RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive29

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search


Ace McWicked[edit]

Nx[edit]


Tyrannis[edit]

This vote has been closed. Please do not add, remove or change votes.
The result of this vote was: no harm shall befall Tyrannis.

For removing Ace's mod rights and adding him to sysoprevoke. Nowhere is that in the remit of techs. rpeh •TCE 14:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

This is why we can't have nice things. -- Nx / talk 14:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
No, the reason we can't have nice things is tiresome idiots like you and Tyrannis. rpeh •TCE 14:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Says the person who started it all because it was so damn important that his trolling not be trolltop-ed on Brx's talk page. -- Nx / talk 14:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
You really have a problem identifying starting points, don't you? In your world, the problem with the voting system started way before YOU abused it, and Brx being a fucking idiot only started when I made one - and only one - reversion. Idiot. rpeh •TCE 15:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Two actually. And no, in my world, called reality, it started when you posted on Brx's talk page for no other reason than to troll. -- Nx / talk 15:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Way to go, everyone. You've all managed to convince me that Brx and Nx are the reasonable ones. And if you mess with my boy Tyrannis, I will cut you. (... figuratively speaking, of course) Theory of Practice Haters gonna hate. 14:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Tyrannis is a fucking moron. End of story. rpeh •TCE 15:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Y'all look like fucking morons. Look at yourselves. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 15:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm not the one who abused my user rights or deleted half the site's history. Tyrannis is both. rpeh •TCE 16:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Says the guy who outed an editor's IRL info. At least Ty keeps it in-house. Theory of Practice Haters gonna hate. 17:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I've admitted that was a mistake, but Nx had brought it on himself by lying in order to link me to a BoN. rpeh •TCE 17:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC) idiots gonna idiot
And besides, that has nothing to do with this discussion. Try harder next time. rpeh •TCE 17:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleting half the wiki has? -- Nx / talk 17:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
No, but I didn't mention it in my original coop submission for the idiot - just in response to a followup. Or are you redefining the starting point again, Nx? rpeh •TCE 17:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Accusations against Tyrannis that I see: normal shenanigans on RationalWiki, and a lot of ad hominems from rpeh. I vote this cooping ends due to irrelevance. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRyeah, well you fight like a cow! 23:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Techs have no remit, so he couldn't have acted outside of them. We should dismiss this case outright. Or, let's make Ty a mod, then he will have acted within his remit retroactively. DickTurpis (talk) 23:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

