RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive7

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

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>

, (new)(back)

Nutty Roux has blocked TK for two years.

Thoughts? Objections? I for one am totally okay with removing a member who has made legal threats against members -- ask Nutty for the links -- and who has proven himslef to be no fun. I would like to see the community come to a consensus, and most of all stick to it. If we say he's blocked, no unblocking. if we say he's free, no taking your ball and going home because of it... TheoryOfPractice (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that, if he is making threats against the site and its members, he should remained blocked or, at least, vandal binned. His persistent trolling of the website has run its course, and its time to respond by removing the thorn from our foot. The Goonie Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 21:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Can we get a list of the threats made? SirChuckB^{El...ipses are Cool...} 21:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I suggest lowering it to a year. Aceⁱ⁹ 21:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

A year and the bin sound fine to me. Personally, I'd be fine if I never saw him here again, but that generally lasts until Human gets bored or drunk. --Kels (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Endorse - this is the sort of abuse admin bits are for - David Gerard (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Look here for the list of threats. The Goonie Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 21:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Having read through the conversation, I think we're going a bit extreme.... A threat to sue somebody in a private IM conversation hardly seems like enough to go to these lengths. Especially because he says that he has been advised not to speak to us (paraphrasing of course.) If he comes back and starts interacting, he's almost revealing his own bluster. But hey, I have no love for TK, so if the consensus is ban him, go ahead. This really just seems like a flimsy excuse to ban someone who is disliked by the majority. SirChuckB^{That is all} 21:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be Rob who gets the block (or at least the bin - at least he'd learn to use show preview). He's then one who is making various threats. -- Nx / talk 21:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

There is more to it than that though. TK is a liar and a sociopath. Aceⁱ⁹ 21:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, but the reasoning for blocking him isn't very sound. (that doesn't mean you couldn't find a better reason) -- Nx / talk 21:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not at liberty to give specifics but TK has been making vaguely threatening comments for some time now. Aceⁱ⁹ 22:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

On any sane site, repeated trolling, bad faith and general lies would be plenty for a GTFO ban. --Kels (talk) 22:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

If I've got this right, Terry Koeckritz, known as TK on Conservapedia, is threatening us because we say that TK is Terry Koeckritz, and say lots of nasty things about TK, aka Terry Koeckritz. However, if I remember correctly (and I do) TK (Terry Koeckritz) posted on his page several names of RW members and wrote defamatory statements about them. Is this just another example of TK's (Terry Koeckritz's) hypocrisy? EddyP (talk) 22:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Who cares whether it is or it isn't. This page isn't for trolling TK, it's for discussing the appropriate response to him making an express legal threat against the owner of the site. 22:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Even the (painfully obvious) matter of his identity isn't the point here, it's the fact that he's been a problem all along, and this adds a new dimension to a problem that should have been dealt with a long time ago. --Kels (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Terry is a twat and a bad troll, but that's no reason to block him for 2 years. If his trolling gets annoying, vandal bin him, but there's no need to give him a CP-length block just because he makes some pathetic legal 'threat'. Let him keep editing here so we can mock the stupid cunt. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 22:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Given that he is supposed to be blocked for five years, I agree with Nutty's decision. - π 22:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I feel TK's actions on this website are largely inconsequential - he's just another troll that people can't leave alone. His comments are limited to talk pages and more often than not are on threads started by other users. However, his off-wiki actions have long since been agreed by basically everyone as scummy to say the least, and as he's threatening the Nobel Leader Trent, I'd say his time here is up. And as π points out above, he should be blocked anyway.

No doubt has a few stinking socks lying around here anyway. SJ ^Debaser 23:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any good arguments for why we should not sanction a person who has leveled legal threats against the owner and others of this site. I also don't really see any good ones for why we should, other than "protect the users" or "any other site would do this". However, I do think there are good arguments to be made for the sanctions, I just have yet to read them so I can agree with them. ħuman 05:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with Nutty's block, but I don't see the point either. At some point, somebody will come along and unblock him again because that's what's always happens. For that reason, I'd cut it to a more realistic month - it's more likely the urge to unblock can be put on hold for that long.

