RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive31

Rpeh & Ochotonaprinceps

For making eight /16 rangeblocks in the space of a minute. I thought I ought to pre-emptively coop myself. There'll probably be a couple more soon too. Frankly I should be reined in before I turn into TK. rpeh •T•C•E• 11:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Hang the fucker. Sophie^Wilder 11:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Harsh, but it's the only language I understand. rpeh •T•C•E• 11:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

(EC)Add me in, since I threatened reporting Syamsu to the Florida Dept. of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 11:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Nobody expects the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services! Sophie^Wilder 11:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm a bit disappointed with the range blocks - I'd just gotten a bottle of scotch open ready for a 'whack-a-mole' drinking game. So much for that. VOX^HUMANA 11:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Play it with the recent changes log, working chronologically through the last three hours or so. If you're still conscious by the time you catch up to the range blocks, edit this page and we'll send medical help. Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 11:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Very rarely range blocks are needed but they shouldn't be overused. Proxima Centauri (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Yup, and not with long durations. I was making a semi-serious point by bringing this here, namely to make sure the mob is fine with using range blocks like this: in cases of sustained wandalism by one IP-hopper, are short-term range blocks okay? I think they were necessary here given that he wasn't showing any signs of slowing down after several hours. rpeh •T•C•E• 12:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I think a few days at most. Syamsu will get bored and go off to annoy somebody else, it's inevitable. Sophie^Wilder 13:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, he's shown all the signs of getting easily bored. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 13:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Brasov didn't get range-blocks happening, and the intensity of his attacks was much worse. When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 15:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Because he was using open proxies from all over the place, moron. We'd have to rangeblock half the internet to stop the idiot's bot. Free Will-y, here, just keeps refreshing his IP from his ISP's range. Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 15:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with what Gerard said on the Tech Support page. It's the price we have to pay for open-ended editing. A handful of users making up new policy on the fly is inherently undemocratic. When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 15:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, there's no need to insult me. I apologize that I do not have your level of knowledge about how the internet works. When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 15:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

(EC)I spent almost three full hours playing IP whack-a-mole with dumbass here every three minutes. This is a persistent, stubborn vandal who does not understand that we're not interested in letting him just arbitrarily replace articles with his shit. I'd like to see you come up with a better solution that doesn't involve babysitting RC for a significant portion of my day and hitting rollback every three to four minutes. I don't like the idea of rangeblocks, but until asshole here gets bored, it's a field measure. Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 15:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I wish I had a solution. But in a democratic society, the law trumps practicality. We let criminals go free if we cannot legally prosecute them. When there's a clear policy on rangeblocks in the Community Standards, we can rangeblock away. Until then, we are stuck with the system we have created. When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 15:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Short rangeblocks seem like a sensible way to deal with this. Wikilawyering is a waste of energy here. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm mosly indifferent to this, but if it's a general policy, it's probably more appropriate to Community Standards. sterile^talk 17:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty indifferent to it too but it strikes me that this isn't a very functional community and that policy discussions are a huge waste of time when good judgment is a good enough rule. This should be a lot easier to handle than Brasov, who was using a bot through the API. This guy seems to be vandalizing by hand, which is pretty darn inefficient. I don't get why people freak out about this so much. (formerly Ghostface Editah) 19:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Should we allow rangeblocks?

I specifically want to clarify that the context of rangeblocks here is to deal with a persistent spamming wandal that has roughly eight /16 ranges (roughly half a million IP addresses) of potential IPs, via his ISP's allocated blocks. He has spent a significant part of the last 12 hours attacking the wiki by replacing pages wholesale, including the main page. Blocking individual IPs is useless because he just refreshes his IP from the ISP and is back in about three minutes. The vandal bin is utterly useless and is specifically recommended against being used for IP addresses in the community standards. Do we allow short-term (no more than one day at the most) rangeblocks in situations like these, or do editors just have to play whack-a-mole and waste significant portions of their time while a vandal walks all over us? Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 15:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes to rangeblocks in these circumstances

1. Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 15:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
2. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
3. David Gerard (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
4. Sophie^Wilder 16:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
5. I was going to vote No because it would have been so funny. rpeh •T•C•E• 16:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
6. I needed a rangeblock once when a vandal making death threats kept coming back with similar IP's. In an extreme situation we need them for short periods. If he comes back tomorrow a slightly longer rangeblock may be reasonable. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
7. Sam ^Tally-ho! 16:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
8. ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 17:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
9. Frullic (talk) 18:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
10. For the continued Oppression and Suppression and other Pressions of the wiki!--^Mikal_lakiM 19:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
11. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
12. Sooner or later there will be a Karajou type blockhead with his finger on the trigger with no ability to educate himself or be reasoned with. Best to have some advance guidance. nobs^{Would you like anchovies on your sub-prime mortgage?} 21:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
13. I wholeheartedly support the very liberal use of range blocks to stop vandals. GhostofTK (talk) 03:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
14. /16 is huge, but so long as they are short... Peter ^mqzp 07:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
15. Desperate situations call for desperate measures. Spud (talk) 09:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
16. Yes.--Krej^talk 16:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
17. Yes. having to revert a troll still means the troll cums in his pants, becuse we're having to do work. We don't need that kind of crap. PsyGremlin^Parla! 16:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
18. I don't always agree with Psygremlin, but when I do, it's because he makes a damned good point. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 02:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

No to rangeblocks in these circumstances

1. I think we need to go bigger. No IP editing, night moad, real first name and last initial, e-mail an unmonitored address to get a sysop to create a user name for you. When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 18:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

You're proposing things that don't exist. There is no functionality for real name settings in MediaWiki, and there are no useful extensions that deal with real names. The only way to do what you are proposing would be to go in the direction of Citizendium and use Confirm Account, with mandates on including real names. ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 19:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he's kidding. Sam ^Tally-ho! 19:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

EC. I also think a small security deposit, a scanned copy of a passport or other government ID, and sworn statements confirming user identity from higher-level Masons might be in order. When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 19:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

You left off the part where Marcus Cicero has to jam his finger into hot sealing wax to affix the nihil obstat. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm tempted to change my vote if it means making MC jam his finger into hot things. Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 02:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

He was banned before or near the time you signed up. What's your personal experience with him that's got you saying that? (formerly Ghostface Editah) 03:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

He's swung by since (under socks), and I'm just making a joke at his expense. I don't actually wish any troll physical harm. Although, the person that prompted this rangeblock discussion should probably undergo some sort of therapy. Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 04:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

1. Tielec01 (talk) 01:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Use goat instead

1. At least one person should observe goat. (But apart from that, yes). VOX^HUMANA 21:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
2. I didn't know rangeblock got installed somewhere along the line. Did I miss the announcement? Was it added during the great upgrade? Blue (is useful) 04:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

   It's not something you install. It's always been there - you just need to know it's there and how to use it. rpeh •T•C•E• 06:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

   Rangeblocking was put into the code before it even became Mediawiki, back when it was still UseModWiki. It famously wiped out the entire Middle East from Wikipedia for a day back in 2005. VOX^HUMANA 06:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

   There was apparently a vote on this in 2010, which appears to have resulted in Nx disabling them. The empirical evidence suggests that this is no longer the case, however. Peter ^mqzp 07:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

   Probably before the last MediaWiki upgrade - David Gerard (talk) 08:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

   Interesting link, Peter. Looks like a lot's changed in the last 3 years. Back then it was 11 to 4 against range blocks. Now it's 17 to 0 with people mocking opposition. It looks like the guy managed to get off 50 something edits. Is that about right? 20:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

   If I'd made TK-style 5-year blocks on a /16 range, I'd expect the earlier result to be repeated. The difference is that I made some 9 hour (pi-related) blocks and immediately came here. If anyone came here trying to justify long-term range blocks, I'd be amongst those voting "nay" at this point. rpeh •T•C•E• 21:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

   I don't think it was quite 50, but then I wasn't editing at the time. Peter ^mqzp 21:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

   I'd be fine with such things, but only if the person making the block notifies us via the Chicken Coop that it happened. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

3. This discussion should be at Community standards, not on this page. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 21:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I was actually planning on seeing about drafting up suggested policy for the rangeblocking idea, more or less encapsulating the above scenario in a more formal way, and then setting a proper timed vote. Community Standards would be the appropriate place for that. There was resistance to the idea, so I brought it to the coop to get an idea of the community's feelings on the matter, and it seems to be leaning very heavily towards allowing rangeblocks for this purpose. Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 02:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Deleting a page without discussion

