RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive13

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

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>

, (back)

UncleHo.[edit]

Uncle Ho is a troll and needs to be dealt with as such by the community: I accuse him of trolling in the following instances:

Calling Thunderkatz a white supremacist. Calling an entire nation, essentially worse than Himmler. Calling Ace a Nazi. Insulting Thunderkatz again, with special attention to his national background. Implyng that LX is a racist. Make that a "massive racist." Make that a KKK supporter. Or a "racist and a fascist.'.

This is not cool behaviour, and it needs to be addressed. Thanks for your time. P-Foster (talk) 18:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

This is IMHO far worse than your average lame trolling. Death threats are definitely not cool. I'd support a permaban, but that'd probably generate a massive HCM. -- Nx / talk 18:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Yeah, I missed that. Support permaban for death threats. P-Foster (talk) 18:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Long term block - a few weeks or months maybe, with ability to edit own user page. Wėąṣėḷőįď

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with at least a long-term block. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 18:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree to a long-term block. Unacceptable behaviour. SJ ^Debaser 19:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't know the history, but definitely fails the "don't be a dick" test Worm^{(t | c)} 19:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly not needed and it shouldn't even look like we endorse or encourage that behaviour.

^pathetic 19:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I reckon 3 months. Ace McAwesome 20:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd say 3 months minimum as a general rule for that kinda crap, not just this case. --Kels (talk) 20:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

3 months min. And desysopping(if he is still sysop, I haven't checked recently) Тиранес^complaints 20:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Permaban for death threat unless he publicly apologizes. Promotion and at least a month for the general dickish behavior regardless. Thunderkatz^Ho! 20:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC) PS For the record, I'm a Jewish American, not a Nazi Brit.

Thunderkatz's idea seems pretty good. An apology, a small block and a general probation. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 20:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that LX is a racist and a fascist. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

There's no rule here against being a dick. And I threaten to kill Ace all the time with less indication it's a joke.

User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 21:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

^{[citation needed]} –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I am going to kill Nutty Roux. Ace McAwesome 21:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ UncleHo has made not one, but two "death"ish threats against LX. And Nutty Roux's relationship with Ace is nothing like UncleHo's and LX's. Three months should be the minimum block time for "that kinda crap." Blue (pester) 21:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

For the record, Nutty and I have never been in a relationship. Not that it doesn't stop him emailing pictures of his microscopic penis. Ace McAwesome 21:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

If it's any consolation, I'm going to kill P-Foster. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

This is why we can't have nice things. P-Foster (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Consensus?[edit]

Sensing that this is about to disperse in the usual RW manner, I would suggest that we have a consensus here. Looks like a 3-month ban is in order to me. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Let it go to HCM. Been a while since we've had one. They can be very amusing. SJ ^Debaser 22:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree w/ Suspected, plus a promotion. P-Foster (talk) 22:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

It's already on RWW, but "In a horrendous turn of events, people agreed with each other" doesn't really merit much of an HCM. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Someone might unilaterally pardon him later, but for now, only two people seem to disagree at all. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 22:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I have administered justice. Ace McAwesome 22:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

We're saving that for after Human's wikibreak is over. --Kels (talk) 22:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, MC is apparently a sysop again. Maybe he'll come back first and start a three-way. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 22:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

It isn't good form to pass sentence without the defendant having any opportunity to defend. UncleHo was on a one-day cool-down ban while this was posted here, & hasn't had a chance to respond. I think it's unfair to issue a long-term block without giving him an opportunity to comment, especially as some users' comments here have suggested an apology might change the situation, at least somewhat. I've amended the block to expire in a few hours, so that UH has a chance to comment if he wishes to before further action. Wéáśéĺóíď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Weasel. - π 23:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

BUT IF WE BLOCK HIM WE'LL BE LIKE CONSERVAPEDIA!!!!!!!111111

^pathetic 23:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I, too, agree with Weasel. Let's let UncleHo have an opportunity to defend themselves BEFORE passing a judgment. Hell, even Wikipedia let's people accused of trolling defend themselves first. Though that doesn't mean we cannot vandal brake them while we await their retort. Gooniepunk2010 ^{Oi! Oi! Oi!} 02:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd assumed he would respond on his talk page, but since he isn't actively vandalizing anything, either way is probably fine. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 02:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Fair is fair. Тиранес^complaints 02:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we may be over-interpreting the "death threats". Does anybody here seriously think that they express an actual intention to seek out and kill LX? They are in pretty bad taste but I'd be more inclined to regard them as drunken bravado. Does LX feel threatened by them?--Bob ^{Spring is sprung!} 07:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Given that he professes to be an ex-Marine, I do feel a little threatened; Marines are known for being very capable in the killing way, and not known for joking about such matters. If UncleHo is not serious, let him state unequivocally on his talk-page that he is not.