Some sanction is definitely necessary, though. When the usual deliberate needling and name-calling spills over into real-world threats, it's gone too far. TK needs to be shown that threats of this nature are not acceptable. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 05:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

If someone unblocks him then just reblock and point unblocking user to this page. Aceⁱ⁹ 05:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Except as Pi has already pointed out, that doesn't work. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 05:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Theres that winning and positive attitude of yours again SP. I'll enforce it then and if I ever see TK posting I'll reblock without question. Aceⁱ⁹ 05:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

There's that ignoring-the-fucking-point attitude of yours again, Ace. If you're going to enforce a block that has previously been agreed, why aren't you enforcing the existing one? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 05:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Because I didn't know there was one still exsiting. I wasn't around when TK was first blocked although I did know he had been blocked I had no idea it still stood. Aceⁱ⁹ 06:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thus why I think the LJ should get involved: to make the blocks final. Anyone violating that can be subject to de-sysopping. The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 05:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Forgive my wiki ignorance, but is there some way that a block could be made that could only be removed by a bureaucrat or a member of the LJ? --Sean^talk 06:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is threatening legal action blockworthy?

Why exactly is this worthy of a block? It's not illegal and, if somebody is going to actually take legal action then it's useful to know in advance. Threatening physical violence or some other type of action would be out of bounds but, as far as I know, people are as free as they like to talk about legal action. I'd be as happy as anybody else to see TK somewhere else, but do I think we should be clear on our grounds for the ban.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 07:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I was hoping you'd turn up in another part of this discussion, Bob, as I have always respected you as a voice of reason. Someone threatens to file a (probably spurious, harassing) lawsuit against the site owner and perhaps other editors. Surely it then makes sense to remove them from the site? ħuman 08:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I have seen a few other things on top of this, though as above I am not really a liberty to divulge however TK has been getting increasingly threatening. Aceⁱ⁹ 08:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Add to that we have had some epic trolling on top of it and, as with MC, people just get fucked off with it. Aceⁱ⁹ 08:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not explicit on RW, but Wikipedia policy is pretty clear (WP:LEGAL). I always understood that RW followed WP policy if there was nothing explicitly defined here, but I could well be wrong. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 08:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

No. We have our own policies and we do not follow WP. We could create such a policy obviously. Also, while it is possible that TK may well be threatening people, if such threats cannot be revealed to the community then I don't think they can be taken into account. We need to have a look at, and perhaps amend, RationalWiki:Community Standards.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 08:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

So you don't think someone threatening to sue the site owner is a "bad thing"? Perhaps even unfriendly to the wiki? How about that they got their sidekick to ignore International Communism for long enough to threaten all of us who use wikipedia with being blocked there? Please see links below. ħuman 08:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Its not that they cannot be revealed its that I cannot reveal. Aceⁱ⁹ 08:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I am sure these are all bad things Human. My point is that we do not prohibit them and as a general rule things that are not prohibited are allowed. Given that we are talking about something which is outside of existing community standards, this might indeed be a good time to invoke the LJ.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 08:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you there, Bob. Would you care to formulate an indictment? I suspect you would be one of the most capable to do so. ħuman 09:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I would. Goonie seems to be the main prosecutor at the moment. Unfortunately we also need to establish the limits/extent of LG power too. Multi-year blocks with the authority to promote anybody who reverses their decision? And we also need a new offence. Trolling/time-wasting? Attempting to bring the wiki into disrepute? Making legal threats? Sadly, the middle of a dispute is not the best time to make these decisions - but we can't always pick our moments.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 12:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Waiting until the middle of a dispute is a great entry into endless bickering and general HCM. Which, as I recall, was the whole point of the LG, to avoid this sort of nonsense. That said, I can't think of a single forum that I've been in that puts up with spurious and harassing legal threats against members or the site itself. The same as harassment in general should be, legal or not. --Kels (talk) 12:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The legal threat is a fairly transparent attempt to intimidate not just one, but multiple members. If he went around to each members talkpage and threatened them individual with some unspecified act he would rightly be blocked, so I think a legal threat against the site as a whole is a block-worthy act. - π 13:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