I'll coop myself as well - I just deleted Syamsu's article about his "Delete Rational Wiki" campaign - a clear fascistic suppression of dissent. Am I flagrantly violating my (trivial level of) power? You decide. VOX^HUMANA 00:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I suggest deleting this page. It doesn't appear to be serving any purpose. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

It's spam. Spam can be deleted on sight. When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 00:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I rather object to deletion of that page. And you are not underdog-heroes of dissent, you are in control assholes forcing your bullshit about rationally optimized human beings without a heart on whole societies. You don't even acknowledge free will is real, except for that "compatibilist" definition of free will in which the result is forced, compatible with cause and effect. So what I am saying is that you are obviously against freedom, obviously evil, and the rationalwiki website should be closed down. If the rationalwiki article on free will wouldn't be such a mess denying freedom, or if the page on love would not equate love with brainchemistry, then obviously I would not say these things. So there is credible ground that Rationalwiki is wrong about free will and wrong about love, and reasonably that means there is credible ground that rationalwiki is evil. ^{— Unsigned, by: 109.32.76.239 / talk / contribs}

You're insane. When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 02:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Insanity is defined as repeating the same actions and expecting different results. I give you Exhibit 47B. Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 02:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

That is literally the funniest shit-post I've seen in my fucking life A+++ BoN/Syamsu --Revolverman (talk) 02:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

But we mean that sincerely. Dude/Dudette - please, get help. It's no real inconvenience to us to delete things from the website, but I genuinely worry for your day-to-day living. Please, seek professional help. VOX^HUMANA 02:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

No you are all insane for rejecting subjectivity as legitemate. You all don't even subjectively acknowledge the human spirit, that's how insane you are, pretty damn insane. Subjectivity is vital for dealing with emotions in a right way, and you all don't get that. And your objectivity also sucks because you don't even acknowledge the fact that freedom is real. You obviously listened to humorists for guidance about life, instead of listening to sincere people. This bullshit project to rationally optimize human beings can only go wrong, it is worse than nazism and communism, which both also denied freedom is real, and treated love and hate as matters of fact. Obviously the Delete rationalwiki page is legitemate, because rationalwiki should be deleted.

God, please continue. This is hilarious. --Revolverman (talk) 03:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Very seasoned troll, has the whole bit down pat. He's almost as convincing as Ken. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 03:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not so sure, trolls usually have a little bit more structure and coherency to their rants. I'm inclined to think the door is not only unhinged, but actually floated off down the river when the rains came. VOX^HUMANA 03:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

As much as Vox has just put this into the coop because there's nothing entertaining going on, I do feel there's an issue that does need acknowledging here. I don't think Vox should be hung, drawn, quartered and then made to fellate a goat over this, I do think we need to be careful when deleting any dissent of the project or its principles from the site. I'll admit I'm making a moral panic/slippery slope argument, but if it becomes established that we can delete any dissent on sight just because we think the person(s) behind it are clearly several wasps short of a picnic, we're heading towards CP territory.

It was clearly off-mission, and therefore a deletion candidate, but I think treading lightly is the best precedent in such cases. Considering some of the nutbar 'theories', abandoned templates, slurred ramblings, cat albums and plethora of pics of Ace's fugly mush we have here at the project in user and essay spaces, a move would have probably been better in my opinion. Therefore I'm undeleting the page and moving it to user space. You may now all entertain yourselves by calling me imaginative names. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 07:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Or rather I would have done if they actually had an account instead of just a BoN... -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 07:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

A very elegant solution in my opinion. Tielec01 (talk) 07:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I like the idea, Just not its application in both times when it should (IE, legitimate criticism) and shouldn't (IE, Some guy doing it because he doesnt like that we, like every other website for 3+ years, has rejected his Free Will rant) be applied, --^Mikal_lakiM 07:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

He/she has an account: User:Syamsu. But I don't see the value in moving his/her mainspace rants into userspace rather than deleting them. When someone comes here just to sling shit around, we don't pile it neatly in the corner for them; just get rid of it. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the new "Snowball clause" on the deletion reasons covers this. Nobody has stated that the article should remain and any deletion discussion would probably have been similarly one-sided. I agree with Iscariot's comment that care needs to be taken with unilateral deletion, but since almost everyone has the ability to view deleted content, it's easy enough to resurrect a deleted article and start a full discussion if that's necessary. rpeh •T•C•E• 08:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I also agree with Iscariot, and if the rant had been even vaguely coherent/substantive I would have hesitated. But the snowball clause clearly applied IMO. VOX^HUMANA 09:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