ListenerX^TalkerX 07:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The death threat may or may not have been drunken bravado but it’s still understandable that the person threatened feels uneasy. Proxima Centauri (talk) 09:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Given Lx's comments I certainly agree that he should confirm there is no serious intent.--Bob ^{Spring is sprung!} 11:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it should depend on whether a person feels threatened. I assume we can all see what LX can see, to judge that. Secondly, does "blocking" a username make them safer? If it does it is only because it makes the blocked person feel they are wrong. If we believe they are wrong we should say so and explain our reasons. ~ Lumenos (talk) 16:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Does blocking a username make them safer? No. If a serious death threat or similar is made onsite, it should be reported to civil authorities as per our legal FAQ. I don't think we need go down that road on this one as it looked more like macho dickhead posturing than real intentions. The point of blocking is that we won't tolerate physical threats being thrown around. Щєазєюіδ

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

How are we ever gonna know if someone is serious? If he says it twice? Three times? I'm saying if we really wanted to punish him we could give him a rope to hang himself. A "block" is more like a padded cell with an unlocked door. And I don't think we should break off communication because if someone is potentially serious they could be doing a lot worse things than editing a wiki. For the same reason, if LX is one of those "love your race" queers (I can say that because I'm queer), I think the best thing they could be doing is trying to spread their propaganda someplace where they can read feedback from those who disagree. ~ Lumenos (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, I facepalm (I do that a lot around here) over the oh-so-fair give him a chance stuff. This isn't a court of law, this is a website. TK aside, we're not talking about abridging his human rights here, we're talking about a non-permanent block for something we've already established. What's the big deal? --Kels (talk) 01:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

That's kinda the thing. It is basically a show of disapproval. Instead of "censoring" someone (which we have no authority to do so long as open proxies and rangeblocks are not an option) why don't we just express exactly what we disagree with?

I don't know that UH is a serious character. They seem to be playing the role of the military person who has difficulty transitioning back to civilian life. Assuming they are serious, blocking them may be more for their own good. Keep them from incriminating themselves or further embarrassing themselves (to the point that they will do destructive things to themselves using drugs, automobiles, saying more stupid things, etc). ~ Lumenos (talk) 16:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

"why don't we just express exactly what we disagree with." ummmm, we did. At the very outset of this thing. Trolling. False accusations of racism. Bigoted comments about people and countries. Death threats. P-Foster (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

You're right, I just think that we could maybe vote on the various counts just to show UH how well the debate is going in terms of public opinion, in case he doesn't know already. (For example, I'm not sure there is consensus on whether the accusations of "racism" are false. "Racism" by some definitions, is completely normal/typical.) It is his choice whether or not he will stop editing. I don't think we should simply tell him to STFU, but instead ask him what is he trying to do. I know it has been done already, to some extent, and I haven't read it all. It seemed like I was the first to bother to ask if he is done killing fairly innocent civilians (even if they aren't as "smart" as him). ~ Lumenos (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

What, you want to be the guy's therapist now? Look, he came here, he did some stupid shit, the community came to a consensus about how to deal with it, end of story, AFAIK. P-Foster (talk) 23:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Well we run more of a matchmaking service if the little twitwits would only PARTICIPATE DAMNIT!!! Just kidding. ~ Lumenos (talk) 00:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Lumenos, you are an idiot. Shut the fuck up. -- Nx / talk 07:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

What teez it Man? I didn't know they were going to promote him. Do you think he will kill me?!?!?!? ~ Lumenos (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Lummy posted the most intelligent comments here. That makes you, Nx, an ignorant hater. Hmmmm, see next section... ħuman

04:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Human. Just what we need for a good old-fashioned HCM. -- Nx / talk 04:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey Human, LTNS. My statement was an inside joek however. I think if UncleHo isn't joking and doesn't have a girlfriend, that this is sexual frustration we are dealing with. I was defending accusations of being a wannabe fairypist when I think only a local female (massage artist) could cure for this disease. ~ Lumenos (talk) 22:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed additional penalty[edit]

I would also like to propose (if this wasn't obvious enough) that UncleHo be ineligible to be sysopped again. Death threats, no matter how serious or how unserious, are absolutely conduct unbecoming a sysop. We've de-sysopped others permanently for doing far less. Lord of the Goons ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 00:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Second. How would we take note of it, though? Keep a list, put an angry template on his talk page...? Blue (is useful) 00:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I think a simple "DO NOT RE-SYSOP per community consensus" in his user rights log would suffice. The Goonie 1 ^{What's this button do? Uh oh....} 00:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

But don't you call that a promotion? If you really wanted to punish em, you'd put this on eir castle:

~ Lumenos (talk) 18:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

For how long has it been unobvious to my darling lovers here that our dear Uncle is sockpuppet of a regular user? ħuman 11:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, his whole shtick of getting drunk and spewing abuse late at night does seem a bit familiar...

