RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive35

User:Ryulong and User:Exiled Encyclopedist

Two days ago, Nutty reopped Exiled. Ryulong removed Exiled's sysop. Nutty removed Ryulong's sysop. Neither of these removals was the result of a discussion on the Chicken Coop. As such, I reopped Exiled and reopped Ryulong. Ryulong has brought this up on numerous pages and mentioned a previous Chicken Coop incident. If we are going to discuss anything in this matter, we should discuss it here, rather than on 50 pages. FuzzyCatPotato of the Losing Ropes (talk/stalk) 15:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Deop all 3 and call it a day? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Or don't. Since all three currently have sysop status, just leave things as they hang. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 16:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Pretty obviously people randomly removing sysop status because they personally think it's a good idea is a bad way of going about things. If somebody is abusing their sysop status then this is the place to talk about it. --Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 17:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

FWIW - The opping of EE struck me as a terrible idea - he's not only a bloody worthless waste of space as a contributor (and a good example of the principle that if you just got kicked off Wikipedia, you won't do any better on RW without changing your ways - really, Caligula in Category:Engineer woo? Wasn't woeful categorisation what he got kicked for?), but also has posted copyvios that then needed removing. Though I don't see any in his blather this week. The key point is that EE lacks the minimal judgement needed not to actually piss all over the carpet, all the time going "what? what? what's the problem? you're so MEAN" and if you were looking for an example of a poor newbie harassed by cantankerous old guard, he's sorta not a great one - David Gerard (talk) 17:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I am no particular fan of EE but I'm at a loss to see where he's misused his sysop status. And if that's not the offence he is accused of I don't see the point of removing it.

In any event it would need to be a community decision.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 17:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't care. People are being inconsistent, few have any idea what they're talking about, and this kind of shit is always more about personalities than merits, but do whatever you want. Nutty Roux (talk) 18:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I want aware of process to actually know that this was necessary but CensoredScribe is a mess that should not be trusted on any MediaWiki software site with anything beyond reading ability. outside of my action, his bit has been on and off since registration. IRS not even like he was banned from Wikipedia for personality issues or whatever is rumbling there for me. He got banned because he wouldnt stop making bad content decisions when they were discovered and violated his ban on doing anything regarding categories, which he is wont to do here as well.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I largely concur, but at least almost nothing you can do in MediaWiki is irreversible (which is why sysop is actually not a big deal) - David Gerard (talk) 19:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

[plain old editor hat] I move we all calm down and back away slowly and have more Christmas drink and it'll be as resolved as anything ever is in a wiki full of argumentative skeptics all convinced of their own perspicacity and everyone else's stupidity - David Gerard (talk) 19:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I second David's motion. FuzzyCatPotato of the Losing Ropes (talk/stalk) 19:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I third the motion. I may personally dislike Ryulong; however he has done nothing here to warrant having sysops privileges removed, beyond vengefully removing mine which I've never done to anyone. Ryulong may have committed the capital crime of not capitalizing their O's and using apostrophes correctly, but I do that when stressed by the thought of every post being my last as well.

I ask that this matter be dropped and no ones sysops privileges removed; but if that is too much to ask, than before anyone is tried, may they at least be given warning that a decision is pending, so that they may present their case before a certain time. It will take some time for me to compile a list of my best edits here to refute the less than 10 examples that are cited against me. I have more than 10 good edits, just to science articles.

Inconsistency is correct. I understand I make a lot of edits, but I find it hard to believe you would the majority of them objectionable; this is cherry picking a few bad cherries in a field of hundreds. Also, I'm not an expert on Roman history, however that Caligula article sort of made it sound like he was an engineer who thought he was a god. I would be more than happy just to leave any additions to engineering woo up as a discussion on the respective talk pages, as I've done with UFO; just inform me now what is a personalized banish-able offense for me, and I will avoid it ahead of time.

You never even bother to just ask me politely to discuss categorizations. Nor does anyone bother to demonstrate what is and isn't copyright violations like Drmies did for me the two times I did that as Cassandra Truth. It seems to be like a DNA test done with words, where as little as 6 shared words between the reference cited and the summation of that text constitutes copyright violation. What is the number exactly and if you have a concrete number why isn't it stated somewhere on the site? Try not using a single word from the reference, and see if that's possible and not just completely unrelated to the source at that point; a single drop of plagiarized words like and, the or the article name, poisons the entire well.

We are all in the same boat; the one that isn't Noah's ark. Shiver me timbers! Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 22:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Just an aside, you're not at all obligated to write verbose edit summaries for every edit, you know. Not that there's anything wrong with it, though the effort could be spent on more worthwhile things. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Worthwhile things like taking a few seconds to consider whether adding links to Watergate whenever a -gate topic pops up is really such a splendid idea. >.> 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, CensoredScribe, there was zero reason to add a link to Watergate to Gamergate. This is the shit that got you in trouble on Wikipedia that led to your ban. You add shit that is vaguely and barely connected to things in name only or because of one minor aspect rather than any proper understanding of the whole.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that to build any online community, the sysops need a reasonable temperment and a good amount of impulse control. Ryūlóng has a very short temper and is not good at dealing with disagreements or the need to compromise. Does not RW already have more than enough sysops to accomplish its mission? Hclodge (talk) 02:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Christ you have a fucking zombie problem here too?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Ryūlóng once again proves my point. Hclodge (talk) 02:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

