|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive29
Ace McWicked[edit]
| Ace McWicked has resigned as moderator. — Weaseloid |
|---|
|
See the RW:ATIM topic on the subject
After vandalising and edit warring over Brxbrx's talk page and user page, and my user page, he blocked me for 9 hours and removed my sysopship. [1] [2] [3] -- Nx / talk 11:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
What a fucking mess. Ace should be removed as a moderator, but I am very strongly inclined to think that he is less of an evil than the alternate who would replace him (Human). Punky should lose his tech rights, but he already pulled a Brxbrx and removed them himself. Nutty Roux should lose his sysopship and face a ban ranging from ceremonial to significant, and so should Rpeh and socks. I think it should be obvious that the amount of time wasted and people alienated in their ongoing effort to drive one editor away renders them no better than trolls at this point. I do wonder how much more of this bullshit this site is willing to tolerate. Blue (pester) 13:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
See, this is why I didn't vote for Ace. DickTurpis (talk) 23:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC) Coup[edit]And he's removed Blue's and my rights again. Sigh. -- Nx / talk 13:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Moderator[edit]Ace's moderator rights are currently removed and it's unclear whether or not this is intended as a temporary measure. If not, there needs to be a clear proposal on this & a vote. Options would seem to be restoring his mod abilities, appointing one of the alternates (Human and Reckless Noise Symphony) as moderator, or carrying on with six mods until the next moderator election in December. Wėąṣėḷőįď This has been sorted: Ace will step down, Human will replace him (as the alternate), and if people want Ace back, they can vote him in again next election.--
|
Nx[edit]
| no evidence of alleged secret blocking abilities. — Weaseloid |
|---|
|
Because the guy (or lady) is an asshole in first degree. Acei9 11:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
The gang's all back![edit]
Let the record show that Sterile and Nx do not care about this. Their simultaneous nonchalance shall be set down in stone and is beyond question.-- So how is it then....[edit]...that Nx can block me, without it appearing on recent changes, and without me being able to unblock myself? Who gave him these rights? Acei9 13:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Why did you remove my sysopship again? -- Nx / talk 13:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
|
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 •T•C•E• 14:34, 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)
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)
Votes[edit]That Tyrannis be stripped of his tech rights Yay[edit]
Nay[edit]
Goat[edit]
A question on the above[edit]
Comments[edit]
|
and should thus be applauded. — Unsigned, by: 
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? Weaseloid
Methinks it is a Weasel 00:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Apparently not. Peter Subsisting on honey 01:06, 21 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? Weaseloid
- well, welcome to RationalWiki! --Revolverman (talk) 20:13, 20 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.
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.±
KnightOfTL;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. ±KnightOfTL;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.
02:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- This has nothing to do with me.
- 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. ±
- 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)
- 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.±
- 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. Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 03:13, 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.
- 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)
- 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.
Abd is now in charge[edit]
| nothing. — Weaseloid |
|---|
|
Unilaterally blocking people, removing rights, all of which outside RW guidelines. But the real problem is me and Nutty. "Ace didn't do this thing alone, he was egged on". Orly? Acei9 02:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC) |
Nutty Roux[edit]
| who cares? — Weaseloid |
|---|
|
Nutty Roux was totally involved in egging on Ace McWicked in the mess today. Because Ace was clearly still impaired, I blocked him for 9 hours, maybe he'd sober up. Nutty Roux unblocked, and Ace proceeded as could have been predicted, on this page.[5][6][7] I'm the wrong person to block him again, but somebody needed to stop him, unless we really want this drunken disruption. To prevent Nutty from unblocking again, I've promoted him. I'd ask, at least let the night pass. Ace needs a rest, and so do the rest of us. --Abd (talk) 02:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
|
Ah, I see...[edit]
It's the weekend and some people are bored yet again. --★uːʤɱ secularist 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)
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:
- Rpeh posted the image frot.jpg on my talk page.
- I used Template:Trolltop to hide the image
- He reverted me
- There was a brief edit war over this
- 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.
- 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.
- Other editors, Blue at first, and then Nx, began reverting vandalism to my user and talk pages.
- Block wars ensued. Saturated, Nx removed Nutty Roux's sysop rights, so that he could not unblock himself and resume vandalizing my user page
- Ace McWicked then removed Nx's sysop rights. They were restored by Nx
- Ace McWicked removes all of Blue's rights, including her moderator rights.
- Weaseloid strips Ace McWicked of his rights.