ListenerX^TalkerX 02:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Nx (again)[edit]

Nx has decided it is his role to censor old content on this wiki. When a user makes deletions such as this with the comment "there goes a good chunk of history", it's clear that he no longer cares about the integrity of the site. The comments in question concerned information about Terry Koeckritz that at least two site members considered non-controversial.

For such massive overreach in his use of teh powah, I hereby bring Nx to the coop. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 03:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

What NX did was 100% consistent with our policy of avoiding revelation of private info. He has no place in the coup for this. I vote immediate acquittal.

User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 03:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you -- Nx / talk 03:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

(EC) That's what happens when you fail to remove a link that's a serious violation of RW's privacy policy in time. Wiki talk pages suck like that. -- Nx / talk 03:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Deleting 234 revisions when they've been around for over a year is acceptable? What wiki do you think we're on here? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 03:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The link should've been deleted immediately. Unfortunately, this is RationalWiki, where people don't really care about trivial stuff such as gross violations of a person's privacy. Hey, it's TK, so anything goes, right? -- Nx / talk 03:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not a gross violation of a person's privacy to post something that comes up on a fucking Google search. Get over yourself. This is massive overreach, and should not be allowed. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 03:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't agree? Bring it up on RationalWiki talk:Community Standards. -- Nx / talk 03:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

What's being brought up is your unilateral deletion of over 200 revisions of one of this site's central pages. To remove an innocuous statement that had been on the site for over a year. And you did it with no discussion. That is an abuse of power. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 03:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not. I did not remove the statement, only the link. And as a bureaucrat, I have the authority to do that. -- Nx / talk 04:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

(EC)I agree with SR. WTF indeed??? Let sleeping dogs lie and police recent changes if you have to be the revision delete cop. I can't even figure out what the hell was deleted, and I have the tools, I guess, how would anyone else ever find it deep in the archives of the SB? Nx you are an... (added since EC: asshole - crats don't have "authority", get over yourself), oh, never mind. Target practice removing self in 3.. 2.. 1.. ħuman

04:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I forgot, this is RW. Crats are just the cool guys who get more toys to fuck around with. -- Nx / talk 04:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm so sorry, Nx. I should have realised this was your defense. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 04:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

If it was pertaining to TK's real life it should not have been posted, and I'd say Nx was right in deleting it. I can appreciate how it may be construed as controversial given the post was over a year old, but it's still on the wiki and archived information is still there. As for it not being "a gross violation of a person's privacy to post something that comes up on a fucking Google search", Community Standards section 4.1 is quite clear about this site's position on that. SJ ^Debaser 16:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't see what was hidden, but shouldn't a group of crats check and see if he was correct in doing it? The issue is not the number of revisions hidden, but whether the comment was a sufficient violation of the privacy policy. - π 23:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Why on Earth would we allow this Wiki to stoop to a stalker-esque level and reveal personal information. I agree with Nutty: immediate case dismissal. Lord of the Goons ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 01:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Goonie agreeing with Nutty. Let's back to writing self-serving and tedious poetry. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 11:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

What Ace reckons[edit]

Everyone last one of the hysterical banshees that permeate this website could use the treatment I just gave myself - 90mgs of codeine and 8 beers. Only then can you look upon this with the right kind of eye. You buch of fucking zeros. Ace McAwesome 02:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Why am I always in the position of saying "I agree with Ace"? --Kels (talk) 02:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Because Ace is fucking awesome. Gooniepunk2010 ^{Oi! Oi! Oi!} 02:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but I don't do nearly enough drugs. --Kels (talk) 02:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Because Ace is fucking right. Nx acts without thinking, Psy nearly broke the 4th wall and P-Foster was just being P-Foster. All these things happen all the time so why are we acting like this is something new that we need panic about? You people are weird. Next you'll be shocked and appauled because ListenerX posted a bad WIGO and Human abused a new editor. Ace McAwesome 02:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

You could say pretty much the same sort of thing about anything on this page. When it comes to keeping some sort of order around here, or actually following through on wiki policies, it seems like stupid pills are on permanent sale. --Kels (talk) 02:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey, if people want pills all they need to do is email me. Man, I have pills for everything - stupidity, excitement, delusion, relaxation, aggression. Ace McAwesome 02:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I take it back, you are not nerd material. I'm moving you to UncleHo's category most-likely-to-OD-and/or-be-wook'n-fo'-da-Man. ~ Lumenos (talk) 15:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Poor Nx[edit]

I've always felt kinda sorry for Nx. He means well, but he has a sloppy attitude. He's like that bureaucrat who goes out of his way to help out the person on the other side of the glass, only for it to result in that person calling him an ungrateful bastard, a thief, a timewaster, and an incompetant fool. I declare that Nx, our beloved bungling bureaucrat, be given a final pardon and that troublemaking nonsense by goody goody members like Suspected Replicant (A subversive troll if ever I've saw one) be rightly and justly ignored by the membership of this fine community. MarcusCicero (talk) 00:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I am going to insert an oily Nx into your urethra. Ace ^{of Spades} 00:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Sprocket J Cogswell[edit]