On RationalWiki, sysops don't really get any power, so there's no reason somebody shouldn't be a sysop, unless they actively seek to harm RationalWiki. We all are idiots to some degree, some more than others, and so it's silly to remove sysop because somebody is an idiot. FuzzyCatPotato of the Losing Ropes (talk/stalk) 03:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the mere fact that a) EE thinks I'm banned from Wikipedia (hasn't happened yet) and b) that I hate him because he added a stupid category to an article I watch is really telling that he doesn't know what the hell is happening around him and he really shouldn't be given the free reign he has anymore or whatever this shit means.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

How about you both stop dragging Wikipedia drama over here? No-one else here really cares whether you or EE is banned from WP. It's nothing to do with RW. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 11:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it's pretty relevant that EE was kicked off Wikipedia, came here and started doing the same stupid and worthless shit. (And Ryulong is not banned, this is EE lying. And that's relevant to working with anyone here too.) - David Gerard (talk) 13:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

So where is this going? His latest comment suggests he's not going to be around much for a while anyway. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 14:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Be nice if it comes true, I expect a return soon - this is already his second name here - David Gerard (talk) 15:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Mr. or Ms. Gerard, is that the encyclopedia dramatica says about you true in anyways? Is this site also a comedy site that could legally say those things under the protection of parody? Care to comment on uplifting at the saloon and why your so opposed to talking about the genetic engineering article?

I agree that Ryulong should not be a sysop, he had someone with the authority to alter the edit history remove his comment about me being a fucktard when another editor compared them to me. That prompted the change to the super sentei page to remove size change, David Gerard is not using the talk page and is the most likely explanation as Ryulong and I hadn't met yet. I also was not able to log into my account after adding Brain transplant in fiction to the anime character Black Jack's page, which sounds like either a powerful administrator who doesn't like me, or a precognitive hacker Ryulong; who I had not offended yet, but who clearly knows David Gerard and Watcher in the Dark and vocally doesn't like me. If Ryulong is going to claim something else prompted them to suddenly revert the category he approved than feel free to lie; I should have taken a screenshot I just wasn't expecting high level administrator abuse, not being paranoid and or competent.

I accuse David Gerard of edit warring like Ryulong, and of the more serious ofense of white washing select editors offensive remarks like "don't compare me to that fucktard". I would like to call upon our most neutral moderator, Miekal to ask him who it was that was doxxed when he was called in to deal with me on an unrelated matter, I fearfully suspect it was me. Ryulong and David Gerard both have short tempers and consistently edit war, he also has a more vested interest in keeping this Wiki clean of filth like me than anyone else. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 03:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

For fucks sake. Mikal isn't neutral. He's probably rolled you back more than anyone else. And he's a moron with bad judgment. I think I've said this before: you're not going to get anything you want out of complaining on this page. You really should take a break. Nutty Roux (talk) 03:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to use my supposed neutralness to ask I not be involved in this unless it's to archive the discussion. --Miekal 04:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no evidence, so I know nothing will come from telling the truth to defend myself. That someone would change a category for super sentei out of the blue months later is just strange, not condemning. That I wouldn't go to ANI after editing the page for Black Jack is also strange, not not condemning. That David Gerard is edit warring over a page that talks about the human animal chimeras when he's accused of being a supported of zoophilia on Encyclopedia Dramatica is also just strange, not condemning; Encyclopedia Dramatica can make mean crap up in the name of parody; though they seem to particularly hate David Gerard more than anyone else if they are making things up. I'm assuming someone whose transgender would never be a hypocrite because someone used a different name; however that's a gigantic assumption as everyone is different and some transgender people are spiteful ass holes.

Does anyone know who to contact at Wikipedia about the history being tampered with; or just corruption at high level positions in general? Miekal, David Gerard hasn't tampered with anything here, however would you notice if someone did; could you yourself delete something from the sites fossil record if you really wanted to; I know you wouldn't, but could you? Who here has the ability to delete edits from the history and from others with the ability to view deleted edits? If not even someone next to the sites server could do that, no even it's owner, than couldn't a hacker still? Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 05:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Dealing with you and cleaning up after your spoor is a ridiculous waste of everyone's time, and this was completely predictable when you came here from Wikipedia without changing the behaviours that got you kicked off there - David Gerard (talk) 08:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

If there is anyone at RW who does not consider EE a dramatising waste of space, could they please step up to take on cleanup duty - David Gerard (talk) 09:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I hate being the witness to your crimes Gerard; deleting Wikipedia's history without telling them is a form of vandalism well beyond what most editors are capable of, lacking your influence as the U.K. spokesperson. It's intimidating being abused by an admin as powerful as you; I'm just glad your ad idiot who white washed Ryulongs page and more obviously edit war over slavery; which must be much more popular in the UK than it is in the states. Mind telling the class which of us is on the Wikipedia page for slavery Ms. David Gerard? Please don't swear like Ryulong whether it's fucktard or fuckwit; and make your criticisms longer than a sentence or two; you've seen the Uncyclopedia article on this Wiki's problem with constructive criticism; did they not let you become an admin there?

