RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive26

UHM

According to his comments at RWW, it was UHM, who has since put on a little page deletion show here at RW in the last few minutes. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

He's desysopped and binned. Let him stay that way. Copperhead^Hisssssss 12:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Is that all? Shouldn't there be a vote about banning him or something? Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that falls under vandalism. Copperhead^Hisssssss 13:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

What does that mean? ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

(EC)Help:How to handle vandalism Copperhead^Hisssssss 13:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

(ECx2)In light of his confession and subsequent vandal run, it'd seem like we'd be ridiculous to have a vote.--^talk 13:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Why ridiculous? We don't need a vote to determine whether he's guilty, but what to do about him.

Copperhead, your stance makes no sense. You're voting to ban Brxbrx after he's been cleared of this, but you think it's enough to merely vandal bin UHM? He didn't do the Goatse attack from his own account or IP, so vandal binning does nothing about those things. The point is that the community shouldn't tolerate somebody who griefs the site with distasteful vandalism for several hours straight then boasts about it. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I want to ban brx because he's a horrible human being and a blight on the community. If you feel more is required for UHM, go on ahead, with you all the way. Copperhead^Hisssssss 13:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Fair point! Someone better set up the vote for UHM. Six months seems like a good period, unless that seems too lenient?--^talk 13:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

1; 2; 3. What the fuck was THIS all about? At the very least, if the confession actually is some sock over at RWW, or if he ends up claiming so, I want to vote to promote this guy for abuse of deletion powers. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 13:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

It's the same RWW account he's used for a year and has associated with his RW username throughout that time. No reason to disbelieve it's the same user. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Vote to ban UHM

This vote has been closed. Please do not add, remove or change votes. The result of this vote was: UHM's rights will be removed and he will be banned for six months.

UHM has taken credit for yesterday's Goatse attack and has gone on a short deletion spree: 1; 2; 3. Vote to remove his rights and ban him for 6 months here: UHM: Ban P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 13:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC) CopperheadHisssssss 13:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC) --PsyGremlinPraat! 13:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC) Brx vote still stands, same reasoning as Foster. ТyYAUA 13:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC) Not a fan of bans, but this was a pretty disgusting move. ωεαşεζøίɗMethinks it is a Weasel 13:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC) server log and other evidence backs up that he is a far more likely candidate than brxbrx, matching user strings in the log file, knowledge of templates, css, etc. Tmtoulouse (talk) 13:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC) Make that 2 years --★uːʤɱ anti-communist 13:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC) Seems the obvious choice. Omar (gibber) 14:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC) TallMan (talk) 14:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC) On the condition that the people who voted to ban Bricks agree to go home and think about their lives. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 14:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC) Out the airlock.-- Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 14:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC) Given his confession, the fact he declined to try to defend himself, and his vote to ban himself, it seems a pretty clear case. Unless his account's been hacked. Shame, I never really had anything against the guy before. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 15:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC) Ugh like we need this shit Cow...Hammertime! 15:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC) We all know banning does no real good. That said, world's without consequences, even ineffective ones, don't do any good either. --Godot On a perdu le contrôle 15:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC) Punishment should be given out, even if it wont stop him--il'Dictator Mikal 16:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC) Why is this still a discussion? Server evidence combined with a confession? -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC) Oh well. Osaka Sun (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC) Why are we even voting? Vandals are banned without vote. AceModerator 21:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC) We are voting because if we block obvious vandals without asking first then we are the embodiment of evil, unfit to live in decent society. Sophiebecause liberals 21:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC) --DamoHi 21:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC) --talk 21:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC) Someone who vandalizes the site in this manner obviously has no respect for the site or its community. He wasted the time of several volunteers, and is now wasting the time of everyone who is participating on this page. Ban. Senator Harrison (talk) 23:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC) Damn shame, I always liked UHM, but the facts (as I know them) are the facts. Aboriginal Noise Punkrock 23:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC) This is an utter waste of everyone's time. Purge him. Ironclad (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC) We're still having these things? Plus ca change... --The Emperor 05:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC) can longtime lurkers vote? Slam (talk) 05:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC) Sorry, but you don't have enough edits. Blue (pester) 05:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC) Oh, better make some edits I guess :-) Slam (talk) 06:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC) Derp. --MtDPrematurely Indeterminate 06:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC) Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 22:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC) UHM: Don't ban Okay so there was a little wandalism spree yesterday. Not the end of the world. Secret Squirrel (talk) 14:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC) A ban isn't going to stop anyone from doing this again and all anyone he has to do is unplug/replug his modem and come back under a different username. Expressing outrage and letting a user sit with being rightfully shunned or whatever happens seems like a better outcome than a ban, which is still novel and bound to be provocative to someone already inclined to this manner of disruptive conduct. 15:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC) Frustration+vandalism spree doesn't warrant anything longer than a week-long ban--"Shut up, Brx." 15:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC) Giving this more thought, a little wandal spree does not a permablock make. One week? Sure. Three weeks? Maybe. Remember, kids, we blocked Uncle Ho for less than forever, and he made a threat to harm ListenerX. Wandalism pales in comparison to that. Especially when there is no concrete evidence that he was actually behind the wandalism. The Punk Symphony of Noise Your mental puke relief 13:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC) Agree with RNS and Nutty on this one. d hominem 16:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC) Thinking about this a bit more, a ban is still wrong. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 17:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC) U'll get over it. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC) Blue (pester) 19:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC) Too long, won't do anything except make people feel they have some closure. Tielec01 (talk) 23:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC) Ace and friends seem to be pissing their pants to get him banned, so there's got to be something wrong here. nobsCorporations are people, too. 21:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC) UHM: Goat I am so totally confused by this situation now that I'm changing my vote to goat. It's a complicated situation without an easy solution. Omar (gibber) 18:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC) Let the FBI handle it. nobsbullies are people, too. 12:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC) I think it's possible UHM did it. But I think it's more likely that he didn't, but he's falsely claiming that he did, because this is just his way of saying goodbye. It's not a choice of action I would follow, but I kind of think I understand why. (((Zack Martin)))™ 13:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Place for UHM to make his case.