"Oh noes! You have been blocked. (Or, you forgot to log in/got timed out again!) You were blocked by Sprocket J Cogswell. The reason given for your block is Entertain me little man! Dance! DANCE FOR ME! Mwuahahahahahahaha!. We don't care apologize for any inconvenience caused. If you believe the block was too long or unjustified, then please try contacting Sprocket J Cogswell or another administrator. You cannot use the "email this user" feature unless a valid email address is specified in your account preferences. Your current IP address is 216.66.45.254, and the block ID is #27424."

So, I brought up in his talk page and in the talk page of Libertarianism that the article content is incorrect and stretching the truth way too far just to make a joke, which really isnt a joke, it's just wrong information. I have been repeatedly banned by him. He said what I said was noted, but has failed to, in any way, provide a rebuttal to everything I said concerning the article. I will continue to revert the ignorant and incorrect information to correct information. Thanks! --146.82.18.96 (talk) 05:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Time for me to hit the hay. I'll check in again sometime subsequently. BoN, edit warring is a poor choice of strategy in a place where just about everyone is a sysop. Sorry you seem to be having a rough entry, but persuasion and consensus will get you a lot further than brute force or attempts to toss your cyber-weight around. G'night... Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 06:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

BoN, as long as you keep edit warring, you're going to be reverted & can expect to be blocked. Probably not for more than a few minutes or hours, but you won't persuade anyone to take your point seriously by going about it this way. You put a criticism on the Libertarianism talkpage & others have disagreed with it. Try engaging in constructive dialogue with them on that talk page instead of just being a prick. ωεαşεζøίɗ

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, here is a copypaste from the talk page. A very interestng dialogue to say the least.

"Ok.... My edit shows that is what THEY believe, it does not assert that it is true or not. And you obviously agree with me, so what's the problem. Secondly, how are self-evident axioms not "subject to the whims of the real world?" They are empirically observable and logically provable. And which top minds admit that it is not based in reality? Are you being serious or just taking the piss? I am reverting until we can get a real adult dialogue going here, I tore this down way too easily, sorry --146.82.18.91 (talk) 07:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I am going to insert an oily coca-cola bottle into your rectum. Ace of Spades 07:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

BON, please address Ace's proposition before editing this article further. Ace has made an excellent and accommodative proposal, and I think you ought to consider it wise to accept. It won't hurt too much, and you will learn much about the nature of Libertarianism from the perspective of the working classes from the experience. DogP (talk) 15:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)"

I have not seen any reason at all to believe the absurd and wrong POV that I reverted should stay on the page. Nobody seems willing to give up their fingers-in-ears "IM NOT LISTENING!" style of debating and try to be rational. Is there any real and serious reason my my changes are unwarranted? --173.66.178.181 (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

BoN, do you realize that when you edit mainspace you fuel the cawmyanist dicktaterShip of Trent and friends? You don't expect me to read this propaganda, do you? I welcome you to lumenoti. You are free to create a "libertarianism" article at lumenikilu (using these instructions) and you could link to that from lumeniki's ~~RationalWiki~~ EmphaticWiki artTickle. There is one little catch. You are supposed to sign any controversial commentaries in lumenikilu articles. They are like talkpage/article combos that some folks seem to find highly confusing. I think it makes them moar fun and definitely more reliable. Unicow (talk) 18:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Lumenos, smarten up and take a hike.

Let's be rational, I think Talk:Libertarianism is a better place to continue this. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a perfect place to continue it, thanks, as there is rampant sysop abuse that violates the rules and principles of this wiki to push an (almost caricatures as per Poe's Law) American liberal POV. Responding with "HURF DURF IMA LOLBERTARIAN" doesn't make the original page any less irrational and incorrect or your abuse of powers any less of an abuse. Seriously, look at what am dealing with on the talk page as well. --173.66.178.181 (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me that the fruits of laissez-faire capitalism are well represented by the metaphor of an oily Coca-Cola ("You'll answer to the Coca-Cola company!") bottle. Or that could have just as easily been the psychotropic meds talking; I don't know Ace that well. As far as my abuse of power goes, you have come here, gotten it off your stalwart chest, and seen that the mob doesn't really give a flying fuck. I have faith in your recuperative power; you'll get over it. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

BoN, you seem to be operating under the assumption that this site uses WP rules. It doesn't We're allowed to make fun of people. In fact, we're required to make fun of people. Likewise, short term blocks are a running joke on this site. Honestly, if you're going to accuse people of breaking the rules, it might be a good idea to familiarize yourself with those same rules. 江斯顿 ^{What is it now?} 21:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It is a joke when you are a sysop and you can unblock yourself. A joke that fills up the block log so it is difficult to see who is really being blocked. You can always edit through Tor but they may give you multiple captchas. Phoney (talk) 07:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Ruling[edit]

