RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive18

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>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <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>

, (new)(back)

Eira

This discussion was moved to RationalWiki talk:Chicken coop. 22:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

SuspectedReplicant

For repeatedly reverting my removal of an image I find offensive from my talk page / talk page archive—which he didn't even post, and which is completely irrelevant/content-free. See User talk:Maratrean and the revision history of User talk:Maratrean/Archive1. Per community standards:

A user's talk page, like any other talk page on the site, is public and does not belong to the user. However, users are permitted to delete posts containing personal attacks or trolling from their own talk pages, being responsible for any abuse of this permission.

And:

...users should not delete or change another user's comments on a talk or discussion page, with the exceptions of obviously vile comments made for the purposes of trolling, and of a user on his/her own talk-page, as described above.

I put up with a lot of silly crap from other people on my talk page, but I draw the line at linking to images of naked people. The image is trolling — it has no actual relevance to the conversation at all, it is simply an image inserted to cause discomfort or offence, which is a common definition of trolling. And the community standards make clear, that user talk pages are covered by a special regime compared to non-user talk pages.

I originally deleted the post entirely, but since other people reverted my removal of it, I **** out the name of the offending image as a fruitless attempt at compromise. Personally, I would prefer to delete it entirely (which is my right per the community standards), but I am willing to compromise with ****.

SuspectedReplicant should be required to stop reverting my attempts to remove the offending post, which I am allowed to do by Community Standards. He should also stop editing my talk page archive, editing of talk page archives is not permitted. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 22:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The goddess approaches, ALL WILL PERISH!

^{— Unsigned, by: Ace McWicked / talk / contribs}

If you want to troll the coop, fine, but not my talk page. The Community Standards make clear that users have a special discretion to remove offensive trolling from their own user talk pages, distinct from removing trolling on normal talk pages. This is clear because (1) there is a special clause about a user removing trolling on their own talk page and (2) the clause about not deleting/changing other's posts has two distinct exceptions, one removing offensive trolling in general, the other a user removing offensive trolling on their own talk page, and that second exception refers back to the first clause. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 22:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I should also quote the decision of the Loya Jirga, which ruled obviously vile comments can be deleted by anyone. Others leave up to the person who's talk page it is. Article talk pages: delete the vile; ignore the trivial.. So users have discretion to delete trolling from their user talk page. There can be no doubt that irrelevant pictures of nudity, genitalia, sexual acts, etc., are trolling. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 23:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Maratrean is in the right here. I don't think we need to penalize anyone, but I'll just say this: if you believe that someone has improperly removed comments from their talk page, take them to the Chicken Coop. Elseways, it just becomes an edit war with no resolution. Blue (is useful) 23:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

All I'm asking is that he stops reinserting the trolling into my talk page archive, and let it stay the way it was when I archived it originally. So long as he complies with that, that is sufficient for me. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 23:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

This section is titled "Suspected Replicant" not "Ace McWicked". Ace^{of Spades} 23:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about what you are doing, I was talking about what he was doing. He keeps on reinserting your trolling into my archive, and I want him to stop. Your more recent trolling of my talk page is a separate but related issue which is not in scope for this coop. Hopefully you'll get bored soon, and hence cooping you will not be required.... I cooped SR, not merely for doing it, but that he didn't look like he was ever going to stop edit warring over it. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 23:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll never tire I'm afraid. Its 11:48am, I'm drunk and wearing sunglassess. I just wanna party and the picture you posted to my talkpage is a gross afront to hipsters everywhere. Revolting. Ace^{of Spades} 23:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Maratrean edited someone else's post, and that's not allowed. He's also a little shit who's leaving huge skidmarks all over the site and who would benefit everyone by leaving, but that's another matter. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 08:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you blinded by my presences, mortal McWicked? The Goddess Maratrea (talk) 01:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

