RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive3

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

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


For renaming MarcusCicero to MarcusCicero, aged 3½. — Unsigned, by: Totnesmartin / talk / contribs [1]


Who cares? MC has no respect here and gives none to others therefor I don't think any action action towards him can be considered admin abuse as he doesn't want to be and doesn't act as a member of this website. Aceof Spades 18:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
It was just a joke that was bound to be reverted in a matter of minutes. It gave us all our MC fix and now it's over and now I need MOAR. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 18:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Ace, I can't really get worked up over an obvious troll being treated like an obvious troll. If you feel strongly about it, move him back to his original name, or get someone with POWER to. --Kels 18:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

marcus cicero for bureaucrat '09 --䷉䷻䷶䷈䷰䷒䷰䷈䷶䷈䷡䷶䷀䷵䷥

Support — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 19:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Nooooo! Marcus Cicero for Own Wiki where he can get on with whatever-it-is-he's-after instead of whining here that we don't do what he wants. Totnesmartin 19:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
MC reminds me of Andy Schlafly who got so mad that wikipedia wasn't doing what he wanted. MC needs to start his own MCWiki. Aceof Spades 19:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Seems pretty clearly to have been a harmless joke.--Tom Moorefiat justitia 19:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


I suggest we close this as it's only MC and no one gives a rats arse about him. If he wants to be treated like serious member of the community he needs to act like one. Aceof Spades 19:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Respect is very much a two-way street, so I've stopped giving a shit about the whining. Scarlet A.pngnarchist 19:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Bad precedent[edit]

Sorry to be a lone voice here, but I think this sets a rather bad precedent. If MC is doing bad things then he should be treated using whatever disciplinary methods we have. If they are not sufficient then we need to create new ones.

Logically he should unmade as a sysop and sent to the vandal bin. However given that almost certainly somebody would remake him as a sysop and release him, then this won't work very well.

Additionally, people should ignore him as much as they can. Inventing weird punishments and suchlike is hardly not feeding the troll. Indeed the only thing it can do is encourage him and raise his profile on the site.

Finally, justifying this action against him on the basis that nobody likes him isn't really the best justification.--BobNot Jim 20:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Who cares - it was hardly administrative abuse even it wasn't MC. Shit, if it were I could bring Nutty here for fucking with my user page. Aceof Spades 20:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
If this were anyone other than him, we would be saying "Chill the fuck out." His username and whatnot was changed briefly. Woe is him.--Tom Moorefiat justitia 20:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it was admin abuse, but I do think it's best not to toy around with bureaucrat abilities (i.e. user rights & renaming). If it became a meme in the same way as block warring it could get very messy. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Why does all this remind me of TK screaming about his human rights being abused after having been blocked for an hour? --Kels 20:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Weaseloid. Also, notice that it was the defendant who started this case, not the "aggrieved party"... ħumanUser talk:Human 21:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I'd have to agree with Bob M in this case. It sets a bad justification to, for example, rename people, especially trolls like MC. All it does is give them ammo to launch a troll war everywhere on this site. MC can be fun to stir up now and then, but I think we've reached the point where we should all just completely ignore the little fucker, or suffer, and fully be prepared to expect, the residual consequences. Punky Your mental puke relief 22:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Human and Weaseloid. I think the important point is that something was done to somebody's account that they had no way of undoing. There's a policy against blocking users who can't unblock themselves and I think it's fair enough to extend that to renaming accounts. If the 'crats want to engage in rename wars, that would be fine by me, but in this case the rename had to be removed by another 'crat later. I don't think it matters that it was MC involved, it's the principle that matters more. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 22:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
As a long time user/sysop but non-crat, I find this to be a bad idea. The only other legit use we've ever had was to change imposter names (SteriIe vs. Sterile). It could even lead to someone not being able to log-in, which is bad. Sterile vomit 23:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I will compose an essay which will outline the causes which led to Totnesmartin acting like a prick. It is also important to observe that I posted nothing on this page before this, and also the usual unconstitutional 'arguments' of morons like Ace. MarcusCicero 13:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I wait agog for your essay, oh holy Marcus. I am stimulated in anticipation of the jewels of wisdom which will drop like pearls from your keyboard. Bob Soles 13:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
We have a constitution? Since when? --Kels 15:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


For repeatedly protecting his talkpage in contradiction to the CS. Professor Moriarty 21:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

What utter bullshit. It WASN'T in the standards until now and secondly to that the whole thing came about because Neveruse and Nx were bitch-slapping each other. If Neveruse is here then Nx should be too. FuckING HELL. Aceof Spades 21:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok. -- Nx / talk 21:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Protection of community pages requires a consensus. The standards state that talk pages are community pages. Ergo, it needs a consensus. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 21:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


For being a bossy little prick -- Nx / talk 21:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Protection warring may not have been the best strategy but Nx was right. No problem here. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 21:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


Unilateral, undiscussed changes to community standards. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 21:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not admin abuse, but changes to policy and standards should be discussed. Changing it arbitrarily was wrong, even if was a clarification rather than an actual change. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 21:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


Unilateral, undiscussed changes to community standards. Broccoli (talk) 21:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Not even the death penalty is punishment enough for this scum. EddyP (talk) 21:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


Unilateral, communist changes to undiscussed standards. ħumanUser talk:Human 22:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


Multiple allegations by Neveruse. Bring it. — Unsigned, by: TheoryOfPractice / talk / contribs