An unelected functionary removed the rights of a democratically elected official. Tyrannis' tech rights should be removed immediately. rpeh •TCE 04:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Yeah. Run with that. Let me know how it works out. DickTurpis (talk) 04:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Ace's removal of everyone else's mod rights meant that one of us "unelected functionaries" were going to have to undue his actions. From there it would seem that the other mod's would be the best place to start working out how to handle Ace's actions and whether or how to return his user rights or sub in an alternate. Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
People who voted for Ace knew what they were getting - this is scarcely a one-off incident. It's not Tyrannis' decision to remove Ace's rights in the face of a democratic decision. rpeh •TCE 05:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
You voted for Ace because you knew he'd be an asshole? What is wrong with you? Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 05:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
More to the point: it wasn't Ace's right to remove the other six elected mods, either. Ace isn't more important than any other user. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 05:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
No, Brx is an asshole, Ace is a fun guy. And darn sexy too. No, it wasn't his right to remove the other mods but that's irrelevant in this section, which is about Tyrannis. Please stay on topic. rpeh •TCE 05:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
"Brx is an asshole." "Please stay on topic." Yeah. Whatever. DickTurpis (talk) 05:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
It was already off topic. Please don't drag it further off. rpeh •TCE 05:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
This is a great example to why we can't do nice things on RW. --Revolverman (talk) 05:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
You're the second person to use that phrase. Please strive for more originality in your posts. rpeh •TCE 05:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Didn't you hear what Rpeh said, Rpeh? Stay on topic! Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 05:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
You're doing it again. Please stay on topic. Consider this to be your final warning. rpeh •TCE 05:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Alright. Formally propose some sort of censure for Ty. Let us vote on it. Let's see how it turns out. DickTurpis (talk) 05:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
He should lose his tech bit. That is all. rpeh •TCE 05:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Either put it to a vote or quit yer bellyachin'. DickTurpis (talk) 05:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
You asked for "some sort of censure". I gave you one. Off you fuck now. rpeh •TCE 06:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Are you going to put it to a vote, or just whine about it for the foreseeable future? DickTurpis (talk) 06:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
I did what you asked me to do and you're still not happy. What's your problem? rpeh •TCE 06:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
So your big concern is making me happy now? Well, you can start with a hand job then, and we'll work our way up from there. If you'd rather stay on topic, then propose a formal motion to strip Ty of his tech rights. So far you've done no such thing. DickTurpis (talk) 06:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
If you had wanted me to set up a vote you should have asked for it in the fucking first place instead of pissing about. rpeh •TCE 06:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
I did. Repeatedly. Glad you finally got the message. DickTurpis (talk) 06:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
No. You didn't. Not in the first post on the subject, which is what I'm talking about. Is an inability to read one of your problems in addition to your obsession with hand jobs? rpeh •TCE 06:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Hey, don't knock hand jobs. When the economy tanks what do you think people will use as legal tender? Fiat currency? Not likely. Gold? It looks pretty but it's of very limited practical use. No. Hand jobs will be the new universal currency. Mark my words. (OK, it might be methane and oversized crossbows. But hand jobs will will be the standard they are measured against.) DickTurpis (talk) 06:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Votes[edit]

That Tyrannis be stripped of his tech rights

Yay[edit]

  1. rpeh •TCE 06:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  2. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 14:11, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  3. sterilesporadic heavy hitter 17:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC) Techs are not moderators. Sysoprevoke supposedly requires community vote. I didn't really that "Explorations of authoritarianism" in the missions statement meant practicing it.
  4. Techs should not be kingmakers, they have absolutely no remit for this sort of action. The fact they have no written remit at all still doesn't mean they should be stepping into drama fests like this. If this is left to stand then there's nothing to stop Ty or another tech in future removing everyone's 'rights' on grounds it causes less drama and it's better to abandon the mobocracy in favour of their ivory tower rule. The correct course of action would have been for Ty to return the rights of those who had them stripped without due process, not Ace's. Yes, Ace would have just taken them off again next time he was online, but fuck off, if Ty was out for a stress and effort free life he wouldn't have become a tech in the first place. -- Iscariot Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012! 17:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Nay[edit]

  1. I'd say he deserves a hand job. DickTurpis (talk) 06:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  2. Tmtoulouse (talk) 06:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  3. Still awake. Why am I still awake? ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRmore at 11 06:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  4. Tyrannis did nothing more than take appropriate action when no one else did. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 06:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  5. NFW, Ty used his rights in appropriate manner. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 06:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  6. Ty 2012 Sam Tally-ho! 06:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  7. I say, we build a statue in Ty's honor. With... a Fine horn! --Mikal Harass Follow 06:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  8. na. Acei9 06:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  9. Motion for dismissal on the grounds that "yay" isn't a real damn vote. Peter Subsisting on honey 07:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  10. Probably the only one in that whole HCM with his head screwed on tight. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 07:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  11. Why the fuck are we voting on this and not on Ace? -- Nx / talk 11:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  12. Acted in good faith, was trying to calm a volatile situation. Stop fucking with user pages and user rights and people won't bring out the big guns. Theory of Practice Haters gonna hate. 17:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  13. Greater then a 4-1 vote difference --Revolverman (talk) 18:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  14. Where is the vote on Ace? For real. Tielec01 (talk) 00:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
  15. Obvious. As to the vote on Ace, regarding what? --Abd (talk) 04:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
  16. Give me a break.--ADtalkModerator 04:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
  17. No. I like Ty. :-) He's got good sense and he's a decent guy. Refugeetalk page 05:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
  18. This was a perfectly innocent act of GekokujoWikipedia and should thus be applauded. — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talkDo You Believe That? 14:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