It coheres with the fact that you all reject subjectivity as a legitemate way of reaching a conclusion about what exists. You all say that looking at what emotions somebody has in their heart is a matter of measuring. You play this stupid fucking game where your opinions are magically objective facts also, like every social darwinist does. You are just protecting your vanities is why you reject the Delete Rationalwikipage, there's nothing wrong about that page, except that it is on RationalWiki which should be deleted in it's entirety. --Syamsu (talk) 09:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Syamsu's controversial views have been published in RationalWiki at User:Syamsu/Free will and one copy should suffice. We don't agree that RationalWiki should be deleted but Syamsu can try starting an article on that topic in his own userspace. Proxima Centauri (talk) 10:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Except in no shape or form is that what Syam wants. --^Mikal_lakiM 15:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Inquisitor Ehrenstein

Inquisitor Ehrenstein issues heavy handed blocks out of a sense of personal anger without even attempted to engage the user in conversation to discern intent. His block was undone in about 5 minutes by an objective editor. I submit that The Inquisitor needs to take a classes in responsible Wiki-blocking and Interpersonal communication, and be made to write "I will not lose my shit before determining intent" five hundred times on the blackboard. 72.205.215.192 (talk) 21:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

This is dumb. You implied he'd been sexually assaulted. --Transitional Form^{Still Durbinating} 21:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Unblocked quickly means no harm no foul. When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 21:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, BoN, you should register, that might make things more productive.--Transitional Form^{Still Durbinating} 21:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

From User talk:72.205.215.192: Actually, I'm part of the so called "Old Guard" who left this site years ago when the rulemongers took over. I'd love to see this site return to the glory days of the wiki, but I don't see this ever happening. So, I decided to take advantage of all the problems of this site and have a little fun while I can. Jus' sayin'.--ZooGuard (talk) 21:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

MC? Is that you? HCM 1: activate!--Transitional Form^{Still Durbinating} 21:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I've already been accused of being MC (several times). For the record, can I state? I AM NOT NOW, NOR HAVE I EVER BEEN MARCUS CICERO! 72.205.215.192 (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

(EC) I really don't see where sex abuse was implied, but also don't see why that should be an issue here, as it wouldn't justify a three-day block. I've put a friendly warning on Inquisitor's talkpage, referring him to the sysop guidelines. Hopefully that should be enough. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Proxima Centauri

This is ridiculous. I've looked over a dozen or so of this editors edits and more than half of them were trivial crap, badly sourced, or written so poorly (referring to the leader of the Catholic Church as "Popsie") that I question whether this editor should be allowed near Christian or at the very least Catholic articles. This appears to be a trend and needs to be stopped. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 21:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't write the "Popsie" stuff, it was good faith edit by another user and it stayed a long time. Proxima Centauri (talk) 06:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

This is already under discussion on her talk page & multiple other locations. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

From what I've seen on his/her talkpage she/he is not responding. Where else is this being discussed? Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 22:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

What makes you think she will respond here? And more to the point, what administrative privilege is she abusing?this page is still about admin abuse, isn't it? Sophie^Wilder 22:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

(EC) Started at Talk:Pope Francis #Child sex abuse, continued at SB (now archived: here); probably at other locations. She hasn't participated much (if at all) in the discussion & probably won't. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Alright, these don't appear to have achieved much, can we just go ahead and impose a topic ban (and Sophie, where should I have put this?)? Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 22:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

no need for a topic ban. If PC writes shit revert it. Aceⁱ⁹ 22:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Some of what PC writes is perfectly decent. Sure some of it is crap as well, so edit that stuff away. Even some of the crap stuff is actually a good idea, just badly executed. VOX^HUMANA 22:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

What Ace said. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

What Vox said. Revert her crap and read her sources - even a shitty blog usually leads back to a proper news article. Find it and use that. Sophie^Wilder 22:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

"Sure some of it is crap as well, so edit that stuff away." The problem there is that you need to comb through a string of 6 or 7 edits to find the decent material. Hence the frustration with PC and the auto-reverting of her edits. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, auto-reverting has a low enough false-positive rate to be a good answer. I've suggested Proxima post proposed edits to the article talk pages, where at least they can be reviewed by people who (a) understand logic (b) understand what a reference constitutes (c) can write a sentence. Proxima gets top marks for dedication and enthusiasm, and bottom marks for actual output - David Gerard (talk) 22:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