No case to be made --★uːʤɱ structuralist 13:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Does anybody honestly believe it's UHM? Is that anything like him? Use your head, people.--"Shut up, Brx." 15:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

So are you suggesting it's someone who just suddenly returned, is a general jackass, likes to be the victim? Cause I"m curious how you know it's "not him". --Godot On a perdu le contrôle 18:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

According to Trent in the "Ban" section, it was UHM based on server evidence. So, yes, I do believe, in fact, that it was him. The Punk Symphony of Noise ^{Your mental puke relief} 15:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, actually what he says is that he's a far more likely candidate than Brx, which is really a pretty far cry from "it was him". UHM is copping to it, and voting for his own ban, so I'm going to have to assume it was him for now. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

He's going to kill me for this, he said so, but I am brxbrx, wiki-champion of liberty and justice. Here is an email he just sent me:

Hey man, just so you know, even though I said it was me, it wasn't. I saw them getting ready to burn you Salem-style and pretty much knew you wouldn't do such a thing. I wanted to leave anyways and thought before you get forever branded as a disruptive force to the wiki for - well, speaking your mind - I'd sacrifice tha lamb I was going to send over the hills anyways.

Now try to run with the popular kids and in times few you'll be able to speak your mind.

Have fun, UHM

PS: If you put this on RW or RWW I'll take the next plane to Arizona and kill you in your sleep.

It wasn't UHM, and it wasn't me--"Shut up, Brx." 15:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you try not to do stupid and annoying things for a day or so, and see how that might work out for you? P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 15:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

UHM is innocent--"Shut up, Brx." 15:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't care. He copped to it. Shut up. go away. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 15:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow. You just want someone to hang. Are you Texan, by any chance?--"Shut up, Brx." 15:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't want someone to hang, it isn't about lynching, it isn't about hanging people. it's about getting rid of ill-behaved idiots at a dinner party who showed up empty-handed, said nothing of value, ate all the food, monopolised all the conversation, drank all the booze, crapped on the rug, and didn't help with the dishes. It's about asking boors to leave our house. UHM said he did it. You say he didn't. I don't really care. The fact that we're wasting electrons talking about either of you makes me want to see both of you leave the party. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 16:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

--il'Dictator Mikal 16:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

UHM has never been an "ill behaved idiot." He has had the occasional outburst in reaction to frustration with some of the site's users, but otherwise he is a treat to have here. He adds much to discussions and provides a voice of reason when all anyone else is interested in is attacking, attacking, attacking.--"Shut up, Brx." 18:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

His comments on this page hardly bear out that description. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm UHM. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

If UHM didn't do it he should say so. I wasn't sure his initial confession at RWW was sincere, but if he's committed to the idea of nailing himself to a cross, who are we to deny it to him? After all, there's no way you can hammer in the last nail yourself. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 16:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Why would he do this?