  • guidelines on tech remit needed Blue Talk 07:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Seconded. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 18:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I've been saying this for eons. DickTurpis (talk) 02:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

A question on the above[edit]

Am I wrong, or are "rpeh" and "Sterile" the same person? Theory of Practice Haters gonna hate. 17:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. Rpeh is the former SuspectedReplicant. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
You're right. My bad. Theory of Practice Haters gonna hate. 17:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't stuff ballot boxes like others do. sterilesporadic heavy hitter 18:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Again, my apologies. Theory of Practice Haters gonna hate. 23:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


Comments[edit]
  1. It strikes me as odd that those calling for Ty's blood are not as eager to go after Reckless Noise Symphony, who also used his tech powers to reverse the actions of a moderator during this business. Now that they have been made aware of this, I expect one of them to start a vote presently. However, I suppose it is much more likely that their personal dislike of Ty's previous actions, not a love of fairness, is the source of their desire to strip him of his tech rights.
    It also strikes me as strange that these same people are not calling for a trial of the man at the center of the conflict, Ace McWicked. By all accounts, he went far beyond anyone's conception of what a moderator is empowered to do, demonstrating what Sterile calls "practicing authoritarianism" quite well. Had a sysadmin or tech not been on hand, Ace could have done serious damage of a kind he had previously been unwilling to attempt. However, since Ace McWicked is a member of their "team", I should not be surprised that it is not Reckless Noise Symphony or Ace McWicked that these people target for punishment, but Ty, one of the few who acted in the best interest of the site rather than to further a personal vendetta or alliance. Blue Talk 17:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
    Gee, nice ad hominem. Does is say in the rules that sysoprevoke requires communitiy vote? Yes. Does the tech have the authority to do this? No. And you want more rules. (Apart from that, since you have done this before, your conflict of interest is apparent; you should have lost your tech and moderator rights for that.) sterilesporadic heavy hitter 18:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
    I don't know what you think your ace in the hole is, but I have never unilaterally added anyone to the sysoprevoke group when it wasn't following a community vote to revoke sysop rights. Check the logs. Again, why call for my blood and not Ace McWicked's when Ace very clearly abused his mod bit too, and far moreso than I? Blue Talk 03:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
    Nice attempt to reframe. You abused your tech rights to moderate and you removed your own Tech designation. You absolutely knew what you were doing. Can no one who haz power own up to their misgivings? This is sad. sterilesporadic heavy hitter 11:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
    Sterile, I actually was an elected moderator, so even if I did "abuse" my tech powers, I did so in a very different situation than this. Blue Talk 14:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
    Did Ace have the authority to remove Blue's rights? Did RNS, a tech, have the authority to give back Ace's mod rights after another moderator took them away? (and then he removed his tech rights and LANCB-ed to avoid taking responsibility for his actions) -- Nx / talk 18:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
    This page is enough of a bugger's muddle already without debates about Ace's, RNS's, or apparently Blue's conduct crammed into the vote on Ty. If you want to propose sanctions against any of these, post in the relevant section or start a new section accordingly. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
    I don't remember that incident. If it happened in the way described here then yes there should have been a vote to remove his rights. OTOH, the Weasel is right that this isn't the place for it. rpeh •TCE 04:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
  2. What a clusterfuck this page is. RationalWiki is supposed to be a site dealing with rational thinking and we have this playground drama with trolling, bullying and wikilawyering; a lot of you need to grow the fuck up (or sober up) and learn to get along like adults rather than petulant adolescents. Thank goodness there are some sensible people like Weaseloid and Dick around. Redchuck.gif ГенгисunbelievingModerator 12:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
    Another of the site's goals is to discuss authoritarianism, and if you're claiming that an unelected person has the right to depose an elected one with no discussion you have no concept of what the term means. And while you're complaining about it being a playground, you'd have more stature if your chosen nickname wasn't a worn out, never-funny joke. rpeh •TCE 12:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
    Uh, rpeh. You are arguing that someone not in power sticking it to someone in power is authoritarian. That's the opposite of authoritarian. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRgoing galt: the literal crazy train 13:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
    Good grief, did you even think about that comment before making it? He is in power. Power to which he was appointed with no discussion. He used that power to remove the democratically elected rights of another user. Incidentally, had the situation been reversed I wouldn't make an issue of it, as that would be the elected user dealing with an appointed one. rpeh •TCE 13:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
    ... who was using his powers to take away the rights of other democratically elected users but himself, which without ty would have made him the sole moderator in power. Rpeh, seriously? Ty pretty much stopped an abuse of power. This is ridiculous, rpeh. Knock it off. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRcritical thinking is the key to success! 14:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
    You really don't know what you're talking about, do you? Go and read a book and don't post until you've learned something. rpeh •TCE 14:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
    Well, KoTD made my point. Ace usurped power from all the other mods so he could get his own way, if that isn't authoritarianism then I don't know what is. Ty returned the rights to the other mods which they were entitled and temporarily removed Ace's to prevent a recurrence. In the meantime Ace has stood down, yet you continue to troll as you did previously under your Suspected Replicant name and make ad hominem comments on my user name which you have no idea why I chose. You are extremely tedious and childish. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD memberModerator 14:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Ace usurped power from all the other mods so he could get his own way, if that isn't authoritarianism then I don't know what is. Incorrect. I did it because I am an asshole. Plain and simple. Acei9 19:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