And now he is continually inserting images of nudity and pornography in my user talk page, despite knowing I don't want that. [1]. If he wants to look at those images himself, or post them on his own or other like-minded users' talk pages, let him do so. But he should not be posting such images to users whom he knows does not welcome them. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 12:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

If you don't want that, why did you enable displaying filtered images? You consented to seeing pictures of nudity and pornography on RationalWiki. -- Nx / talk 12:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I never touched any such setting in my MediaWiki preferences. Whatever setting it has, is the setting it had originally when I first created my account. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 12:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

"Display filtered images" is off, and I have never changed it. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 12:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Then you should not be seeing the images. (SuspectedReplicant's uploads were briefly visible because I only added the NSFW tag later). -- Nx / talk 12:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Because someone sees a link that says "Partytime", one has no idea what it is, one clicks on it, and what sees something unexpected. If you want this NSFW thing of yours to really work, you need to tag the links with e.g. File:Some random NSFW file.jpg^{potentially offensive image}... Then it is clear what the link leads to. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 12:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

And I suppose you opened emails that said "I love you" in the subject too? Idiot. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 12:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Yeah, but I can't be bothered. Besides, you're at RationalWiki, a very uncivil place where posting pictures of nudity and pornography on user's talk pages is acceptable. If you don't like that, piss off. -- Nx / talk 12:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I really fail to see how sending people images of naked people somehow serves the site's stated purposes. I remember Armondikov wishing the site could be taken a bit more seriously... so long as it continues in this manner, few will take it seriously, whether they be its opponents, or the more serious members of the rationalist/sceptic/atheist/materialist/humanist/whatnot communities. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 12:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Now I know ManHe'sTrying is just trolling - the pictures are clearly labelled "No nudity |Covered nudity |Topless |Bottomless |Full frontal" - are you seriously saying you didn't know what those were before you clicked on them. In addition, what happens on talk pages has nothing to do with the site. 99% of visitors here don't even read user's talk pages. --PsyGremlinFale! 12:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

In the name of all things smelly and delightful, it is evidence of having led a sheltered life, to claim that one has no idea what to expect when opening an image titled "frot.jpg". Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

If I think about it I know what the term means, but to be honest it is not something that immediately pops into my head when seeing it. And the reason why I know what the term means, is I have heard of the paraphilia frotteurism, which I'd guess many people have not. So I don't think you need to be particularly sheltered to not realise what "frot" means. And as to Ace's partytime, that sounds like it could be an entirely innocent image, like the one I posted on Ace's talk page. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 13:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

How about felching? Do you know what felching is? Rimming? I'll see what pictures I can find to help with your education. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 09:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

This has gotten fucking ridiculous. The Community Standards state that people can remove obviously vile comments from their talk page. "Obviously vile" is a subjective assessment that clearly resides within the purview of the talk page owner to make, not the person leaving the comments. Maratrean might be an ordinary guy or a concern troll or just annoying or could even be some sort of prejudiced freak as you are trying to paint him, but it doesn't matter. You need to stop doing this, now, SuspectedReplicant. Your "education" and "inquiries" are your own sort of concern trolling - "Golly I'm just trying to find out what bothers him and why" - and it's another sort of attention whoring. Knock it off.--^talk 01:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Fuck you in the ass with razorwire. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 08:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Archiving

Does anyone want to archive all the sentences served soon? Or do I have to do it myself? ħuman 13:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Big archiving done - David Gerard (talk) 13:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks, this thing was a pig. ħuman 13:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Renaming for broader usage

The issue was raised here in June 2010.