You can't be trusted; you're like a crooked cop with too many connections, and when you fall you will drag down others in your web of lies. You've hated me since my first months editing Wikipedia, long before I got involved with fiction. Ryulong calls me a quack yet won't call in either of the two editors who reverted me on medical topics, because they actually respected me, if only a little; unlike you. You don't seem particularly keen on calling Jmh in as an expert, probably because of my contribution to the HIV and SIV articles being indisputably useful; which is odd seeing as another editor added exactly the same thing about HIV on Rational wiki before me, yet chose not to on Wikipedia. You've lost, you should have stayed away from slavery, than you could have stood a chance. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 07:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you're aware of this, but making your prose all purply doesn't help your case. It makes you seem like you're over-dramatizing everything. Try to stick to more straight forward statements of fact. Ikanreed (talk) 14:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Can we get rid of his ops already? He is insane and has repeatedly brought up ED pages as if it actually means something. They fucking doxxed me there. I don't like it that EE possibly knows my name now.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Ban Tiac and David Gerard for edit warring over well referenced slavery related edits.

I know from previous experience how dangerous asking for this can be with the Djin Sprocket misinterpreting my wishes. Please look at the fossil record before David Gerard white washes it, like he did with Ryulongs edit history. Even if you don't believe me, you must believe Ryulong lies about the importance of Super Sentei not having size change, or else he would never have reverted himself after 2 months. He's a sociopathic liar, you have to choose between me and three people; choose wisely; this is civil wiki war. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 06:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, threatening to set Anonymous on David Gerard probably crosses some line. You have gotten to the point of seeing conspiracies against you. The last time you accused people of whitewashing edit histories, you were mistaken. Regardless, this is alleged to have happened on another wiki, months ago, with no evidence. --TiaC (talk) 08:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Another doxxing threat--TiaC (talk) 08:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

"Please look at the fossil record" - what fossil record? I look at slavery & see no edits by Tiac or David Gerard. Did it get wshed already? Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I have to be so specific about the page; you point out my every confusion of my thousands of edits to make me look manipulative while simultaneously stupid. Yes, the pages were the similar author Mark Twain and Thomas Jefferson. The edits to Wikipedia's history page for Super Sentei and Ryulongs talk page have both been altered though by one of the 50 some people who could actually access the servers physically. They were paid as no one would risk there job for free. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 00:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe he's referring to my edits to Thomas Jefferson.--TiaC (talk) 08:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Hold on, back the truck up. Wasn't EE supposed to be leaving? Or am I missing something? --Inquisitor (talk) 08:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

He left for nearly two days, but then people commented on his talkpage and he came right back.--TiaC (talk) 09:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

He never planned to leave in the first place, grandiose announcements of having nothing left to work on and that he's gonna be gone except every so often are a character trait. --Miekal 11:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

My new years resolution is seriously to leave, as soon as I'm done with these discussions and Slavery Genetic Engineering and Rape are documented well. I wasn't expecting court again and didn't see Ryulongs talk page on Wikipedia had erased my peace treaty with him. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 00:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm starting to wonder whether this guy is a natural drama queen with a strange obsession over categories or whether he's intentionally trolling. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 09:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Please sign in before commenting sock. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 00:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

He was banned from Wikipedia for this sort of thing. Can I just say "I told you so"? I told you so - David Gerard (talk) 12:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

...and you wonder why things are of a disgraceful encyclopedia dramatica quality when this is the example provide of how to handle things by experienced editors. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

You're saying nothing whatsoever that helps with the problem. We have an unbalanced nutter crapping over article space and spewing random slander at people when they dare revert him. If you have an actually useful suggestion, this is the time and place - David Gerard (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I know how tempting it is to engage in these pointless discussions. I'll step in and moderate this shitshow since this was about David, he had an obligation to respond, and it may have appeared unseemly if he was the one to shut this complete waste of time down. EE, take a break or not. Whether they're right or wrong (I largely agree with the responsible editors' criticisms of your editing patterns, but I'm disappointed in vapid nonsense from clowns like Ryulong — I have no idea why he's even here other than to gratuitously harass EE), I'll repeat that you're never going to get anything you want by cooping anyone here. Nutty Roux (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I came here 100% unaware that CensoredScribe aka ExiledEncyclopedist was even a thing. He went out of his own fucking way to see that I came here. You are a complete fucking moron if you think he is of any positive benefit to this website when he keeps going on and on about petty bullshit that led him to be banned from Wikipedia and the fact that he has repeatedly brought up Davids Encyclopedia Dramatica page which means he's done reading on mine as well. I do not feel fucking safe knowing that this insane quack you won't fucking stop protecting now knows my full name and knows what I look like because Gamergate decided that dropping dox counts as transparency. EE should be gone. You need to stop defending him. He is a waste of time and space on this website because he is adding nothing other than his stupid obsession over minor fucking connections between subjects.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Ryulong is now edit warring over rape, read my talk page where he says all the examples in unremitting horror are comedy. Yeah, I admit I was mistaken about Wells, I confused him with Mark Twain and looked like an idiot; being gaslighted makes you paranoid. Do you really think someone who talks as much as me and tries to be polite wouldn't have asked Ryulong for permission to edit ANY pages to have size change after our edit war? No one is denying Ryulong has a history of edit warring I notice, they just aren't mentioning it like they do with me.