Sprocket J Cogswell did violate a long-held tradition on this Wiki of not blocking users (including BoNs) who are engaging in an edit war with otherwise constructive edits. Thus, this ruling should be considered a reprimand of such actions by any users engaging in them. However, the bulk of this complaint revolves around content in the libertarianism article. 173.66.178.181 should have taken their content concerns to the talkpage of that article and discussed it rather than engaging in an edit war. Looking at the contributions that they wanted to add, it seems to me like we absolutely could've integrated it into the article and kept the original content. Therefore, any more concerns that 173.66.178.181 has about content within that article should be discussed and hashed out on the talkpage. If that talkpage needs some 3rd party input while the discussions ensue, I'll gladly volunteer as that 3rd party to help hash things out. Lord Goonie ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 23:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

[Ground rules on divers wikis][edit]

It takes more than one to edit war. Is there like a three revert rule here? Phoney (talk) 07:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

In short: no. However, unlike Wikipedia, you can talk about whatever you want on the talkpage; it doesn't just have to be about improving the argticle or whatever. You are more than welcome to debate our views on libertarianism, why you're right and we're wrong about libertarianism, or whatever else you feel is relevant to the debate and, thus, edit war going on. Thus why Wikipedia relies on intervention from administrators and why we say "go to the talkpage," because here, the talkpage is for adding and saying whatever you want about the topic on hand, and not just a place to discuss the article itself. Lord Goonie ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 15:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

You can debate the subject on a WP talkpage whilst discussing the content of the article or editing the article, but you may have to find sources who support your views, and you may get reverted if they are un"scientific" (think social science), "extremist", or something. At WP one is just more likely to be ignored in my experience. The BoN might do better to tag the article up with ^{[citation needed]}s if they can't come up with sources here. Phoney (talk) 00:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

In actual fact, "debat[ing] the subject on a WP talkpage" is frowned upon. Wikipedia talk pages are supposed to be for discussions of how to best present reliably sourced material, or "improving the article." For example, wp:Talk:Evolution carries a banner with a stop sign (and a friendly hand to talk to) and the words "WARNING: This is not the place to discuss any alleged controversy or opinion about evolution and its related subjects. This page is for discussing improvements to the article..."

For an entertaining spectacle of some editors skating around near that line of sweet reason, see wp:Talk:Evolutionary psychology. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 03:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

On the topic of evolution, I think it makes for a more interesting debate when the rules require one to cite sources and not embellish them. If you can't do that you can't debate. On the other hand if the subject is philosophy, the sources are often no more authoritative than the editors. The WP philosophy community indulges more of the speculation and original research, since that is what philosophy is based on. Phoney (talk) 08:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Some sources are more reliable than others, and some editors more liable than others to misinterpret or misrepresent their sources, providing fuel for lengthy tiresome talk-page screeds. Regarding philosophy, speculation typically leads to bullshit, and has done since Plato packaged some sayings of Socrates. I find more useful matters resulting from empirically based reasoned approaches. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Now you've got it! It's all that interpretation where the people try to make meaning out of facts. Unicow (talk) 07:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

And how's that going for you? I distinguish between sorts of "meaning" depending on their origin and acceptance. There are naturally arising meanings which cross cultural and linguistic boundaries, and there are artificial meanings with various motivations, which may or may not take root here or there. Guess which camp I see you sitting in? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I would first have to guess what you were trying to say there. Is this the speculation or the reasoned approach? I always get those confused. Unicow (talk) 06:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Simple example of a naturally arising "meaning" that crosses linguistic and cultural boundaries is the gesture of "choosing as weighing," with both palms up, sometimes moving like the pans of a balance. An example of an artificial meaning is something made up in school one day. Kids think it's cool if something like that catches on, but such memes tend to be ephemeral, vanishing quickly. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

and here is why I'd do it again in a heartbeat[edit]

BoN's edits were not all that constructive, and were definitely boring, even before I showed up. See Talk:Libertarianism for a sample of their stunted discussion skills.
Soon as I joined the dogpile, their edit summary showed early signs of being a dick about their own typo.
They had no trouble evading day-long blocks, coming in from half a dozen different IP's:
Enough of that, and I reached for the "DANCE FOR ME, LITTLE MAN!" banhammer.