  1. Yay! Rpeh has proceeded to try and insult my intelligence rather than debate my point! I hereby consider myself the winner and shall be buying myself a medal and flowers shortly. Also Ghengis is cool and gets flowers too. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRlavishly loquacious 14:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
    You're the one who peremptorily ordered me to "knock it off", and if you're going to take the discussion to that kind of level don't be surprised when I continue. The fact is you obviously don't understand authoritarianism so your view is utterly worthless. And Genghis, it's a silly, childish nickname no matter why you picked it. This discussion is about Tyrannis, not Ace, so I have no idea why you brought him up. rpeh •TCE 14:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
    OK, rpeh; we can't talk about ace in a conflict that involves Ace as well as Ty. And Authoritarianism according to you is now defined as somebody taking personal responsibility to take down those in power and restore voice to the people he silenced. Are you sure you aren't some kind of bizarro-rpeh from the world with the bizarro superman? Or maybe from conservapedia? Or someplace similarly backwards, where 'shut up and read a book because I am smarter than you' constitutes as a valid refutation of somebody else's point? ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRgarrulous en guerre 14:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
    The issue under discussion has nothing to do with Ace. I've already explained the problem with Tyrannis' actions. The fact that you happen to agree with them in this particular instance doesn't mean he did the right thing. The tech roll is there to deal with technical issues - hence the name. It has nothing to do with being a kingmaker. Supporting this kind of action now sets a dangerous precedent. rpeh •TCE 14:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
    ... except he did the opposite of being a kingmaker and instead returned power to all of the other elected moderators, putting a brake on the person who removed their power... who for a second was the only moderator and was closer to anything like a 'king' present in your piss-poor metaphor. And how the hell can you claim that Ace has no bearing in a discussion on the topic 'Ty put Ace in Sysoprevoke because Ace took away every other mod's power?' That's issue evasion to the extreme.±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRsufficiently advanced argument still distinguishable from magic 14:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
    Not my metaphor - I borrowed it from Iscariot's vote above. Ace's actions aren't relevant because we're talking about Ty's actions now. I can't explain it more simply: he overrode the democratic wishes of the RW community. He did it without consultation, permission or explanation, and yet people are happy with his actions because (to quote one Nay vote) "No. I like Ty". Pathetic. rpeh •TCE 14:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
    Um, if most people in the vote think he did the right thing, I think that's evidence that the democratic wishes of the community see his actions as justified. Why are you making up crap about a community that isn't there? You're behaving identically to the asswipe who made up a 'I SPEAK FOR THE PEOPLE!' speech in my SSA I talked about on Ty's talkpage when no one but him even cared about the issue, much less agreed with him. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRlavishly loquacious 14:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
    (Edit conflict) But Ty's actions only make sense in the context of Ace's actions. You can't remove all the context when judging the appropriateness or not of the action. — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talkDo You Believe That? 14:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
    The vote is about whether or not he should lose his rights; that's not the same as believing he did the right thing. To both of you, I disagree that you need the context here. I'm saying that Tyrannis' actions were inappropriate in any context. rpeh •TCE 15:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
    ... the vote is about if he should lose his rights because he did something. Trying to exclude that 'something' he did from the conversation just obfuscates the issue at hand. If you want to propose the change, 'techs should not be able to do anything to mods,' please make it in the moderation/infrastructure pages. Not where we intended to discuss actual conflicts that happened. From your comment, your argument isn't about Ty at all, but about the rights of techs. Go move it to someplace that's not about Ty.±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRgarrulous en guerre 15:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
    Well at least you've moved on from misunderstanding authoritarianism. You don't seem to have read the full discussion, however. rpeh •TCE 15:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Anyone else get the idea this is going nowhere? Rpeh says Ty abused his power. So he put it to a vote and got trounced. End of story. DickTurpis (talk) 15:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree totally. All was quiet until the discussion was needlessly restarted. If people choose to cast their votes because they think somebody is a nice guy, that's their problem. You get the government you deserve. rpeh •TCE 15:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
It's the exact same system that got Ace elected. You think people voted for him because they thought he displayed talents in conflict moderation? Ha! He got elected because people like him. DickTurpis (talk) 15:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
There's probably some truth in that. Personally I voted for him because I thought he was going to try to get rid of the moderation system altogether. Hopefully Human will have better luck with that. rpeh •TCE 15:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I can't believe that my old buddy Marcus Cicero hit the head of the nail when he said Now this site is over-run by boring little charlatans and attention whores like suspected replicant, and you people are too cowardly to do anything about it. And he's still fucking at it! Steven Kavanagh (talk) 15:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Being called boring by MC is something of a compliment. rpeh •TCE 15:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I say we mace this discussion completely. rpeh is talking about something that only he cares about and people are telling him that the discussion is over, but he's just insulting the people and continuing to shout bullshit. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRfree guybrush threepwood! no new taxes! down with porcelain! 15:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
The discussion is over but the problem lives on. rpeh •TCE 15:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
It sure does. Steven Kavanagh (talk) 15:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