The Mustelid spake: "What I recommend is changing Admin Abuse to something more general (I think it's just called Abuse Desk on Wikipedia & other wikis) so that the same process can be used to deal with any persistent troublemakers, regardless of whether they've technically abused admin abilities"

And I agree. Shall we rename this page to cover general abuse issues? Or make another one that does? ħuman 03:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Rename--the last thing we need is another place from which to generate HCM. P-Foster (talk) 03:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Should just be "Abuse Desk" or "Someones being a cunt" page. Aceⁱ⁹ 04:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Weaseloid. Though I feel we can drop the "desk" and just call the page "RationalWiki:Abuse". "Abuse Desk" is a bit too Wikipedia-esque. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 04:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The actual naming on Wikipedia is "Administrators' Noticeboard" and "Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents". IMHO I think a page titled 'incidents' or 'user incidents' sounds nice. It avoids the hot button 'abuse' term. Any discussion on a page for reporting abuse is going to be nasty, a discussion on a page for reporting incidents might be more amicable. (BTW, somewhat relevant joke from enWiki: 'if you hear cries of admin abuse, its best to be concerned because it is very likely that an admin is indeed being abused!') Icewedge (talk) 05:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Definitely. It needs to be slanted more positively rather than as it is which implies "come here to bitch and moan like a twat". ^sshole 05:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Icewedge's point. That said, however, the very existence of this page is an open invitation for people to bitch about things (viz MarcusCicero). It might help if we name it something completely irreverent ("Dick Report"?). Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 06:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

All of you are awesome, and I agree with all of you! ħuman 07:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we could call it the "Naughty Corner".  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 07:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Now we are getting somewhere... is that a Private Eye in-joke? If not, it should be. ħuman 08:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It's one of those modern parenting things, "do that again and you'll have to stand in the naughty corner" (or some other designated area).  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about "Naughty Corner" but definately on the right track. How about "Badass alley"? Aceⁱ⁹ 09:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Scumville? The Retard Wasteland? Aceⁱ⁹ 09:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I prefer Lily's ideas here to Ace's. Ace's ideas might work well elsewhere, perhaps? ħuman 09:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I comment in jest, I think Lily has the right idea. When someone says "naughty corner" though I think of that overwarmed and over-ripe nanny thing that can't talk properly. Aceⁱ⁹ 09:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

+1 for "RationalWiki:Naughty Step" - David Gerard (talk) 11:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

How about disputes? - π 11:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed name

• RationalWiki:Being a dick
• RationalWiki:User disputes

Either of those okay? I suggest a change soonish - David Gerard (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Those are both lame. But yes, we should go ahead with a change a.s.a.p., as there's currently confusion & contradiction between what the page says it is & what it's being used for. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I liked "Naughty Corner" or, on the same page, "Time Out"... I still have nightmares about sitting in the "Naughty Corner" at sitter's houses... Quaru (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Please for to change the * to # for reference to numbers is easier, I'd propose a third RationalWiki:Bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch C®ackeЯ

• I like the word Assizes. Can we call it RationalWiki:Assizes? ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I like that too. Either that or Star Chamber. ħuman 23:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The Loya Jirga should be the Star Chamber. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Not really - the LJ is more like the council of elders we turn to to resolve intractable disputes. This place is where we try without justice and summarily order executions. ħuman 00:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I like Assizes too. - π 23:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Since it's now being used to complain about the socially incontinent (Lumenos), I suggest "RationalWiki:Whining about other users". Or "RationalWiki:Complain here if you are a complete tool" - David Gerard (talk) 23:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

That second one's not bad, Dave. How about "RationalWiki:Get a fucking grip of yourself, it's only a fucking wiki, who cares?" - DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 11:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

[[RationalWiki:Whinging point]]? 11:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

[[RationalWiki:The Headless Chicken Coop]]? Jack Hughes (talk) 11:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

YES! That's the one! 11:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Jack's got it. The Chicken Coop. I will now relocate. ħuman 12:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Sweet. Can we call people who complain alot "Egg Layers"? Quaru (talk) 12:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Quaru/egglayer Yeah? Quaru (talk) 14:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

How about 'Rationalwiki:Authoritarianism Validation Unit'. 86.45.196.164 (talk) 12:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

That would be a better name for the Loya Jirga I think. - π 12:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

RationalWiki:MOAR HITLER - David Gerard (talk) 14:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