Now I could be a completely gullible idiot, but I didn't see anything in his behaviour recently that could induce such an act of vandalism. Osaka Sun (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Exactly (to the second part ;))--"Shut up, Brx." 18:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Possible answers: He's a jerk. I don't know. I don't care. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 18:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

UHM can speak for himself. The only explanation given so far is boredom. If he wants to say more about his motives, he can; I don't see the point in everyone else speculating. Same goes for whether he's guilty; he can confirm or deny what Brx has told us. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I spent ten days building and wiring a 33 foot wall because I was bored. Then I cut my wrist. Don't underestimate the motivational power of boredom. ħuman 02:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I did it, maybe not. Maybe it was just a random vandal making a visit, maybe not. Maybe I lied to brx, maybe I lied to all of you. It's for me to know, and for you all to think about. I've been thinking about leaving this place anyways, so you can ban me for whatever time you want. Also, thank you for the entertainment. Seeing what a vandal can do to this place is amazing. --★uːʤɱ sinner 18:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

It would be interesting if he were to post a full and convincing explanation here. Nevertheless, his failure to do so would not make hm guilty.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 19:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Nor does it help him. --il'Dictator Mikal 19:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, this is just fuckign super

Brx and UHM playing are playing a little trolling with back up from Maratrean who showed up again just in time. Brx claims it wasn't him, UHM confesses and Brx say it wasn't UHM either. This site is completely hamstrung once again when it comes to dealing with obvious trolling, disruption and vandalism. Well fucking done - all of you are pathetic. Ace^Moderator 20:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

What's your proposed solution, Ace? Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

UHM should be blocked. There is no need for a vote, he admitted it. Who cares if brx says it wasn't him, he said so so he takes the wrap. Since when do we vote on vandal attacks? Ace^Moderator 20:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

since yesterday apparently. --il'Dictator Mikal 20:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

We have reasonable doubts, Ace. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Dude confesses, says he doesn't care. We are not in the business of protecting user accounts from their holder's stupidity or mental imbalances. Fuck. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 20:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

So what if I confess? Would that absolve UHM? Occasionaluse (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

He said he did it. Done and dusted. Whether he did or not now becomes irrelevant. Are we so completely frozen in our response to trolls that we can't even block admitted vandals/trolls he spend the entire day doing so? What a fucking joke. Ace^Moderator

I agree with Ace. There's no reasonable doubt that it was UHM (and I'm not sure that is the standard here) unless he comes out and categorically says it wasn't him. Brx's claims about a sudden reversal from UHM are merely a speculative, fanciful doubt. Frankly, I'd say that it is almost certainly a bit of trolling from a nincompoop with nothing better to do. Ban UHM and lets say nothing more on the subject. --Damo^Hi 21:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Like it or not, the community's voting on it. Ace & Damo, I suggest adding your votes above if you want to see UHM banned. If we're sticking to the voting regulations drawn up a few months ago, then we'll need a two-thirds majority to take any action, which there currently isn't. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

So this doesn't count anymore? Can we just remove it then? Ace^Moderator 21:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Show me where on that page is discusses 6 month bans for vandalism. The system seems to be working, as much as it ever has. We're probably looking at a 6 month block for UHM right now, based largely on his confession. To be honest, I'd be in favor of having the sentence reflect the voting, in general. Say, user serves full proposed sentence if the voting is close to unanimous, substantially less when the votes are close. I guess that could either be considered changing the rules mid-game or an act of discretion. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 22:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

You know, I seem to recall taking flak on this very page for banning vandals instead of binning them. --"Shut up, Brx." 22:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I know this may be too complicated a concept for you to grasp, but there is a difference between harmless wandalism and a concentrated attack on the website that grinds the servers to a halt, makes it impossible to edit pages, fills that database with useless 1s and 0s, and confronts unexpecting visitors with horrible imagery. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 22:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Weren't you one of the ones to edit war with Maratrean over putting shock images on his talk page? You're being awfully sensitive. Anyways, what do the rules say about "concentrated attacks?"--"Shut up, Brx." 22:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I would surmise what any other sane website says: fuck the causer. --il'Dictator Mikal 22:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Brx, shut the fuck up. Seriously. I am a very tolerant guy, I think, but you are running dangerously close to the point where even I want you gone. If UHM is throwing himself on his sword (which makes no sense and I don't believe) then it's his choice. If someone is going to make a case for him, it can't be you, because everyone hates you right now. So you are just going to make it worse. Shut up and be quiet and wait for this to blow over before you stick your head back into it again. Shut the fuck up.--^talk 23:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems CE AD sums it up well. Brx, I know you've viewed me as an ally from time to time, mostly because I don't get nearly as irritated by you as everyone else, and I do make a point of sticking up for the little guy, but you've got to step back every now and then. If UHM wants to assume the blame for this then he has to take the punishment as well. That's how it works. Assuming he gets banned and then later on wants to take the position that it wasn't him after all, and he was falling on his sword for the good of...whatever, well, I'll listen to what he has to say (with a healthy dose of skepticism), but until then there's no point in trying to exonerate him. Be thankful it's him and not you. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 01:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)