This is flash mob justice; read my additions to the atomic bombings, the holocaust, historical revisionism and rape; than tell me I'm more useless than Ryulong, after going through all my thousands of edits. Can you please set a timer for when deliberations here are to be concluded rather than springing it on someone? It doesn't need to eb now, just mention it a day or two before closing the conversation, the discussion for slavery being a relavent category lasted 1 day. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

A Gish Gallop of small, often trivial, often irrelevant edits does not a good contributor make. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

EE, you were banned from Wikipedia because you couldn't fucking leave categories alone after I found out your bullshit. You were a waste there and a waste here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Time to call upon the mob

We have a gibbering lunatic being a fucking problem in a variety of ways:

• Terrible content. Really, just shit. Most edits are being reverted.
• Delusional accusations against other editors.
• Blatant cut'n'paste copyright violations.
• Deliberate attempts to foment drama.
• i.e., continuing literally the same behaviour that got him kicked off Wikipedia without changing his ways one dot.

I move that EE be deopped at the least, and really he needs kicked off the wiki. He adds nothing and subtracts a whole lot.

Anyone who thinks otherwise: seriously, what use is this editor? What actual positive reasons are there to keep him around, in the face of his assiduous work at being a fuckwit? - David Gerard (talk) 00:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Since it's inception people have never been just kicked off the wiki. Point to a violation of the rules. Aceⁱ⁹ 00:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

In the above discussion I linked to a few of his many threats to set Anonymous on David because David disagreed with his edits. I support deopping due to this and his insane spamming of random users' talkpages with drama and conspiracy theories about how we're all out to get him.--TiaC (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Please. He's angry at me now for reverting his addition of Rape into Category:Unremitting horror and is going all over saying that I'm denying rape on top of his new catchphrase of "Ryulong is afraid of giant women" like how in 3rd grade kids said I was afraid of the Quaker Oats guy. He is insane.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be confused as to whether unremitting horror is a joke category or not. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 00:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I pointed out above that being a sysop grants a RW user basically no power. Deopping either Ryulong or Exiled does almost nothing, except allow the possibility of a real ban, which seems extreme. FuzzyCatPotato of the Losing Ropes (talk/stalk) 00:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I never said the word dox or suggested it, we all know the FBI monitors ED. It's the Feds, not a bunch of hackers who will investigate this know that they know where to look; Wnt just happens to be one of the seemingly wiser people on ED and the only one I trust there. Why doesn't someone test how little Ryulong cares by changing Super Sentei to include size change as a category as an experiment; Power Rangers seems to have already been accepted. Strange I didn't double revert myself on any other size change categorizations; must be an expensive lie. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 01:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a reason why EE is a waste of time and space. He will not stop fucking mentioning the reason that led to me finding out about his shit behavior on WP. Asking people to see I would react to the shit you pulled on your own his childish. And for fucks sake man it's Super Sentai. Stop fucking misspelling it unless you're doing it just to fuck with me then fuck you and the horse you rode in on.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Why should any of us care? I don't even know what the fuck Super Sentaei is & I'm already sick of hearing about it. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 02:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

It's the Japanese genre that the Power Rangers franchise is based on. Apparently EE felt the need to categorize Super Sentai pages with a size change category, since it's horrible if the recurrent tropes of a genre aren't listed in the categories or something. >.> 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, who cares? Wikipedia's problems aren't ours. Why is everyone treating RationalWiki like an extension of Wikipedia? Can nobody else see problems with this? ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 03:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not trying to make anyone care about this shit. He keeps bringing it up to egg me on. He's a fucking idiot who doesn't know how any wiki community is supposed to work except maybe TV Tropes.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

1. Deopping is fine. Some people can't handle having a mop. Won't stop him from contributing.
2. High edit revert rate needs some kind of standing policy he has to obey or get a cooling off period of a couple days. Maybe something like a "no adding categories" policy.
3. Bothering users who clash with you is stupid. You can choose to not do that yourself, since that's a matter of being goddamn fucking polite. Ikanreed (talk) 01:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

EE is a drain on everyone's time and resources as he was on Wikipedia. I did not realize he was here when I joined. He went out of his way to approach me in order to effectively rehash the shit he pulled there. He has no fucking clue what this place is for.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

For reasons that aren't entirely clear to me, RW has always suffered fools well past their expiration date. I guess the strategy has always been "maybe if we don't move or make eye contact... he'll get bored and wander off." --Inquisitor (talk) 02:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I've got a whole jar of fools I've encountered on the Web, EE is one I avoid getting involved with.--Palaeonictis (talk) 03:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Consensus time

Let' do it like Articles for deletion and get some numerical consensus going on. Number sign, your reason, your sig. FuzzyCatPotato of the Losing Ropes (talk/stalk) 04:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

---

Exiled Encylopedist

Desysop, deautopatrol, block from RationalWiki

1. He's ranting like a maniac. I see two possibilities. 1) He's paranoid and deluded; He genuinely thinks there's a conspiracy to persecute him for no good reason. 2) He's a troll. He's deliberately copying the same behaviour that got him banned from Wikipedia just for a laugh. He's importing totally irrelevant wikidrama from Wikipedia just to wind everyone up. Either way, we'd be better off without him. Spud (talk) 04:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

   Spud's got it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC) INELIGIBLE TO VOTE