You have a really lame sense of humour. 86.40.201.0 (talk) 15:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking at a suggestion further up, could we rebrand the vandal bin or something similar as "the naughty step" and accompany it with a picture of Jo Frost? ^sshole 20:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

After googling Jo Frost, I'm amazed at you Armond. Reality Telly! Really!!20:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying I watch it, just that the "naughty step" meme gets quite amusing. Particularly when she was on the phones for Children In Need (or something) and someone said that they'd donate more money if she told him to sit on the naughty step. Still, some people on this site could probably do with Supernanny. ^sshole 20:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't like the "naughty Step" it always reminds me of this. 20:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Or this? ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

+1 - David Gerard (talk) 21:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Delete

This page has become a fucking joke; where trolls complain about their concerns, and real abuse is ignored completely. I hereby propose, as a result, that this page be scrapped. Gooniepunk2010 ^{Oi! Oi! Oi!} 01:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Ace^X-102 01:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

~2 weeks? nice. Quaru^{cheese - You can't explain that!} 01:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

As an aside. Maybe we make rules like.. BoNs can't post? As in, if you've been banned from the site, your opinion doesn't matter? (as in, fuck MC.) It just seems reactionary to delete the only supposed avenue for such complaints, because some dicks are misusing it... Quaru^{cheese - You can't explain that!} 01:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

So, then when DavidGerard blocks a BoN that isn't MC for being MC, where would the BoN complain? Lord of the Goons ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 01:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

This isn't just about MC's trolling. Real abuse complaints are being ignored because this page is a joke. Punky ^{Your mental puke relief} 01:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, because the posts on this page that aren't trolling are jokes. I agree with deletion. signed by an Onion^{talk edits} 01:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

(EC2)They go to the same place they go after the page is deleted? Quaru^{cheese - You can't explain that!} 01:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight. Since no one listens to the complaints, we'll make it impossible to complain? Quaru^{cheese - You can't explain that!} 01:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Not at all - it is just that this particular page has become a complete and utter fail. Ace^X-102 01:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Its not impossible to complain without an "official" page like this. Users can easily complain to other admin's user talk pages, and by defeat banned users can edit their own talk page signed by an Onion^{talk edits} 01:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

(to Ace) I agree! And remaking it with a new name will obviously make it so the people who are dicks will stop being dicks. Of course! Quaru^{cheese - You can't explain that!} 01:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, Ace. And I agree with Goonie's OP. ħuman 01:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

(To Quaru) So, what do you suggest we do about the current state of this page? What's worse than no abuse page at in, IMO, is one that is the epitome of an absolute joke, which is what this page has become. Lord of the Goons ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 01:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I never claim to have answers, but "nothing" seems like a shitty one. Have the ability to mark obvious dicks? be able to rate up/down like a WIGO? Fuck if I know. But it's literally been 2 weeks since this was "opened for broader use" to get to "utter trash from dicks" Quaru^{cheese - You can't explain that!} 01:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Okay. Well, then why don't we as a site actually do what I propose (though I doubt we can ever accomplish it):

1. Any complaints from trolls on this page be investigated for legitimate complaints. The troll will be ignored (and I mean ignored, not reverted or talked back to), but other users may bring about the complaint underneath it if actual abuse occurred.
2. Make abuse actually have real consequences ranging from, based on severity and frequency of offense, a lambasting to a removing of user rights and/or possible vandal binning.