(undent) I saw this "I hope you are prepared to forego lots of your income defending/advising those turds seems a rather simple matter to stop all that nastiness, isn't it?" which to me falls into SLAPP territory and really makes it a threat to break the law, rather than a warning of impending legitimate legal action.--Opcn (talk) 05:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

A SLAPP is a lawsuit. This was by its nature a threat of impending legal action. Merits are an aside. 05:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

As: 1. Our present guidelines do not allow long blocks, 2. There is nothing in our guidelines to cover these activities. 3. It does not seem right that a single individual should decide to impose a long block. 4. A long block is liable to be reversed by another sysop. I have proposed here that we give the LJ something to do.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 09:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Most of TK's onsite activity is just posting comments on user talk pages (mostly his own) & largely in reply to people talking to or about him. Take a look at his talk page: it's just editors baiting & poking him, & TK's responses. Evidently some users are also eager to chat to him offsite. I'm not saying that blocking him for a while is necessarily a bad thing, but as long as people are willing to feed the troll, it's not going to be all that effective. As for the legal threat, it's an unpleasant ploy but ultimately laughable. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Laughable or not, the moment threats are made a line is crossed and it's not good-natured back and forth any more. I don't care what sort of threat it is, legal or otherwise. I would think that most people would see the answer to "Why is threatening users blockworthy" to be pretty obvious. --Kels (talk) 21:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Human's lame legal/constitutional theory

I think that there is a fundamental issue involved here. OK, so the community standards don't say "those who threaten us with lawsuits are not welcome as editors". So what? Surely, before whatever we say about how to be a nice RWian (the Standards), there exists a fundamental right of self-defense? I have wracked my feeble brains for days to come up with a good analogy, and have failed, so I present this in its raw form. At the most basic level, we reserve the right to block people who threaten our editors, and, indeed the site itself, with threats to take us to court. Seems pretty simple to me.

Did we think when writing the CS, "what if someone threatens to sue the site/us/Trent just to be an ass"? No, we didn't. There are many ways to be an ass and an enemy that aren't addressed in the CS. How many are "actionable"? I think threatening to make us hire a lawyer is.

I also wish to quote without permission something a person whose judgment I respect on this matter wrote addressing this issue, but I am waiting for permission. ħuman 04:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The backstory

Please edit this to improve, signatures are irrelevant here.

Several days ago, RobS went on a rampage at wikipedia, which was really hard to discern his actual intent.

As it turns out, his goal was (working for/with TK) to get "us" to say the LA Times article "was not accurate".

If we agreed to this on WP, somehow he/they thought they could then force us to disassociate the name Terry Kroeckitz, or however it is spelled, from the nasty reports we have on site about CP user and uber sysop "TK".

Well as said above I have no problem banning TK and Goonie was right in de-sysoping Rob. Aceⁱ⁹ 05:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The evidence

Here's more links to areas of their disruption and where they have threatened RationalWikians on this wiki (add more if you can find more):

• Trent's talkpage,
• Human's talkpage,
• Sid's talkpage,
• WIGO CONservapedia
• At RobS' talk page

At wikipedia:

• talk:conservapedia
• Related: RobS wasting WP admin's time
• talk:RationalWiki
• Related: Rob wasting more WP admin's time
• AFD for WP:RW

The threat(s):

• Chat session posted by Nutty Roux

The ruling?

Do we have a ruling yet, then? AnarchoGoon ^{Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living} 03:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the ruling was nobody gives a rat's arse about TK getting a well deserved block. One he probably won't challenge as he is not talking to us. - π 03:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a fair ruling to me. But what about RobSmith? Lord of the Goons ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 03:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Desysoped, but you knew that. Blocked? Only if he keeps dragging more stupid WP threats here? ħuman 03:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, sounds fair enough. Lord Goonie ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 03:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes to both. I don't much mind Rob running around as a conspiratorial loon, but when he gets to making threats that's the time to generally say "not cool, dude". --Kels (talk) 04:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Nx has deleted the frot picture