"I've suggested Proxima post proposed edits to the article talk pages" Like that's going to happen. Osaka Sun (talk) 22:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

As has been pointed out, the problem with the "let her edit, then revert and clean up" strategy is that it is really rather a pain to comb through her mounds of shit looking for something useful. If she's unable to see that phrases like "Popsie" and the various sources she posts are in the least bit up to snuff, then I'm not sure why she should be allowed to continue editing until demonstrating that the she WILL listen to people when they point necessary changes to her editing habits. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 23:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think she's responsible for that, but larding these articles with blog posts, opinion pages, and nonsense like "unsurprisingly ... [something horrible or at least a negative personal opinion]" to support what I view as a vendetta is difficult to stomach.

didn't write the "Popsie" stuff, it was good faith edit by another user and too often I get blamed for anything in an article that other users don't like. Proxima Centauri (talk) 06:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Archive

Motion to archive this section so we can encourage PC to engage the attempt to reach her on her talk page. This isn't the place for a discussion of this nature and it's not yet ripe for decision. 23:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Seconded. Inspiration Move me brightly. 00:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing here that should involve the Coop. Move it somewhere else. --Damo^Hi 04:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree with the three above me. This really isn't something worthy of the coop at this point and should be handled on the user's and/or article's talkpages. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 08:02, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Redemotion because of IP block from previous joke block

Special:UserRights/Inquisitor Ehrenstein

The hour long block has expired, but I apparently still have IP autoblocks from previous joke blocks. Could someone please redemote me so I can have the IP exemption back? This is often a problem for undemoted users. Sasha (talk) 17:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I've unblocked some IP blocks. You'll have to find somebody else to give you your rights back. Inspiration Move me brightly. 18:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you please oversight that, since I can't do it ATM? –Inquisitor Sasha 18:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

No. nor will you once you have rights back--^Mikal_lakiM 18:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

What's going on here? How does anyone know his/her IP addresses and why are they still blocked? And who cares if they're revision hidden if they expose him/her to personal responsibility for being a mutant? 18:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

If he had quoted the block ID, which is displayed on the "you are blocked" message, it could have been unblocked cleanly with no IP address being exposed. Most likely it was one of the block IDs which PS&L unblocked. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

If oversight is not desired for this purpose, I won't use it, but this is the sort of thing that it's for. This and copyright infringement. –Inquisitor Sasha 18:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

This isn't the sort of thing it's intended for. As far as I can tell, you haven't revealed your IP address or any other personal info, so it's unclear what you want hidden. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. I unblocked the one ID'd to him, and then a bunch that had no reason attached, since I was in the neighbourhood. Inspiration Move me brightly. 18:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't get it. Actual IPs aren't exposed with non-anonymous blocks. What is this person complaining about other than being de-sysopped? 18:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I dunno -- the block I did attributed to his IP is not listed in RC, it's just id'd with a five-digit number. Move along folks. Nothing to see here. Inspiration Move me brightly. 19:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

OK. I haven't checked, but they don't look like any of mine. –Inquisitor Sasha 19:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Moratorium for new entries on the To do list?

Discussion moved to RationalWiki talk:To do list.--^talk 07:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Two Requests

User PowderSmokeAndLeather(?)/DidHeDoubt has vandal binned me after a content dispute in which he has edited into the "Racism" article the claim that racial sports performance differences are purely cultural. This view is most certainly not supported by any evidence. This editor has a history of reverting any edits which are inconvenient for his absolutist "anti-racism" POV, including the views of Dawkins. Science is apolitical and it is clear that this editor is an extreme leftist, and a liar. "That's true because it's not racist" is not a scientific argument.

I request that:

• The article remains agnostic on unresolved questions and simply presents known facts.
• I be unbinned.

