:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
RT@MC "there are rules and there is a legacy on this site" Occasionaluse (talk) 19:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Awesome! more trolling! I love RW! AceX-102 23:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

One punk's opinion[edit]

Quit bitching and fighting, you dummies, and fight the real enemies of this site: the pseudoscientists, the religious fundies, the conspiracy nutters, etc. Any one of these groups is most certainly worth more time for bitching and complaining than some goddamn internet troll(s). Seriously. This shit gets old, and the fact that, because of violations of the clean hands doctrine by both sides, this sort of arguing brings us nowhere as a site or community. Give me a break. Why the fuck, when it comes down to it, should we go "DG is a good editor and MC is a troll, so DG's abuse is not an issue" or "MC is just a troll, ignore him. DG abused his power, so he needs to be banned" when, clearly, both sides suck? It makes no sense. Seriously, can we just not feed the troll, and (when abuse actually comes to head) mitigate it accordingly? Lord Goonie Hooray! I'm helping! 07:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

What the punk said. This is all distraction and MC playing games to make us waste time.--BobSpring is sprung! 11:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Keep in mind that 1) I'm not MC. 2) I wasn't trolling. Occasionaluse (talk) 22:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Spring is sprung. AceX-102 12:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
It's a bit annoying that blocking trolls is against consensus now, but yeah, this still isn't an issue. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 12:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
As I have already said, Gerard is deliberately picking on me so as to get me to complain in the chicken coop, thus simultaneously making a mockery of this institution (He is exploiting your hatred of me in order to discredit due process and and call this institution into disrepute) He is playing you round his little finger. Please have the intelligence to see what he is doing here. (talk) 12:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
See, I'm still not sure why MC is allowed to talk now. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 12:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Same. EddyP (talk) 12:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Right!? "Boo hoo. Gerard won't let me Troll, and is FORCING me to make a mockery of this page!!!" Are you fucking kidding me? Quarudog - You can't explain that! 12:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
The fact that both Gerard and MC are still allowed to post is testament to this website's tolerant policy. Why is this discussion continuing? Gerard has been stripped of his cratship that to me seems like fair punishment for what he did. Case closed, can we now move on? - π 13:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
And MC's punishment? EddyP (talk) 13:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
We seem to only have the ability to punish those that follow the rules. Those who don't give a shit about the rules are allowed to do fuck all, and if you want to stop them, then fuck off. Quarudog - You can't explain that! 13:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I for one am really fucking bored of this. I must compose a list of people that have left at some stage due to MC's trolling to try and wake people the fuck up that one troll's so called "rights" are hurting this site. I ignore him, but he annoys a lot of people and he is not useful in any way. I know blocking him is not 100% effective as he can just hop a proxy and get another account, but the fact he has no barrier is absurd. - π 13:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
No, you complete and utter idiot, the issue is much more complex than that. Gerard dislikes the due process of this site and is DELIBERATELY exploiting your hatred of me in order to bring this page into disrepute. (talk) 13:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
IF you were nicer no one would hate you for him to exploit it. - π 13:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
(EC)And you love the due process of this site, as it allows you to troll as much as you like, and we all just have to sit here and take it, you fucking worthless piece of cum stained donkey shit. Do you really not get that your ass was banned, for being a worthless human being? Is your life so fucking worthless, that you have to sit on a site you were banned from to cause disruption. I approve of abortion, as long as we get to abort you first. Fucking waste of flesh. Quarudog - You can't explain that! 13:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
As this page seems to largely consist of MC arguing with his own socks, it does serve the useful purpose of provisionally identifying those socks.--False Flag (talk) 13:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I was just thinking that this discussion needed more paranoia. (talk) 13:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Come on MC - the only person really interested in keeping this going is you. The rest of the world is simply bored with it.--False Flag (talk) 13:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
That's not necessarily MC. EddyP (talk) 13:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I promise I'm not MC. If I were, I'd paint the walls with my brain so as to at least have something positive come about from my existence. Sorry, I guess I got carried away this morning. I'm just so sick of trying to be polite and ignore this worthless fleshbag. It doesn't help, he just keeps coming back. Quarudog - You can't explain that! 13:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
It amazes me how easily Gerard has managed to overturn everything this site has held dear. I guess Machiavelli had it right - tyranny will always be the end result if the citizenry have no civic virtue. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 14:58, 7 August 2010

You people are so FUCKING STUPID, falling for that cunt DAVID GERARD's tricks. He, not I, is the real threat to this sad excuse for a fucking wiki. Seriously, why don't all of you just FUCK OFF.

Wow, this is still going on? I remember we were having problems with these two guys months ago. Can't we just vandalbin them and get it the hell over with? I Eat Glue (talk) 01:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, why can't RationalWiki just FAIL!!!!!! Just, simply, FAIL NOW!!! This is too much idiocy, more even than CP! Cease to exist. These games are over.