Truly your humble obedient servant, the unrepentant Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 01:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I am going to insert an oily repentance into your rectum. Ace ^{of Spades} 01:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Oooo, Mister Ace, you saucy thing, you, do I get a reach around seventeen time zones as well? Or is it just seven? Well. snif if that's all I mean to you... Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 01:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I would like to declare my support for the Sprockety Chap's actions. DogP (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Somebody turn the hose on these fagots. I've read some of the work of the bon bons and found it unenlightening. This is a wiki about things we can understand. Keep it stupid simple. Phoney (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I Lolled. Three or six times. Best thread evah! ħuman

11:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Are we growing on you Huw? Gimme kisses! Unicow (talk) 07:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Tyrannis[edit]

I was blocked by Tyrannis, he said "to intimidate and harass". I don't know if it was accidentally; Tyrannis explain! Colbert|Fan^{Some people do stuff} 22:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I hand out random blocks when I am bored. Go to block user and clcik on block reasons and scroll through. You will find: "to intimidate and harass" as well as such lovelies as "keelhauled for being unpirate". Тy^Talk. 22:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

(EC) That was a 31 seconds' joke block, which are all too common around here.

ListenerX^TalkerX 22:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, given his name it's a bit of truth in advertising, yes? --Kels (talk) 22:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Return the favour? MtD (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

11 days, 5 hours, and 23 minutes from cratting to coop. We here at Evil co. like truth in advertising. Тy^Talk. 22:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining, I might do it myself, (evil laugh).^{— Unsigned, by: ColbertFan / talk / contribs}

Block away - block wars break out all the time around here. DogP (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Leotardo[edit]

Leotardo seems determined to violate the policies surrounding family members. Not content with wanting to bring Karajou's son into argument, despite the boy's total lack of involvement in CP, he's now intent on laughing at my sister, who has absolutely no connection with either CP or RW. I mentioned my sister's anorexia in a previous discussion but that doesn't justify Leotardo's mocking comment in this debate. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

This is pretty much a bunch of lies. The thread was about Karajou's son, I wasn't bringing him into the discussion, and I made the point that Karajou "reaps what he sows". DickTurpis asked what we were fighting about, and I reference an earlier thread where SR blamed me for his sister's weight problems[1][2]. It wasn't I who brought relatives into the discussion, it was SuspectedReplicant. --Leotardo (talk) 15:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Can I just say that the original conversation between you two which started this makes no sense? It's like you were both talking to different people, but the conversations were spliced and your halves were put together. I think you'll have a lot more success with each other if you actually read what the other writes and respond (nicely) to that rather than making a shitload of assumptions and responding to those. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 15:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this is something between two editors. Might I suggest they take it to private email.--Bob ^{Spring is sprung!} 15:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to add that, as someone with almost zero interest in CONservapedia, I think EddyP is absolutely correct. You guys read bit and pieces of what the other guy said, made assumptions about what the other was intending to say, and then blew the whole thing out of proportion. Take a deep breath, relax, and then read each other's actual comments. Gooniepunk2010 ^{Oi! Oi! Oi!} 15:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I think a less formal environment would help. Crack a beer and sit down at the Saloon bar. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Lord Goonie ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 15:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

From my perspective, SR takes statements like this and turns them into charges that I actively ridicule fat people and caused his sister's weight problems. I've struggled with my own weight! I even brought up that I lost almost 30 pounds since Christmas. I don't see how I am misunderstanding what SR says back to me, so I'd appreciate it if someone can explain how I'm not understanding his points. --Leotardo (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, SR never said his sister was fat, you just assumed it from the comment about anorexia; I believe that the vast majority of girls afflicted by anorexia are of normal (or less) weight. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 16:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

He made an inference. There is not much room for interpretation when someone writes "bastards like you pointing out how fat they are is far, far worse than any actual physical problems. My sister was driven into anorexia by this "thin is everything" attitude, and went through years of health problems because of it." He is directly saying pointing out people as fat is what made his sister anorexic - if she was of normal weight, I have no idea why anyone would point at her and say she is fat, but it's possible. Regardless, I'm not one of those people who would do that, but the way he wrote that sentence, it's hard to deduce otherwise. --Leotardo (talk) 16:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it's because I'm a language student (of a language that has a topic marker) but you're reading too much into it. The 'they' refers to fat people in general. SR sister become's the topic in the second sentence, where he specifically identifies the problem as being a 'thin is everything' attitude - it's not a case of "you're fat" but a case of "you're not thin enough". He never says she's fat at all. She could even be thin; anorexia could hardly be described as rational. In your defense, I agree that SR was seeing attacks where there were none. See my first post, where I said you both made loads of assumptions. But anyway, since SR has apologized, I suggest that you do the same so we can put this firmly to bed. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 16:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Point taken that the two sentences were meant to stand alone, although their juxtaposition seemed pretty clear to me, it wasn't the case. Over the last week SR has gone ape shit over the weight issue and has been vile in his attacks on me. For most of this thread I remained calm in the face of the most rotten words ever directed at me on this website, and that he repeated today. I found them doubly offensive because I had my own weight problems, but I stopped caring about what other people think--and blaming them--and realized I need to be happy with myself and define for myself what I think looks good. I went through ridicule by my exercise freak father back when I was teen and overweight, and from school mates. I happen to be trim now, but I learned to be happy with how I looked when I wasn't. When "Fat Atheist" topics come up, he should just stay the fuck out of them because while I may have missed the juxtaposition of sentence issue, he is wantonly twisting my words beyond recognition. --Leotardo (talk) 16:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Someone still needs to learn the difference between an inference and an implication. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 16:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