Thanks. Mikemikev (talk) 14:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I want a puppy, you racist prick. You were vandal binned for edit warring. Are you going to stop? Hipocrite (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

While we're making wish lists, I want to share a hot tub with Natalie Portman and Winona Ryder. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 16:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Pfffhh, my imagination must be lacking, I just want a hot tub with my partner.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 16:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I just want a steel bucket and some warm water... --Revolverman (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I support what PSL did. Regardless, can he be punished anyway? VOX^HUMANA 21:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

OOOOOOOH. How about a spanking? If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 21:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Several hours of foot fetish porn - David Gerard (talk) 21:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Dammit! I knew we shouldn't have deleted that page. VOX^HUMANA 00:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The first request is more important so could someone address that? Mikemikev (talk) 03:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay. If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 03:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Someone other than you obviously. Someone respectable. Mikemikev (talk) 03:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

If you bothered to pay attention, that very issue is being discussed on the talk page. Views are being expressed in a full and frank exchange of ideas. We will see where the coversation leads and see what the consensus is. I personally think the article should be modified, but you have to wait and see what the consensus view is, and accept that decision. --Damo^Hi 04:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

So recent changes to an article should only be deleted after a consensus forms against them :DD --83.84.137.22 (talk) 11:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Dirk Steele

Was I out of line for reverting then binning this guy? His first edits after unbanning were to go to a talk page of a user he griefed via sock and whom he appeared to have a history. I didn't want to be too heavy-handed with him, but would appreciate some input. Diffs: First edit Second edit after revert

Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 20:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? You binned him for that? If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 20:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The vandal brake is for vandals. By your analysis we'd all be binned. L2ignorehim. 02:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Christ Almighty... --Revolverman (talk) 08:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Promotion and ban by Mikal

I think this was fairly uncalled for...

Vergeltung (talk) 05:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, add this. Considering the shit I have been through that you could never imagine, I have the same reaction as you do to being told that I am making up what I have. Vergeltung (talk) 05:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations: you've gotten to the point where, when blocked and demoted, lurking sysops will be highly reluctant to unblock you. I'd suggest you take a moment to think about how you could change that, but... Peter ^mqzp 05:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe the policy is anyone who's not an active vandal... Vergeltung (talk) 05:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

It is? Peter ^mqzp 05:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

RationalWiki:Sysops anyone who isn't an obvious vandal Vergeltung (talk) 06:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Mikal is a waste of time with crummy judgment. You'll get over it. Peter's right. People are going to fix what needs fixing. Complaining on this page of all places is the last place to encourage that happen. The policy may be as you say in writing, but it's not a hard and fast rule and, whether I like it or not, newbies and strangers get treated badly here. Welcome. 16:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Dude, this "newbie and stranger" is Inquisitor Ehrenstein, one of the few users worse than Mikal. Whatever happened to him, he prolly had it comin'. If I knew the way/I would take you home. 16:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what's happening then. Why did Sasha start a new account and why was it blocked? 17:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

You'll have to ask Mikal why he blocked him in the first place. I have been blocking his subsequent socks because he is playing the "victim" card and whining all over the wiki. If I knew the way/I would take you home. 18:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Eh. I don't care what went on in Mikal's head. I think i've come to understand Sasha better. I've at least changed my opinion now that I've seen him in action. He's weird and has problems with folkways here, although hardly as bad as others. But I think he's a good person, means well, and at least tries. 19:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

prolly had it comin Warning Victim blaming! –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 16:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

A "victim." Hilarious. I hope you get the necessary therapy and treatment to get over what must be a deeply-felt, tragic episode of butthurt. If I knew the way/I would take you home. 16:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I just feel so moved that people dislike me so much. --^Mikal_lakiM 16:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I like you, Mikal. :) — ^{(talk to)} [æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst] 19:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I was ask by the OP specifically to come here. I have looked at the public log he posted, but I'm not entirely sure what I'm supposed to be looking for. Maybe I'm looking for the right thing, but I don't see any blocking of the OP, any too extreme blocking of other posters, or abusive changing of group membership. What exactly is the issue here?--Token Conservative (talk) 17:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

His feelings were hurt by Mikal's comment, I think?--^talk 18:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Verg made an account and immediately went here. I have no idea what the hell his problem is.--Token Conservative (talk) 19:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Th. Bernhard

I think this is a bit excessive. Rote Armee Vergeltung (talk) 17:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

No, no it isn't. If I knew the way/I would take you home. 17:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

No. He's right. What I did was really wrong. I should never have unblocked MC.Th. Bernhard_{Das Leben ist ein Prozeß, den man verliert, was man auch tut und wer man auch ist.} 18:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)