The Goonie Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 01:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I think trying to accomplish that is a lot like trying to get a chicken coop to be orderly. But I would like to point out, that even if you all thought it was useless, the Lyra Silvertongue post yesterday did get the problem solved. So unless it's become that useless since then, well.. whatever. Maybe the point is (and wasn't this said at the time?) that it gives people a place to squawk. Let MC post his inane drivel here instead of taking up valuable space someplace else. Quaru^{cheese - You can't explain that!} 01:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay. And what of real abuse complaints? I don't care about MC posts anymore than I care about celebrity gossip magazines. But, if somebody actually commits abuse, we certainly need to do more than just go "Oh, your a bad boy there User X." The Goonie 1 ^{What's this button do? Uh oh....} 01:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. We need a respected place to discuss actual admin abuse, like the David Gerrard 2 section, which is being ignored by most regular users. ħuman 05:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

This page has become a fucking joke I wonder how that happened. 89.132.239.149 (talk) 09:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

It is ironic that the people complaining that is page is a joke are the ones that have treated it as such. How about we limit the page to serious complaints or mothball it and leave abuse decisions to the Loya Jirga? - π 13:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah... why don't we archive all the closed or irrelevant threads (which I think is all of them). Also, I would suggest part of the definition of "serious complaint", at a minimum, would be that it includes at least two difflinks or one blocklink longer than five minutes, or something like that? A complaint with no reference is a bit pointless. ħuman 21:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

We need to put some sort of brief guidelines at the top of this page. Re this page becoming a joke, maybe we should set up a "chicken poop" page for joke complaints so we can keep this page for srs business. If people post frivolous complaints here, we can then move them on to the silly page. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

No

I hate to drag CP into this debate, but one of the things we deride them for is the fact that they shut down their abuse desk. And now we're talking about doing exactly the same thing. So what if this is where trolls come to get their jollies? And we only let them get their jollies by feeding them. I'm sure there are enough adults amongst us, to decide which is a genuine claim or not. And if it's people like MC or Idiot#, ignore them and they'll go away. If all else fails, we do have the Lemon Jumpers, which have been silent since all the work that went into setting them up. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 09:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Rant

Response to Idiot number 1-56 ("RA needs to get a life"):

I hope you've told the same thing to Human, David Gerard, Armondikov, SusanG, Pi, Nx... all of whom also invest copious amounts of time in this site. Oh, and Tmtoulouse. (How come no one ever says to Trent "you need a life"? He's invested vast amounts of time, energy, and money into creating and maintaining an insignificant backwater website, which primarily serves as a place for a handful of similarly lifeless people to dick around on. Doesn't that make him ten times as much of a loser as any of us? Oh, I forget, Trent makes and maintains the site, and as such is beyond reproach, while a mere mortal like myself is just a fucking wanker for having the audacity to also give a shit about stuff here.) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 04:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you are a loser, as self-described. Trent, however, is building a project and believes in its long term viability, from what I can see. Tiatton of (talk) 08:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The point isn't that you invest lots of time in the website, its that you focus on stuff that doesn't matter in the slightest. None of the others you mentioned waste time and effort taking people to the "wiki court" for making inconsequential jokes. You really need to stop taking this wiki so seriously. --Idiot Numbers 1-56 (talk) 10:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a terrible rant. Come on man, rant it up a little! Ace^X-102 04:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The draft version had several "Fuck you, Idiot number"s in it, but I felt it would be hypocritical of me after saying this. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 04:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, he has said the same thing to David Gerard and Human. You can find his pottery about it on Human's talkpage still, in fact. Punky ^{Your mental puke relief} 04:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

RA, you will always remain a number one target for trolling. Mainly because you are uber sensitive, a big fat geek, and a twat. Well done. 86.40.109.64 (talk) 09:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

You're totally right RA. Trent, what a sad loser you are. SJ ^Debaser 10:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

This argument falls down on the fact that I spend so much time here because I do not, in fact, have a life - David Gerard (talk) 11:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Well d'uh. Gerard makes that fat star wars kid look cool. 86.40.109.64 (talk) 11:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I am going to have to write up a standard response to these O tempora O mores sorts of rants. DEAR <USER>, THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONCERNS. A MESSAGE HAS BEEN SENT TO YOUR RATIONALWIKI REPRESENTATIVE.--^talk 04:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Rename