2. First choice. He's a raving pool of negative worth - David Gerard (talk) 08:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
3. Claimed to be leaving RationalWiki, only to return two days later to resume posting his shitty categories all over the place. Typhoon (talk) 10:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
4. I've never seen someone claim to be retiring more times. He's a promoter of bizarre wiki conspiracies that he backs up with zero evidence and a complete waste of time. If he's not blocked we'll be back here again in a week. Marlow (talk) 17:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
5. Change to this due to recent developments involving David Gerard as set forth below. A line has been crossed that shouldn't be. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{A ⇒ ¬A.} 05:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
6. What EE is now saying & doing at ED crosses the line in much the same way as what Inquisitor Sasha did last year. We should respond similarly. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
7. He's crossed the line from being an annoying wikimartian to making vile personal comments. Time to block. Bicycle^wheel 15:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
8. Deeply personal and intrusive offsite harassment. Nutty Roux (talk) 16:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
9. Moving my vote; for reasons that should be obvious. Carpetsmoker (talk) 16:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
10. Moving my vote for the same reason as those already mentioned by others. EE has clearly gone off the deep end. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
11. --Miekal 16:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
12. Doxxing DG. FuzzyCatPotato of the Losing Ropes (talk/stalk) 17:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Desysop, deautopatrol, vandalbin

• #He is good faith, he's just nuts, rubbing too many people the wrong way, and causing too much trouble as an editor. Binning will allow him to edit, and hopefully both do it right and not get harassed by people jumping on the EE bandwagon. Nutty Roux (talk) 04:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• #I've been following this, even if I've kept my two cents out up 'till now: I don't think his behavior warrants a perma-ban. --Maxus (talk) 05:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC) INELIGIBLE TO VOTE
• #While he has shown no indication that he will listen, I'd still like to give him one more chance. I think he is trying to improve the wiki, he's just really bad at it. Vandalbinning should stop his more antisocial tendencies.--TiaC (talk) 05:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC) INELIGIBLE TO VOTE
• #Mostly because I don't really see much of an underhanded agenda or axe-grinding in his edits -- they're just odd sometimes -- some kind of probation is the worst that should happen. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{A ⇒ ¬A.} 05:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• #Second choice - David Gerard (talk) 08:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• #He (or she?) *also* makes reasonable contributions, somewhat overshadowed by the not-so-reasonable ones, though. Banning seems to much, for now anyway. Carpetsmoker (talk) 11:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• #--Miekal 17:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• # Too much drama from someone who only misunderstands the use of categories (he needs to learn the difference between true and relevant) and adds sci-fi trivia, neither of which deserve a full block. Bicycle^wheel 18:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC) UPDATE: changed vote to block, see section above. Bicycle^wheel 15:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

1. Sick of cleaning up plagiarism and dealing with EE's paranoid delusions about my motives. WatcherIntheDark (talk) 13:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
2. this seems fair, lets him edit with time for some serious thought. If there was a way to block him from article pages and only edit talk I would vote for that. Hamster (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
3. for no other reason than he gets right up my nose. (and he's made a cryptic comment on my talk page which I totally fail to comprehend. Scream!! (talk) 13:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
4. I'm with Nutty on this. --MtD^{Notorious Sodomite} 06:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
5. For continually drinking straight from the carton and leaving the bread open. --Inquisitor (talk) 05:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

#What Nutty said. FuzzyCatPotato of the Losing Ropes (talk/stalk) 04:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Desysop, deautopatrol

1. I'm very fond of an escalating response and this leaves both vandal binning and blocking still in the arsenal, meaning that there will still be time for EE to cool it. It should nevertheless send a clear signal that something is out of whack. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC) Apparently I'm ineligible to vote - sorry. ScepticWombat (talk) 12:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC) Hurrah! I'm enfranchised! ScepticWombat (talk) 13:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC) Changed vote to BLOCK, EE has lost it. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

---

Ryulong

Desysop, deautopatrol, block from RationalWiki

1. Nutty Roux (talk) 04:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Desysop

1. In the past, Ryulong has unnecessarily given blocks, removed user rights, and hidden page revisions, but is a certainly a good-faith editor. Edit: Nvm hid rev. FuzzyCatPotato of the Losing Ropes (talk/stalk) 05:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
2. AT MOST, IF Ryulong has been a wee bit to keen in swinging the blocking mop, (s)he should lose that option. I've not seen that much of it (but then again I haven't been looking for it), so this vote should merely be seen as the maximum sanction I would find proportional. If someone goes crazy with a mop, you take it away, you don't kick them out. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC) Apparently I'm ineligible to vote - sorry. ScepticWombat (talk) 12:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC) Nope, I really am enfranchised, whoop whoop! ScepticWombat (talk) 13:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
3. I can just barely vote on this, as I started editing on June 5th which is 6 months and 5 days ago. Wikipedias record now denies I visited Ryulong's talk page here but wouldn't show up to have the final word over a Wikipedia edit war. Gerards a sock puppeter and Ryulong paid to have Wikipedias record augmented to make me less polite. For the record, no one deserves to be doxxed, not even Ryulong; the FBI will investigate your cyber crime. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

   What the fuck are you talking about?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

4. I havent paid attention to all of this drama but desysop for a while should solve some of the problems. He can always get them back in a couple of weeks. Hamster (talk) 17:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Nothin' (apparently goat as a vote is 2spooky

Move yer stuff from goat if nothin' be what ye seek. FuzzyCatPotato of the Losing Ropes (talk/stalk) 11:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

1. Not done anything wrong as far as I can see. (see DG's "balance fallacy" comment in Goat below) Scream!! (talk) 13:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Goat

• I'm guessing this is a "why the fuck are you even suggesting this" option.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