I am sorry, but I can't let this stand. How can he possibly be allowed to continue when he commits an offense nearly as bad as blasphemy against the goat? - π 12:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The frotting picture was not nice, and has no place on this wiki. As Mr Garrison himself said, just because we tolerate and respect others' rights to do such a thing, doesn't mean we have to celebrate it (ie plaster it all over a wiki devoted to mocking religionism and psuedoscience) DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 00:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I liked that picture. It made my nubs feel good. ħuman 06:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I did only meant this as a joke to bring some levity from the above turdfest. - π 07:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, making a joke on a SERIOUS INTERNET page lightens the mood for all. I have a good idea about this NSFW images problem, but no one is asking me what it is. PS I hate fucking lame autism radio ads "OMGDX your baby has better odds of being famous than being autistic. Fucking stupid. ħuman 07:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

But seriously, Nx

Nx uses his access to the root of the server for evil too often, while we know he uses it for good at times. I am really tired of his "pretend I am not a sysop" routine, when he can do whatever he wants. And does so without discussion. Nx as a tech guy, we love and adore. Nx as an editor is a fascist and completely misses Trent's vision for this wiki. I say, please let us implore Trent to remove Nx' root access so he can no longer abuse it as he has been doing. ħuman 10:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Very well. Please also remove me from the irrational users group. -- Nx / talk 11:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Nx

• Deleting an image without discussion [1], in violation of RW:CS#DEL
• Removing talk page posts [2][3][4][5][6][7][8] , in violation of RW:CS#TALK
• Issuing range blocks and blocks longer than a few hours without discussion [9][10], in violation of RW:CS#BLOCK
• Unilaterally removing a delete template without discussion [11]
• Promoting someone without discussion [12] and threatening to do the same to others, in violation of RW:CS#PROMOTE
• Being an asshole. (Do I need to look for diffs?)

-- Nx / talk 11:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You don't seem like an asshole. From the looks of things, you do a lot and are just frustrated at the state of the wiki. --Grey (talk) 11:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I side with Nx. Stupid drug Phantom Hoover! 11:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Good, then you agree with all my points above? -- Nx / talk 11:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I side with pre-strop Nx. Stupid drug Phantom Hoover! 11:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree w/Grey--you're apparently--and quite justifiably--frustrated at some of the nonsense going on with a project that you've worked hard on. But that doesn't mean, as you go on to say, that I "agree with all [your] points above." You want those things to all be fair game? Start a discussion about changing the rules so they won't be. Let the mob speak on them instead of just doing them...P-Foster (talk) 12:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Most of the things done were actually quite sensible. Deleting posts made by spammers (including the cheerleader shite) is of no loss to anyway. Freedom kind of vanishes when people become pissed by a site that is pretty much at the whim of any master cracker who decides to try their hand at vandalising a site that is reluctant to block. --^{Ask me about your mother} 18:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe you are going to allow that autocratic fascist get away with all this. You should be ashamed of yourselves for letting him ruin this website. This website used to be a fun, now it's a boring place full of retarded rules and run by fascists.

HITLER was a fascist - David Gerard (talk) 11:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed punishment

1. Nx shall be required to find a creationist who seriously asks "But how come there are still monkeys?" and enter into a detailed discussion of the topic with them.
2. Nx shall be required to retain the curse of the sysop bit.

- David Gerard (talk) 12:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

For:

Very much for:

1. 18:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
2. It's about time someone did something about this. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 13:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
3. I can vote? But I thought we were fascist... --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 23:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Nx 2

Being unable to help himself, Nx archived an active thread to suit his own desires. He then proceeded to edit war over it, insisting that the active thread be archived. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 18:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

A thread that was in questionable taste at best, and you were actively trolling in? Yeah, I support him archiving it, or moving it to your page so you could continue your personal conversation with Boderunt without bothering the rest of the wiki. --Kels (talk) 18:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

That you personally find it in poor taste is irrelevant as to whether or not it should be archived. Be intellectually honest. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 18:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with NU as much as I hate to. ħuman 06:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