I mean, seriously, ethical issues aside, this is annoying as hell. I've been able to ignore it for the most part, but the entire site has come to a standstill because of a few morons who have nothing better to do than troll a rationalist website. If you don't have the willpower to ignore them and they don't want to go away on their own, then fucking get rid of them. I Eat Glue (talk) 01:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know who is pretending to be me, probably some fascist, but I wish you would just LAY OFF/FUCK OFF!!!— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 21:37, August 11, 2010


The discussion in the above two sections is arguably funnier than the entire Christian Science talkpage. I lol'd. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 03:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You have a point there. As irritating as he is, MC is still fucking hilarious, and as long as you don't let him get to you he doesn't actually damage the site in any way. Still think he should probably be blocked, but still, let him edit his talk page or something so his unintentional comedy is contained in a nice, safe place. I Eat Glue (talk) 04:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Idiot number 57 & socks[edit]

Idiot number 57, Idiot number 58, and Idiot number 59 — who are presumably all the same person — has been appearing on numerous newly-joined users' pages to claim that they are "the rightful ruler of RationalWiki"[1][2][3][4][5]. At no point has he qualified this as a joke, forcing me to conclude that they are deliberately attempting to mislead newcomers, who may or may not be familiar with how things actually are around here (we don't have a "leader" by any measure around here).

They have also created a category to promote this[6][7][8]. In addition, they have falsely claimed to be a sysop [9] when they are not, as well as a bureaucrat[10][11] (which again they are not).

I repeat, Idiot number # is lying to newcomers without qualification. That said newcomers can figure out the truth with less than five minutes of poking around is irrelevant — he is still lying with the intent of misinforming. This is not behavior that RationalWiki should condone or tolerate in any measure.

I therefore kindly request that (1) Idiot number # stop misrepresenting theirself to newcomers; (2) their pet category "Rightful leaders of RationalWiki" be either deleted or populated with enough other users to make it clear it's a joke; and (3) they remove Category:Sysops and Category:Bureaucrats from their userpages (unless they actually become a sysop or bureaucrat, of course). Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 02:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

What, so it's now against the rules to jokingly welcome new users? I'm certain that you'd find a lot of people guilty of that, including everyone who's ever used the noun and verb templates to do so. RA, I'm opening up a CC case against you, because RW is not the gyrating bombshelter of the internet! --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 02:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
As rightful leader of RW I am outraged someone would make lite of my privilaged position. AceX-102 02:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
The noun and verb templates are confusing but not misleading; they are so nonsensical as to make it fairly obvious they're a joke. Not so the case with Idiot number #'s statements. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 02:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Um, no, they can actually be incredibly offensive, you enumerating punctual irony meter. Hit reload a few times and see what you are saying to new users. ħumanUser talk:Human 06:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
That's funny, you didn't object when I started doing it. Or when others picked it up. And please explain to me how "mocking crazy refrigerator" is offensive. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 22:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
GASP! RA is NOT a crackling repugnant dog! --Sir Onion Kneel before my vegetable might! 22:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Dude, anyone with four or more active braincells can figure out that someone who's username begins with "Idiot" clearly doesn't run the wiki. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 03:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
And anyone with four or more active brain cells knows that someone's name doesn't mean zip as far as authority goes on the internet (remember Aschlafly bemoaning the "silly" usernames of admins on Wikipedia?).
So, you're saying it's okay to be a unqualified liar as long as you have a funny name? Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 04:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
By the way: if I were to do the exact same thing Idiot number # is doing, people would be all over it. There would be no end to bitchy passive-aggressive comments from people about "oh, he thinks he's the ruler of the wiki. What a status-obsessed loser." Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 04:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
In my totally unbiased and neutral opinion, I think that RA should get a life. Idiot Numbers 1-56 (talk) 03:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
RA, seriously, get a fucking life you pathetic loser. You need to be told that more. (talk) 09:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Gabe's suggestion[edit]

I hereby recommend that, to make the statement of rightful leader more truthful, the Idiot number accounts be demoted to the low rank of sysop after writing some pottery about RA that is then presented to the chicken coop. Gooniepunk2010 Oi! Oi! Oi! 04:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, Idiot number's poetry would represent a net loss on my part. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 04:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeahhh, I demoted them hours ago. I do expect pottery in return, though. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 04:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay, fine. But if RA doesn't want pottery about them, then I would damn sure like some pottery about me. The Goonie 1 What's this button do? Uh oh.... 04:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I am deeply confused. Sooner or later I will write some pottery for all of you. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 05:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

No leaders? (Lovely Jerboas)[edit]