  I removed rights once. And "unnecessarily given blocks"? You guys block each other for 3 seconds for the hell of it all the time. And I hid a revision because I thought that it contained a dox on me and that was only today.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

  The desysop vote is symbolic. You need to cool it on using your admin powers. Not the "fun" blocks - the EE blocks, the GG revision hiding, and any demotion of another sysop. Mostly, you do great. FuzzyCatPotato of the Losing Ropes (talk/stalk) 05:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

  The only "abuse" was finding out I could desysop EE. I blocked those IPs shitting up the GG page and avoided telling EE to "fuck off" in the block I gave.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

  Also, I didn't do any revision hiding on any GG page. I hid one revision that EE put on my page because it looked wrong.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• Far too few goats on this page. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 05:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• While he is mainly a single-issue editor, he has done a great deal for the Gamergate page. He may not have always done things correctly, but when this is pointed out he will accept the correction without arguing. I think all that's needed is a warning to look at the help pages and sysop guide more before taking drastic action.--TiaC (talk) 05:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

  I still need help adapting content from this Czech dolphin woo website to expand my repertoire.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• I just don't see the bad faith here. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{A ⇒ ¬A.} 05:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Borderline goat. You need to lighten up with the sysop stuff, Ryulong. You're beginning to grate on the nerves. --MtD^{Notorious Sodomite} 06:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Ryulong even being listed here is a rampaging case of balance fallacy - David Gerard (talk) 08:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• In the spirit of capitalism, Vote for sale, unused, make offer. nobs^{It all depends what ISIS is.} 22:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Wait until the now-almost-inevitable EE block lets things cool off and we'll see what Ryulong's like when not being continually poked with a stick by an annoying twerp. Bicycle^wheel 15:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• 
  
  Goat!
  Typhoon (talk) 10:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

---

Discussion of the voting method

How on earth would you ever come to a consensus on anything by having this many options.--Miekal 04:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

They cascade. Thus, 1 vote for DDBF also counts for DDV, DA, and D. 1 vote for DDV also counts for DA and D.

If 1 voted for DDBF, 1 for DDV, 1 for DA, 1 for D, and 3 for Goat, then D (4) beats G (3), but DA (3) doen't beat G (3).

look mikal i wasnt thinkin too hard, just wanted to make sur i got it all, dont hate me plis FuzzyCatPotato of the Losing Ropes (talk/stalk) 04:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

"Goat" or similarly labeled votes are not counted toward vote totals. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 09:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

And that voting method makes no sense. It would be impossible for DDBF, DDV or DA to be a majority decision, since any vote either of them is also a vote for D & any other options between. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Now I'm mostly just wondering how "plis" should be pronounced. Is it plural? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 04:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

What the fuck have I done other than be pissed off at EE for being EE that requires any of the shit with my name on it?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

You're not a good faith editor and nobody likes you. Nutty Roux (talk) 04:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

You got proof to back that up or just my squabble with a nutjob that you've enabled? I bet I've provided more good original content to this website in a month EE has done in the 6 he's been here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Nutty, you've got nothing to back up that claim - David Gerard (talk) 08:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Wow.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Ryulong, you're here because Exiled Encyclopedist asked that you be banned from RationalWiki, so, to give a fair shout to his request, I added a vote for that, too. FuzzyCatPotato of the Losing Ropes (talk/stalk) 04:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't we be voting about Gerard and TiaC too then? ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 05:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Exiled Encyclopedist is just salty because I was the one who led to his ban from Wikipedia and we've seen he's just doing the same shit here, partly to push my buttons once he saw I was actively editing.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

141, (the "username resistor") the page would be soooooo long if I had to add everyone EE got mad at. Ryu is new and has more potential for sanctions; Gerard, TiaC, do not. FuzzyCatPotato of the Losing Ropes (talk/stalk) 05:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I've been involved in getting 2 peoples sysops removed. I was wrong about Weaseloid; I was just pissed at the time over the stem cell page being revised after months of being up there; I'm guessing most of you don't believe Jack Parsons used embryonic stem cells just because he met an occultist and was locked in his room for two weeks, nor is my observation on the tarot convincing. I have to wonder if sexism would be as bad if this information were taught in public schools. I still don't like Zoo Guard or WatcherintheDark, though I dropped arguing against them. Most of the people I don't like seem to talk to one another at some point as evidenced by Ryulongs talk page. Also; just as I visited Ryulongs talk page here I did so on Wikipedia. because I like to talk and at least pretend to be diplomatic. I've no evidence though, so I'm as crazy as a rape victim accused of just faking it; not to diminish the unremitting horror of rape by comparing it to cyber bullying. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Gerard is a shiftless troll. He's never done a single thing of value here or with any of the myriad women he's bedded because he gets more ass than a toilet seat. Blocking isn't good enough. Force him to suck a hobo's toes through his dirty socks. Make him express a wolf's anal glands. Dentistry without anesthesia. Ban ban ban. Nutty Roux (talk) 05:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Nutter Butters speaks, I obey FuzzyCatPotato of the Losing Ropes (talk/stalk) 05:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

It occurs to me that my dry wit is often too dry. To be clear, the only thing I want to see happen is Gerard express something's anal glands because I find them cover-my-eyes-and-peek-through-my-fingers-intriguing, but wouldn't touch them with neoprene gauntlets. Nutty Roux (talk) 01:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Voter franchise requirements

As per RationalWiki:Community Standards #Voting:

“”In order to vote in policy votes, which seek to change the Community Standards or similar official policy documents, or penalty votes, which seek to penalize (or change existing penalties for) a user, you must have at least 75 total edits and a registration date at least three months prior to the conclusion of the vote.