We're back in the coop![edit]

It's been too long. Osaka Sun (talk) 17:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

So - what is the issue?[edit]

I read this page and see a lot of flames between the people who are actually involved in the issue taking shots at each other. Multiple fingers are pointed with people saying stuff like "He started it!" or "She called me fat!" or whatever.

But I can't seem to find anybody calmly explaining exactly what everybody is shouting about in unemotional language. Does that happen?--Weirdstuff (talk) 20:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I think two people got into an edit war over blanking Brx's user and talk pages, they got mad at each other, one of them blocked the other one, and took away their rights, someone took away everyone else's rights and someone suggested they be de-modded and...


...yeah... --Andynot Schlafly 20:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
well, welcome to RationalWiki! --Revolverman (talk) 20:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
This is what I've been saying all along. This thing today doesn't even seem to be about anything. Just a lot of "you started it", "no, you started it", "oh, but that other time it was you who did something nasty", etc. Are we really no better than this? €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Good post!Apparently not. Peter Subsisting on honey 01:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I've got no opinion on who started this particular mess, but Ace has been Ace for a long time, he could be relied upon to troll and insist and revert war and wheel war, and a few RatWikians love it. Because of them, the only way to stop him was to sysoprevoke him. His friends will blame everyone else, though, for "provoking" him. He is, hands down, the most provocative troll I've ever encountered.