RA writes/types, "we don't have a 'leader' by any measure around here". To me, "leaders" means elected people or possibly those who control the wiki (because we easily could "leave" an internet location if we didn't like something about their "leadership"). An alternative is a direct democracy and it seems as if RA is claiming that RW is a direct democracy (if mobocracy is supposed to mean something different, this is not clear). Being elected by the few usernames who participated, Lovely Jerboas would qualify as "leaders". "Leadership" seems to be their only role. Can't anyone inspire the community to act if they have a compelling idea? Perhaps the utility of the LJ is that they tell us their wishes in advanced. I wish all the rw:bureaucrats would do this. ~ Lumenos 14:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

[<"humourous" tangent>]
There is no cabal.
Lumenos is obviously the secret leader of the cabal that runs this wiki. Tiatton of (talk) 02:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Well uum yes, most people can't see that however... uh but I actually am not the leader (neither am I "Lumenos" of the past). I do however know of the rightful leader, who has revealed emself to me as the high yeti prophet Lumeni. According to my sensors, Lumeni has some special purpose for this wiki or the people here. Apparently the Linux user group has mixed feelings as to the righteousness of complete submission/domination of Lumeni and of course they all have different names for em that need to be consolidated. ~ Lumenos 20:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
[</"humourous" tangent><totally like serious>]
I wouldn't consider the LJ "leaders" any more than I would the dice I use to decide which games to play. Perhaps even less so, since I haven't really seen the LJ decide anything. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 21:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
It seems that many editors started deleting comments on their talkpages, after the LJ or Human gave them permission. ~ Lumenos 21:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but I believe that'd been going on for some time (and some deletions still get reverted). As I understand it, the LJ is basically a reactionary court system that doesn't actually do anything but resolve disputes when asked. The actual disputes happen after people make new decisions, so I wouldn't call it leadership...though it's a bit of a nit-picky topic at any rate. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 21:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Like a mutually agreed arbiter? Their/Human's last pronouncement was not requested by all who were effected, as far as I could see. It doesn't seem to have resolved any dispute either. It lead to a dispute between Gerard/Ace and Nx/Human. ~ Lumenos 15:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey, Lumbles, why do you keep equating me with the LJ? I'm like fourth on the list. ħumanUser talk:Human 10:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I was in fact, distinguishing your words from the other Lumbly Jesuits, because you made the pronouncement of what y'all decided, ignoring comments by Ace. When I pointed this out Human deleted my comment. Now it appears all this about only "vile" comments should be deleted, is big joek. ~ Lumenos talkpage 20:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
That wasn't a talk page, it was the page the LJ were discussing the issue on, and reporting their decision. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
What was supposed to appear there was a report of their decision, not yours. ~ Lumenos (talk) 21:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
The decision is the post above the voting by Susan which we approved by a majority. Anyone can read exactly what she wrote. ħumanUser talk:Human 21:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh the voting is on the talk page. Man that thing is a mess. Ace's vote contradicts eir comments, as well as eir behaviour, but I see your evidence now. Thanks. ~ Lumenos (talk) 21:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Unilateral deletion of debate page[edit]

Ace has unilaterally deleted a debate page without discussion or deference to other's points of view. This should not be tolerated. Lunacy (talk) 21:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Two tumbleweeds rolling across the screen, from left to right.


Ace is incapable of understanding what he's doing wrong here, so try not to fault him too much. You can't expect everyone to be rational. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Ace is right on the money with this one. 86.40.ei.π (talk) 21:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
There is no case for deletion. He couldn't have been further from the mark. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Marcus's mistake here was not waiting until Human woke up. 86.40.ei.π (talk) 21:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Now that we can agree on. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Accusation of abuse does not even have difflink. Or waiting until I went to sleep. Hard to tell the difference. ħumanUser talk:Human 10:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Human - I think this discussion was reserved for socks.--BobSpring is sprung! 20:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
It must have been this poll on whether to unbin MarcusCicero. I will move it to my userspace if it pleases the court. ~ Lumenos (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


Ok, already dealt with but... Compromised? Ex-Troll CheerleaderI'm a teenage girl; get ALLstate to protect yourself from Mayhem like me 02:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

It does say so.... --Sir Onion Kneel before my vegetable might! 02:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


It called Rationalwiki a "mere wiki", thus insulting all its members. It is obviously a troll. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 10:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Permaban followed by a lynching? Been a while since we last had a proper lynching. Concernedresident omg!!! ponies!!! 22:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


For vandal binning me. I'm totally fine with people reminding me if I'm going too over-the-top, however, I do hope I will be de-binned now, or whatever word you use for that. Someone should make # 57 a sysop again, also. Otherwise I must prefer # 58 and # 59, that's just unfair. --Idiot number 57 (talk) 18:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Make an Idiot number 60 and I will make them a crate so you can fix any of that. tmtoulouse 18:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Evil... you know such username already exists. Does it help if I capitalize "n"? --Idiot number 57 (talk) 18:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Will I be a crat now? --Idiot number 6O (talk) 18:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)