I've struck out three votes from users who don't qualify. If you don't meet these franchise requirements, please don't cast a vote in either of these penalty votes. Thank you. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Missed the 3-months seniority requirement, so I've struck out my votes. Sorry about messing up, and it means I shouldn't have put up EE's slavery category for deletion either - my bad. ScepticWombat (talk) 12:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Logs are showing you created your account on 24 July 2014 & made a few edits around that time, so I thought your vote looked OK. Also, BTW, this franchise requirement only applies to votes on site policy or on penalising users, not on things like page deletion voting. AFAIK, there's no specific requirement to be able to vote on deleting or keeping an article or category. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, didn't remember that it was that long ago I registered here - time flies ;-) I just went by the welcome date on my talkpage which was when I started being more active. ScepticWombat (talk) 13:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I had been here longer than that. However, I put off registering for a while so I'm 10 days short. --TiaC (talk) 18:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

How bothersome.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Vote counting

I suggest we disregard the "cascade" method suggested by FuzzyCatPotato above, which is unorthodox, convoluted & weighted toward certain outcomes. Take a look at how the current votes count up at this point if we adhere to FCP's system:

Desysop, deautopatrol, block from RationalWiki: 4 (+0) = 4
Desysop, deautopatrol, vandalbin: 12 (+4) = 16
Desysop, deautopatrol: 1 (+16) = 17
Desysop: 0 (+17) = 17
Nothing: 0

If we counted these for the highest after tallying, it will always be either desysop or desysop & de-autopatrol (a pointless distinction), despite virtually nobody voting for that, since they accumulate secondary votes from all other options above. But I think what FCP is actually suggesting is that the outcome will be the most severe penalty with more votes than the votes for no action. I.E. we would ban EE because 4 votes for a ban > 0 votes for no action.

If this is the intended counting method, it's a corrupt one that will almost certainly default to an editing ban, despite few people voting for that and several of the people voting for vandal binning saying that they wouldn't support a ban. This looks likely to be the case unless a fair number of people vote for no action, which seems unlikely, and seems peculiar when the most popular option (at this point) is clearly vandal binning rather than banning.

Any penalty vote must be held fairly with a clear outcome & not left open for dispute. I suggest we disregard the above cascade method & count votes as majority only (according to what option people have voted for, not any implied or assumed secondary option). Users can amended their vote if they have already voted tactically according to FCP's model. As per the Community Standards, a vote to ban from would need a two-thirds majority. Any other sanctions would need a simple majority. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems that the most severe penalty looses 4/12 against the vandal bin option and lower penalties didnt get many votes either. Why dont we just take that as the vote ? it makes no sense to cascade the way you described. deautopatrol just makes the edits clearer in recent changes doesnt it ? he will be watched now anyway, not much point as you say. As an aside I know of a wiki that badly needs editors if EE wants a new home. aSoK ! Hamster (talk) 19:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I suspect that many of the people voting "goat" don't realise that that has traditionally been regarded as an abstention.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 20:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

It's an aside, not an abstention. It isn't counted in calculating an outcome or total number of votes & there's no restriction against people who cast a vote also posting a comment under goat. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Then I'm not sure that people voting "aside/goat" understand that it's a non-counted vote. (AKA an abstention.)--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 16:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. The only reason I supported cascading is that you could end up with

Desysop, Deautopatrol, Block from RationalWiki: 1 votes.

Desysop, Deautopatrol, Vandalbin: 1 votes.

Desysop, Deautopatrol: 1 votes.

Desysop: 1 votes.

Nothing: 3 votes.

If we used majority vote, then Nothing would win, although clearly 4 people would want action when only 3 would want Nothing. However, I'm not sure how to solve the problem pointed out by Weaseloid. FuzzyCatPotato of the Losing Ropes (talk/stalk) 21:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

That tends to happen when the guilt and penalty phases get fused into one. --Inquisitor (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe the intended action was that it would be something like ranked-choice voting. Spillover would only happen if no position reached the required 2/3rds majority. So, whatever the highest position to have 2/3rds support of sanctions at least that strong would go into effect. In this case, that would be DS,DA,VB with 16/17 in support of at least that. DS,DA,B only has 4/17 support so it would not pass.--TiaC (talk) 22:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

This is why we don't usually vote for multiple options on this kind of thing. Typically we'd discuss the proposed sanctions first, then vote aye or nay. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't know the procedure for banning/vandalbinning/deautopatrolling/desysopping. (Do we have a copy of it anywhere, aside from the CS?) FuzzyCatPotato of the Losing Ropes (talk/stalk) 01:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it's a kind of unwritten thing that you learn by being here for a while. If you would like to formalise it then I suppose you you would need to make a proposal here.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 16:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