He'd blanked his Talk page. Ace had taught me about removing his trolling from my own Talk page, supported by other users, so ... I undid it. He then archived his Talk. Fine, but he missed one post that he'd removed first. So I restored it. He reverted. So I restored the post, but to the archive, so it could just be left. He reverted. So I restored it and blocked him for 9 hours. Ace is still insisting on His Way, which has no consistency other than I Do Whatever I Want. Personally, I don't care. I'm just applying consistent standards. --Abd (talk) 01:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

So close and archive this headless chicken. It's stopped twitching.[edit]

The mods will need to address Ace's summary promotion. I don't see anyone continuing to seriously question it -- it was obviously necessary to prevent him from removing all the moderator rights -- and nobody is seriously supporting any other action here. I think this should be closed by a moderator, so I'm requesting that. --Abd (talk) 01:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Rationalwiki, where a pederast justifies himself after blocking a drunk. Acei9 02:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
You can tell him to shut up as much as you want, Ace, but you don't get to defame people. Abd is not a pederast, in fact, he specifically cut ties with Tisane over the latter's pedophilia. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 02:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Go fuck yourself RA. I like you, I really do, but take a broad view of RW. Do you like what you see? Acei9 02:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Yep. An ad hominem from Ace will definitely close things in Ace's favor. Please, please don't pretend that your goofy, overall inconsequential-at-best-disruptive-and-pointless-at-worst shenanigans somehow improve RationalWiki, Ace. Unless they somehow generate articles as a byproduct.±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRgoing galt: the literal crazy train 02:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
What makes you think I give a shit about 'closing things in my favour'? I am going to wrap my knob around RW in a pretty bow, hack the fucker off and present it to my worst enemy as a Christmas gift. Acei9 02:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
And now non sequiturs. Ace, seriously. You aren't being entertaining and you aren't getting yourself anywhere. Until your crap ferments into quality articles, genuine community improvement, or something other than rolling around the saloon bar or provoking our token dumbasses like it's somehow an important thing to do, I don't want to hear any of your obfuscating garbage. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRlongissimus non legeri 02:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
(massive edit conflicts) I'm withdrawing this request to close, because there is the little matter of User:Nutty Roux, who supported and enabled Ace through this affair today, and who just unblocked him, to allow him to again remove talk from your talk archive, and to call me a pederast, which is a silly drunken slur. There is more to be sorted out here. Ace didn't do this thing alone, he was egged on. I'd hoped that with 9 hours of rest, Ace might sober up. (Thanks, Stabby. The explanation of cut ties isn't quite accurate, but I'll leave it at that.) --Abd (talk) 02:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with me. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 02:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
When did Abd cut ties with him? Osaka Sun (talk) 03:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Once it became undeniable that Tisane wanted to use R-Triple-W solely as a platform for pedophilia stuff, rather than for any serious critique of RW/RWW. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 03:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Abd is now in charge[edit]

Nutty Roux[edit]

Ah, I see...[edit]

It's the weekend and some people are bored yet again. --ʤɱ sinner 11:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I seem to have missed this, I was in London. Was this the usual nonsense or has anything changed? SophieWilder 15:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Incredibly pointless edit war over Brx's user and talk, followed by a while later ace doing it and then removing peoples rights, which is why Ty removed His and dumped him into Sysoprevoke. So just a bit more then the usual--Mikal Harass Follow 16:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Than the usual. THAN the usual. FFS. This isn't difficult grammar. rpeh •TCE 18:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Bait set...
It could of been much worse. SophieWilder 23:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I still don't see...[edit]