Can we get this page renamed to "Lynch mob"? Because that would be awesome kthxbai. 24.13.203.96 (talk) 03:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Lol. I don't know why I'm bothering to respond, except that one of the lynch mob was giving me orange boxes. Amusingly, the first complainant didn't bother to let me know I was being fitted for a hemp necktie. Oh well. ħuman 04:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Your chronology is mixed up. BoN made this suggestion before the above began. Blue (is useful) 04:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Chronology, Schmonology. So why was the delightful un-archived BoN's comment not responded to? ħuman 05:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe nobody cared enough? Too late at night? Blue (is useful) 05:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

That would explain a lot. Ooh, look, an egg! ħuman 06:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Guidelines

I'm new here, just a few days old and I'm already upset! Don't U guys have a civility/language etiquette guideline (Y R the Fs' & Bs' being used here when kids also probably read these articles & the talk pages)? Can V have a guideline for, 'Biographies of Living People'? Citizendium has a guideline that after everyone else edits an article, an expert in the field should 'approve' it. While that is noble and ideal, can V have a guideline that at least the RW articles here R not attack pages (look at what is written about Chiropractic, Naturopathy, Homeopathy, Reiki etc.)?-Wth (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Holy shit, I'm a kid who reads these articles and talk pages! I don't care at all, nor do most others, really. It's the chicken coop, after all. - VezzyRattlehead (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The answer is quite simple. This website is run by the users, as a matter of consensus, without rules or regulations. People have discussed changing that, but that is currently the situation. You are welcome to discuss things on the talk page of articles, but ultimately - if the consensus of editors is against you, then they get their way. Sorry. You are being treated like any other editor, not differently because you are the subject of an article. Since we can't confirm your identity, that seems very fair. If you have problems, write them on the talk page of that article. Specifically write out, perhaps as bullet points, what your issues are, and I will answer them one by one for you. As for swearing, good luck getting people to stop.... ^EXTERMINATE 18:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

EC) If it's fucking woo it's bloody well worth attacking, cunt. Him (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

This guy is giving out huge amounts of false hope with his lies and bullshit, and is charging people for the privilege, and he wants people to be nice to him? For the sort of bullshit he peddles, he's damn lucky that swearing is the worst we can do. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 18:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, can we ban txtspk, pretty please? -- Nx / talk 19:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

haha u r a qt lol--^talk 04:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

& what's this got to do with the Chicken Coop? Him (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Kind Sir,

regrettably, the language that is causing U so much unease could not be removed without instituting disproportionate limits on expression in accordance with the SPOV, a stylistic device that has so far been a valuable source of RW's unique flavour within the wikisphere, and 1 that cannot and should not B discarded quite so easily. I feel the need 2 inform U that a debate about editing by persons who may harbor a conflict of interest is currently underway over here; however, please note that the eventual conclusion of this argument and its incorporation as a binding rule would quite likely only serve 2 further restrict Ur ability to edit articles that R closely related 2 the person U R claiming 2 B and/or the methods he is employing in his practice. V do appreciate your constructive criticism and hope 2 B able 2 eventually assuage Ur concerns about the manner in which these topics R presented here.

Sincerely,

Röstigraben (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

(unindent)So what do I do? Just bag it? Sue Rw? Remember I haven't broken any rules here.-Wth (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Prove you can cure AIDS or stop making up shit and planting false hope in desperate people. -- Nx / talk 19:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Just read through the article. Even under British Law (the stricted libel laws in the world), you wouldn't have a case. Every single claim is from your website..... Also, people take legal threats badly. ^EXTERMINATE 19:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Anyway I'm not sure what you want. What exactly is wrong with the article in detail? (Also you have committed some minor vandalism.)--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

By the way, do you claim you can cure aids? It seems a bit ambiguous.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Why are we even assuming this is the real guy? Do we have a reason to think it is. I propose we leave it at what's been said on User talk:Wth and Talk:Ramanand Jhingade, tell him to stop editting the page, and go from there? ^EXTERMINATE 19:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I've been wondering about that myself. He did offer to send his credentials, but that could have been a bluff. He seems up to speed on the information about the guy - but he also seems rather vague on specifics. So I don't know.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

All he has to do is post something on CZ - he seems more like MC at the moment. Him (talk) 20:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Can someone tell me which address I should use to send RW a snail mail?