- Reckless Noise Symphony, a part of the tech user group, restored Ace's rights.
- Ace McWicked proceeds to remove the rights of all moderators but himself.
- 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)
- 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)
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]
| Mutual Peace Agreement/wait for others to weigh in on issue. |
|---|
|
Long story short (you can read the long story in the history or the nauseatingly long argument I've been having with him on the talk page), User:Ronin_Zanoh appears to be an anti-Atheism+ zealot who is determined to make the page explicitly anti-A+, and has acted in a manner consistent with a zealot who doesn't care to seek consensus. I'm tired of edit-warring with him (I'd characterize his additions as argumentum ad linkspam, and his debating tactics as obtuse bordering on outright lying, as well as consistent with the sort of trolls that plague A+ and feminist bloggers), and somewhere in the kerfuffle someone gave him sysop rights, which he is now using to outright threaten me. I had hoped for third-party assistance before it got to this point but couldn't remember where to post it till just about now. I'm going to step back from the article unless my attention is requested because I'm too involved in it to be trusted. (I think I can stay objective, but I don't expect anyone to believe me.) EVDebs (talk) 02:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
I have repeatedly said to User:EVDebs that I, on principle, am neutral and skeptical of the A+ community. That being said I do not disagree with their goals, just their application and principle. What I have in my defence is the revised post as follows: After much discussion with several users, including one whom I have a row with at the moment, I post for the community's eyes a post that keeps getting vandalised and removed when it invokes no controversy, and addresses rational criticism to the allegations made by FTB, Jen McCreight, and PZ Myers. I leave it to you fine individuals to comment, critique, and discuss this post's inclusion.
[Harold J. Blackham. [8]. British Humanist Association!. 2012.] While it is true that there are religious institutions that share humanistic principles, Humanism is a secular philosophy and principle derived from the stance of Atheism. The fact that Free Thought Blogs invoked logical fallacies on these grounds, led these humanist authors to challenge the principles on which Atheism Plus was trying to establish itself on. [Perseus & Io. [9]. Amplified Atheist!. 2012 August 23.]
No. I did not say that, and User:EVDebs has kept missing the point that I have incurred upon his inquiry. To my own defence I even stated that the social issues were NOT a NON ISSUE BY ANY STRETCH of the imagination, but to say Misogyny is the cause of these social issues, I argue it is MISUSED, OVEREXAGGERATED, and, quite frankly, utilised by people that have questionable motives. I pointed out feminism's Patriarchy Theory as an example, and he asked me why is it irrational in regards to our social concerns that are present in our community. The core philosophy of feminism is the Patriarchy Theory. This theory dictates that governments and societies are made with laws that are made to favour the male populace in order to give dominance to the female populace (AKA Biblical/Religious Patriarchy). I told him outright, that this line of thinking is irrational because secular laws do not have gender bias in mind, more rather these laws are focused on the individual. To prove my point I gave an clear cut example of patriarchy theory and misogyny (RW's favourite pet word)in action: Women not being allowed to drive in Saudi just because of their gender. It is outright misogyny and this is Patriarchy Theory because men in Saudi control all aspects of life there. With this evidence I said to him, you cannot say this is what is present in our community because such a thing isn't true. I also added on top of this, using the "privilege" excuse as a means to derail the core argument that was in my first paragraph, because women (and non muslim men at this point) have it far easier in secular countries than they do in Theocracies, in the global scale of things. They are, by definition, the privileged individual. To prove I was open minded to the discussion of the A+ movement, I urged a comment in response to User:EVDebs response in the hopes to give his movement a better well stated position, I argued that Male Chauvinism and Sexism is much higher probability, objectively speaking. I was listening to his request to consider human behaviour, which is a valid point, so I typed the following:
I'll leave it at there as my defence for now, and upon reading the terms presented, I do agree to it as it is a rational suggestion. I have no qualms against anyone on this thread, and despite being called names (which lead me to threaten an individual (and for that I apologise), I have no bad blood with User:EVDebs. However this heated discussion has clouded our judgement somewhat and I do have important things to do like university work.User:Ronin Zanoh (talk) 05:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC) |
^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? WẽãšẽĩõĩďMethinks 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. ωεαşεζøίɗMethinks it is a Weasel 17:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- Uh, so what? That's something to be covered in the article about him, not at the Chicken Coop. ωεαşεζøίɗ
- 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)
- 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)
- TheoryOfPractice? Wẽãšẽĩõĩď
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)