...an accurate, neutral description of what happened. --Andynot Schlafly 00:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Over the course of two days:
  1. Rpeh posted the image frot.jpg on my talk page.
  2. I used Template:Trolltop to hide the image
  3. He reverted me
  4. There was a brief edit war over this
  5. After a break in the edit war, I placed Rpeh's post in the trollbox again. Ace McWicked and Nutty Roux joined in the edit war, reverting my attempts to trollbox Rpeh's post.
  6. I gave up, and emailed several users in the hopes of getting Nutty Roux, Ace McWicked, and Rpeh to cut it out. By this time they had started vandalizing my user page as well as my talk page.
  7. Other editors, Blue at first, and then Nx, began reverting vandalism to my user and talk pages.
  8. Block wars ensued. Saturated, Nx removed Nutty Roux's sysop rights, so that he could not unblock himself and resume vandalizing my user page
  9. Ace McWicked then removed Nx's sysop rights. They were restored by Nx
  10. Ace McWicked removes all of Blue's rights, including her moderator rights.
  11. Weaseloid strips Ace McWicked of his rights.
  12. Reckless Noise Symphony, a part of the tech user group, restored Ace's rights.
  13. Ace McWicked proceeds to remove the rights of all moderators but himself.
  14. Tyrannis, also a tech, removes Ace's rights, restores everybody else's, and places Ace McWicked into the "sysoprevoke" group, a group which nullifies most rights given to a sysop.
I've highlighted the more controversial parts of this sequence of events.--"Shut up, Brx." 02:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I had to trawl through a lot of logs and revision histories to make sure this information is accurate and in the proper chronological order, by the way. I deserve a pat on the back--"Shut up, Brx." 02:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
It's not fully accurate. Nutty removed my rights first, then blocked me. PeterL gave me my rights back, after which I removed Nutty's. Peter then gave it back to him a bit later, but the edit war was over after that. Ace removed Blue's rights after she came in to restore my sysop rights. -- Nx / talk 05:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

discussion moved to Forum:Drama dump "Shut up, Brx 04:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Atheism Plus edit war now completely out of control[edit]

^I like that, its handy. --Revolverman (talk) 03:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Errol Denton[edit]

Errol Denton is a malicious lying quack who is listed as a noncompliant advertiser by the UK's Advertising Standards Authority following his failure to amend false claims. He has retaliated for this by pursuing a vendetta against two female bloggers he has decided are behind the reports to ASA. This has been ToS'd by Facebook, WordPress, Heart Internet and others. He has registered a bogus petition site to continue his vendetta, which was hosted at Heart until it was ToS'd. His thesis is that the reports are because h'es black. Close. It's actually because he's a quack, pretending to cure cancer with live blood analysis and alkaline diet. On the plus side, Trading Standards are now interested so he may be shut down or even jailed.

He has appeared here as user:81.174.162.215, user:Sceptic1 and user:Racblog (i.e. "racist bloggers").

This is the kind of thing he wants to do here: [10], though he'd probably prefer [11].

So, what, if anything, should I / we / anybody do about him on RW? JzG (talk) 14:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Ignore ToP - David Gerard (talk) 14:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
TheoryOfPractice? ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 14:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I'll tell you the same thing I told you on your talk page: 1. Please stop associating BoNs and usernames with real people without any good reason. 2. What should we do? Revert any unproductive edits, engage with any complaints that come up on talk pages. I'll add: 3. Why is this even being mistaken for an issue after, what, two mildly annoying edits? Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 15:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Because there is no way he will leave it alone - when his petitions were nuked by Care2 he set up a fake petition site of his own (thepetition.co.uk) and when that got nuked by Heart Internet for ToS violation he simply moved it to another host. The first sockpuppet having been used already, I am clarifying what is acceptable to control the inevitable. And it is inevitable. He does not understand why claiming that live blood analysis is superior to proven medical diagnostic techniques is a problem, nor does he understand why claiming that chlorophyll cures cancer is a problem. JzG (talk) 17:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Uh, so what? That's something to be covered in the article about him, not at the Chicken Coop. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Demotion[edit]

Hi, could I please get redemoted? I had a conversation with another user who agreed.

ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 20:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Inquisitor Ehrenstein has since been re-demoted, but the focus should be on why they were promoted in the first place. RNS was out of line and I think it's coop worth discussing what should be done about this abuse of power. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Meh. He's been re-demoted. No need to convene the Star Chamber. Move along, folks, nothing to see here. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 21:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)