You've already shown yourself to be a fucking idiot, so shove your inferences up your ass, bitch. --Leotardo (talk) 16:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

At least I can speak English. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 16:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

No, you can't you big dummy. Inference "is the process of drawing a conclusion by applying clues (of logic, statistics etc.) to observations or hypotheses; or by interpolating the next logical step in an intuited pattern." Inference is "The act or process of inferring by deduction or induction; That which is inferred; a truth or proposition drawn from another which is admitted or supposed to be true; a conclusion; a deduction"; Inference is "a deduction or conclusion derived from specific information." Inference is "A determination arrived at by reasoning; using facts to arrive at a broader conclusion." I can supply more, but just learn the fucking language, idiot. --Leotardo (talk) 16:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and since it was YOU who drew the conclusion, it was YOU making the inference. English. Learn it. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 16:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Personal responsibility and self-control, you and anyone else who don't have those should learn them. --Leotardo (talk) 16:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Can we at least get that shit mocking my sister off the page, please? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

It isn't mocking her, it's pointing out why we are arguing over this, and what I stated is a fact. You blamed me "and people like me" for your sister's weight problems. --Leotardo (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Since EddyP has removed the comment, and in the interests of a quiet site, I withdraw my coop motion and I also apologise to Leotardo for the offense I caused with my remarks in the heat of the moment. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 16:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I already love Greek yoghurt, so it would never have occurred to me that you could make it better until I took a bite of my delicious yoghurt with a spoon covered in strawberry jam! Strawberry yoghurt! User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 17:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Blue (is useful) 18:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Radioactive Afikomen[edit]

RA for some reason believes people are still interested in his years old dispute with Human and for some reason feels he can use a sub-page to attack another user (see his little tears here). Am I the only one who feels this is A) Not on and B) Something that RA could please leave alone and get over? Ace ^{of Spades} 21:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we can "censure" him but I don't believe this calls for any action. Blue (pester) 21:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the page should be deleted. He deliberately insults and attacks another user. I have brought it here because it's a user page so I am not going to unilaterally delete someones page. Ace ^{of Spades} 21:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

We all insult each other now and then on the talk-pages but this page is specifically designed as an attack page. Ace ^{of Spades} 21:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd say just let RA piss his knickers in the corner and feel sorry for himself as much as he wants. If we all ignore him (HA!) we might get lucky and hopefully he'll stop crying like a little girl, posting old stuff for attention whoring purposes and ~~fuck off~~ be a useful editor. SJ ^Debaser 21:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you've done exactly what he (RA) wants, Ace. Made a mountain out of his little trolling molehill. --Scream!! (talk) 21:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

In that case, why stop now? Ace ^{of Spades} 21:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

He's just looking for attention, & it's best ignored. Who reads user subpages anyway? Once it's vanished from recent changes, it'll probably never be looked at again. Weaseloid

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Or I could just vanish it. Which I have done. Ace ^{of Spades} 21:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I must say that I agree with deletion. People's freedom of userspace use must be balanced against the affect on the rest of the wiki. Setting a precedent where we can just leave a nice little page up about why we hate X is not a positive one.

^EXTERMINATE 21:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I hate you, but what are you gonna do about it? P-Foster (talk) 22:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I am going to insert an oily Pork Sausage into your ear. Ace ^{of Spades} 22:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't knock it, Ace. There are men who go to Thailand and pay good money for that sort of thing. You know, in case the whole PoliSci thing doesn't work out for you. P-Foster (talk) 22:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I am going to Thailand next week. Will let you know how I get on. Ace ^{of Spades} 22:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

I've restored it for now because deleting it before the discussion is over is a dick move. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Excellent quote! --Scream!! (talk) 22:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Willam Shaxberd has his uses. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with what Dalek says. Ace ^{of Spades} 22:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Less about RA and more to do with the page[edit]

As Dalek say, I don't think it appropriate for a user to create a sub-page, even though its their own user-space, specifically to attack another user. I am open to hear an argument as to why this is acceptable. Ace ^{of Spades} 22:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Freedom of speech, essentially. I don't think that creating such a page is a wise move, but I don't think (in this case anyway) it really crossed a line either. People are bound to have opinions about the site & the community, & sometimes those opinions will have a lot to do with specific editors. If the attack page contained actual libel about another user, or posted personal info about someone, this would be another matter & definitely grounds for deletion. Wėąṣėḷőįď

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a slippery slope. I could theoretically create User:Ace McWicked/RA is a whiny little cunt then I guess? Ace ^{of Spades} 23:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't mind if you did.

Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

But I wouldn't for the reasons above. You little fucking wet-bag. Ace ^{of Spades} 23:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not think the page should be forcibly deleted, although I wish Radioactive afikomen would delete it of his own accord.

ListenerX^TalkerX 01:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with LX. It's a dick page but also a dick thing to delete it.

Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 02:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Well I shan't do so again. Ace ^{of Spades} 02:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll try not to harbour any resentment but I ain't promising.

Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 05:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Resentment I can handle. Ace ^{of Spades} 06:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

We have nothing which says RA can't do it - and typically we usually follow the principle of "if it's not prohibited then it's allowed". We do do however have a rule against editing users' userpages.--Bob ^{Spring is sprung!} 05:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Barbra Brown[edit]

Um, isn't User:Barbra Brown in violation of the impersonation policy? Ex-Troll Cheerleader^{I'm a teenage girl; get ALLstate to protect yourself from Mayhem like me} 17:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess. Тy^Talk. 17:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

We have an impersonation policy? What does it say?--Bob ^{Spring is sprung!} 17:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

More like Goonie's policy on people like B0b M. Тy^Talk. 17:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I would also like to read the policy.--Hillary Rodham Clinton (talk) 17:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

It is more of an unwritten Goonie policy, and it is usually applied to people trying to impersonate users here. Тy^Talk. 17:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I rather think that holding users to unwritten policies is, well, a bad policy. In any case how does Barbra Brown fit into this ~~non existent~~ unwritten policy?--Bob ^{Spring is sprung!} 18:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Until they start posting stuff under Ms Brown's name that's problematic, not at all, I suppose. But if someone were to, say pretend to be a major executive at a large corporation and do something stupid on the wiki (I dunno? Demand that all left-handed Anabaptists be summarily shot, or something) we probably wouldn't look too cool. P-Foster (talk) 18:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Having thought about it, my previous comment is total nonsense and I think everybody should disregard it. NOT THE REAL P-Foster (talk) 18:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

This is all fucking bollocks and you're all fucking cunting assholes for thinking about it. Fuck off. Suspectedʀeplicant (talk) 18:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow. It's like looking in a mirror! –SuspectedReplicant retire me 18:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Ramble, add template, category, wikilinks, comment, block Blue, block Goonie. Ty^Yarr

Yeah, I've only ever seen the "rule" invoked when it involved people from RW of CP being impersonated. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 19:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Not true -- we've had high school trolls who sign up with usernames (presumably) about kids they're hassling/bullying/stalking. THE REAL P-Foster (talk) 19:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I should have remembered that. I'll disregard your earlier comment if you promise to do the same for mine. No-one need know about this, right? Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 19:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Nutty Roux[edit]

Confessing to being DMorris, and making senseless accusations that Goonie and I are one in the same, and that we are DMorris on Conservapedia. In other words, just being wierd. Maybe he needs a beer? Ex-Troll Cheerleader^{I'm a teenage girl; get ALLstate to protect yourself from Mayhem like me} 01:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

On second thought[edit]

You know what I am DMorris and you should block me immediately at Wikipedia and Conservapedia. I don't deserve to be a Wikipedian or a Conservapedian. Ex-Troll Cheerleader^{I'm a teenage girl; get ALLstate to protect yourself from Mayhem like me} 01:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be without merit and should be dismissed immediately[edit]

No clear abuse has been identified. People may confess to be whoever they want. And making 'senseless accusations' would not generally constitute 'abuse' unless they were pretty nasty. The Chicken Coop is, perhaps, the only thing on RationalWiki which should be overly serious... ^EXTERMINATE 02:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree. And I talk to Goonie nearly every morning. Тy^Talk. 02:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

K, the bit about Nutty confessing to being DMorris was meant to be humourous, but he was being abusive in groundlessly accusing Gooine and I of being DMorris. Almost as bad as Andy accusing anybody that doesn't agree with him of being a liberal, eh? Now frankly, if he wants to accuse DMorris of being me and get DMorris in trouble I'm all for it, but I object to him comparing Goonie to a Nazi. Ex-Troll Cheerleader^{I'm a teenage girl; get ALLstate to protect yourself from Mayhem like me} 03:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Nutty may have been drinking. The blood of this wiki is 80 proof after all. And he and Goonie might just be messing with each other. Тy^Talk. 03:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh. Im an idiot somebody shoot me. Ex-Troll Cheerleader^{I'm a teenage girl; get ALLstate to protect yourself from Mayhem like me} 03:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Bang. It is okay, everyone makes mistakes. Now, if you don't mind, I'm going to finish my brandy and pass out.Тy^Talk. 03:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you opposed to sharing with an underaged girl? Ex-Troll Cheerleader^{I'm a teenage girl; get ALLstate to protect yourself from Mayhem like me} 03:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Have some virtual brandy. Тy^Talk. 03:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)