Is it:9 Ward Av, Hamilton, Ontario L8S2E4,CA

or, is it:Trent Toulouse, Department of Psychology, Neuroscience and Behaviour, McMaster University, 1280 Main St. W, Hamilton, ON, Canada L8S 4K1?-Wth (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, a legal threat would be the surest way of proving that RW is correct. ^sshole 17:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

As much as I hate to automatically impugn MC, the way that some points are glossed over confirms that we are being trolled. Also, if Wth is really RJ then why does he only edit during the middle of the night Bangalore time when the RJ at CZ never edits much later than 17:00 UTC (23:00 local). Furthermore, it is mighty strange that a newby finds the Chicken Coop rather than posting any concerns on Main Page talk or some other commonly linked to page. And finally, "attack articles" on topics rather than individuals are not subject to US libel laws.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 17:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Of course if RJ had a brother...

Once the legal threats started floating around I checked into things, WTH edits from an IP from Bengaluru, I am going to work off the assumption that it is Ramanand.

If you wish to contact me the best way is through e-mail: ttoulouse@gmail.com, touloutm@mcmaster.ca. But keep in mind that I no longer own RW. The site is owned by a non-profit corporation in New Mexico called The RationalWiki Foundation, inc. The address for the corporation is:

The RationalWiki Foundation, inc
122 Girard Ave.
Albuqueque, NM, 87106

Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

-.-

There are 12 archive pages of this shit. Doesn't that not depress you? ^{— Unsigned, by: Armondikov / talk / contribs}

Not me. Let's take it as the sign of an active community. Also that is since 2007.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The fact that it is the same people several times is slightly depressing. Тy^Talk. 17:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

BrxBrx

This is an unusual one as it takes place on RWW but I think it serious enough to be brought up here - Brxbrx continued to expose my workplace IP, sensitive personal information, without checking why I had hidden it so quickly because "my IP isn't special" and "people flash their IP's all the time". I think that is an extremely uncool thing to do. If someone hides an IP they obviously have a reason and to continually revert and expose it was a serious breach. I have taken away his show hide abilities over there but thought the community here should be aware of this. Ace^ace 05:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and once again he doesn't seem to give a fuck. Now as you'll know I have made it to this coop a few times recently but nonetheless, exposing someone's workplace Ip when they have already specifically said they wished it hidden is pretty serious. Ace^ace 05:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I think our policy is that any misbehavior on other sites, even RWW, is not grounds for punishment here. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Unfortunately, while this is a dick thing to do, it's beyond the Coop's power. RWW is a separate thing, run by (I think) Goonie. You have to take it up over there.

Brx, if this is true, knock it off, goddamnit. Totally not cool.--^talk 05:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

{ec}Honestly, why throw a fit over this? What's anybody gonna do with your work IP? No one cares enough to try anything with a single obscure IP and if they did they wouldn't be sniffing around RWW for it.--User:Brxbrx/sig 05:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

It's part of a long-standing pattern of noxious misconduct directed at Ace and me. It'll catch up with him at some point. 05:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Just stop it, Brx. We can't do anything to you here for it, but if you keep it up you're going to develop a reputation (more of a reputation? I'm not sure) for being a dick. Also lay off this nonsense with Nutty. You call him out constantly, and it seems pretty unilateral in that respect. You seem alright in general, but there's a bad habit of feuding that seems to go on.--^talk 05:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh I didn't expect anything to be done about it here, just making the note that brx doesn't seem to give a fuck that someon e wouldn't want their work IP displayed and that he believes, without actually knowing what the job is, that it doesn't matter anyway (and this coming from the guy who threw a shit fit after people discovered his real name). Ace^ace 05:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)