EE not shutting up about how many edits he has

• This is odd...do you think I'm Tranquility of Soul Ryulong, if I am wouldn't I have reverted super sentei earlier than this? I thought you didn't care about super sentei anymore? [1] Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• "Ryulong, categories have always been subject to Wikipedia's policies on verifiability, no original research, and neutral point of view. The fact that these has been lax enforcement isn't an excuse to continue to ignore the problem. If you believe that categorization should not be subject to these policies, then you are welcome to start a RfC on the matter. But simply stating that categorization is not subject to these polices, and you think they are accurate is the same type of BS we had with CensoredScribe." [2] Exiled Encyclopedist Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• I doubt your gay as you claim Ryulong, otherwise you would acknowledge my addition to HIV/AIDS on Wikipedia was a significant contribution; along with my support of fictional female empowerment. You also say I'm incompetent yet have connections and immunity from anonymous [3] Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Only 2 people here have cited logical fallacies; that combined with Roko's Basilisk and the charges of David Gerard sabotaging LR, suggest the name resistor and David Gerard have more in common than CensoredScribe has with Tranquility of Soul. Using socks for discussions is the original use of socks. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Ryulong, list all the edits you've made that you think are worth mentioning; because mine divided by six is still more than you. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia

I've really not been following all the drama associated with this so I'm not going to vote. However (if I've not made a mistake) the world "wikipedia" appears over thirty times on this page. Is it possible that drama or opinions from another site are influencing opinions here? This is odd as I would imagine that people should only be held responsible for their actions here. From the admittedly scant interest I have taken in this debate this a suggestion which would apply to participants on both sides of this debate.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 17:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

This is the point I made above & was told by David Gerard that EE's Wikipedia ban is relevant to us. I still dispute this & will continue to do so every time I see Wikipedia disputes & drama spilling over into RationalWiki - or indeed RationalWiki disputes & drama spilling over into Wikipedia. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course it's irrelevant. We should only be concerned about what people do here. In fact our privacy guidelines would seem to suggest that information about our users which they don't volunteer shouldn't even be posted.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 18:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

It's relevant in that he's pulling the exact same lunatic bullshit he did there, and this isn't going to work out well. You may think otherwise, but hi, target here - David Gerard (talk) 21:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

It's relevant because EE is fucking insane and one website only led to another.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The fact that somebody may have fallen out with admins or done something bad on one website has no bearing on how that in individual should be regarded somewhere else.

Should people who have problem with you here have problems on WP?

Should an individual who give creates problems at CP be punished elsewhere?

Clearly not. We can only judge people on what they do here - and doing otherwise is explicitly prohibited by our community standards.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 16:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I just blocked EE for posting about my personal life

and killed the edit in question. Also deopped him so he can't just unblock himself and keep spewing bile. This may technically cross lines, but oddly enough too fucking bad. I'm not under obligation to have a lunatic arsehole shit all over the place about my family. I've blocked him for a week, that should be enough for the mob to decide whether he's some sort of productive genius.

Nutty, you haven't posted any of your justification for covering for this arsehole. I do in fact want to hear your reasoning - David Gerard (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Only saw this because I wasn't logged in on this computer. Glad I did. Just email me if I miss anything important. I haven't "covered" for him in any meaningful sense other than sysopping him when knuckleheads continued blocking him. Complaining about him copying from WP is fair, and the extent to which it continued was certainly grounds for sanctioning him. But it's hard not to roll your eyes when the same people, some of whom add nothing here, reflexively roll him back and even block him with the blanket reason that any copying from WP isn't allowed. That's simply not true, and going after the guy for that became memetic. The problem was attribution and failing to actually integrate the material well. I'd take the rollback button away from half a dozen people if I had the authority. EE's certainly better informed than some of the people following him around. In any event, I accept that he's a very problematic editor. I barely edit other than to grief losers people I respect complain about in private, so don't let me hold back the wheels of justice from turning. Nutty Roux (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

having read what he put...ugh. that's unacceptable and he should apologise if he wants to come back. Bicycle^wheel 15:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

No. He doesn't come back after that. It's of a kind with what Ehrenstein said about you and less so the utterly astonishing threat he made to me. Nutty Roux (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

True. My offer for him to apologise was made in the expectation that he never would. Bicycle^wheel 16:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

He is not sufficiently attached to reality that an apology would be meaningful or believable - David Gerard (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

EE@ED

"CensoredScribe" is bugging Wnt and me at Encyclopedia Dramatica. He's also added nonsense to Gerard's article. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Jesus christ that site is gross. Nutty Roux (talk) 01:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you nuke my page from orbit—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

No. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you unlock my user talk there—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

What's your account's name? There isn't an account called "Ryulong" registered there. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

There's basically nothing to be done about ED; I ignore it. Just take heart that it's actually moved up in moral fibre since DeGrippo gave up - David Gerard (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Can we just end this now?

The vote is going to go overwhelmingly in favor of banning at this point, especially considering all the current non ban votes are from before the above block and likely would also switch over. As well, is it really something to discuss a ban over that they are going off site to harass users? --Miekal 16:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you're probably right. Sasha/Ehrenstein was summarily banned for similar behaviour. Brxbrx was also summarily banned for a year, though this was somewhat different (it was a RMF decision due to legal hazard). Unless there are strong objections, I suggest moving forward with a long-term block. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

How long should EE block be for? FuzzyCatPotato of the Losing Ropes (talk/stalk) 17:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

100 years? There is (or at least used to be) a principle that we don't issue permanent bans, but it's a rather an arbitrary idea that led to us giving one-year or two-year bans to people whom we basically don't want coming back. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

10? It isn't so dramatic as a hundred, but not so "we'll have to just reblock him if we do a year and he comes back"--Miekal 17:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

10 seems long enough. FuzzyCatPotato of the Losing Ropes (talk/stalk) 17:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)