PH+Nx+Kels>Neveruse. Stupid drug Phantom Hoover! 18:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

ignore > abuse, you facist half-wit. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 18:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Nonsense, people archive talk page conversations all the time for reasons other than age. I don't see a single word in the Community Standards limiting it only to inactive conversations. --Kels (talk) 18:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

No they don't, it's actually quite rare - especially on "community" pages". ħuman 06:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

And like a true cabalist, you read in whatever you please. The thread was still active. It wasn't hurting your wiki. Be honest. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 18:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been anything but. And I (1) still support archiving the thread and (2) don't give a shit about Cabals. --Kels (talk) 18:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I will take this as your concession that you believe threads can be archived for more than just inactivity. Have a nice day. --Kels (talk) 19:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

And a few diffs later you'll see that it was deemed completely inappropriate. Do as the cabal says, not as the cabal does, I suppose. 72.113.146.59 (talk) 21:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The difference is, you reinstated the section with only your initial comment, which is a bit deceitful. -- Nx / talk 21:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

OMGODZ "a bit deceitful" is now reason for using admin powers to enforce your will arbitrarily? ħuman 06:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

No you idiot, unless you count restoring this thread as "using admin powers to enforce your will arbitrarily" -- Nx / talk 11:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Verdict

I declare Nx to be guilty, as arbitrarily as he treated NU. ħuman 06:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Sentence

To be suspended from a cable-truss bridge until dark, or at least to have to read about them until dark on Wikipedia. ħuman 06:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Nx 3

Out of spite, User:Nx locked the talk page of a non-sysop in an effort to censor the user. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 20:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The user was continuing the personal attacks that led to his block. Therefore locking his talk page for the duration of the block was appropriate. -- Nx / talk 21:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The proper way is to modify the block, which was done. The abusive way is too lock the page, which unfortunately was also done. 72.113.146.59 (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) It's terribly unfortunate that your pal Marcus was not able to edit your talk page for the duration of the lock. Please accept my apologies for not considering this. In the future I will make sure to reblock you instead of locking the page so that we do not inconvenience Mr. Cicero. -- Nx / talk 21:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

What a lot of wank over an issue nobody else seems to have a problem with. Hey Nx, keep on destroying the wiki! I like the cut o' yer jib! --Kels (talk) 21:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Desysopping, blocking, then locking the user's talk page? Sure, that's the RW way. That's the way we've always done things. Because someone doesn't like an SB thread? Didn't it get moved to a forum in the end? Also, judging one editor's actions based on an assumption they are associated with another, I believe was enshrined in our Founding Diapers. ħuman 02:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Much as I'd hate to side with certain folk here, I do think that blocking a non-sysop and (especially) locking the user and talkpages of that user is completely uncool and antithetical to this site's core principles. We need to be careful not to do things that we oft bitch about TK doing. I'm not saying "OMG, we are like CP," but rather that it is a caution to stop doing so before it get out of hand. Let users fucking edit their user and talkpages. Who the fuck cares what someone posts on their own talkpage and userpage? AnarchoGoon ^{Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living} 05:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I do see upon examining Neveruse's user right log that 'twas not Nx who desysopped NU. ħuman 06:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but it is still poor form, IMO, for him to lock someone out of their own pages. PLus, i think locking userpages should be up to the user in question, and locking talkpages should only be done in rare cases (such as when my talkpage was under assault by spammers), in which case a fully accessable alternative page should be created. Lord of the Goons ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 06:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I apologize, I thought calling someone a dumb bitch is something we shouldn't tolerate. Clearly I was wrong. -- Nx / talk 11:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I refer you to this conversation. Although in Human's case, I think he just agrees with the assessment of me. --Kels (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You must have aspergers. honestly, you are incredibly sensitive and dull. You've never insulted anyone in your whole life I'd wager. You just plod around, completely lacking in social awareness, generally wrecking everyones head with absurd banalities. How I hate you Nx. How I hate you. 86.40.193.65 (talk) 11:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I wish I had as much machismo as you do to be able to insult people over the internets. Alas. -- Nx / talk 12:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Does the I Hate Nx Club have machismo? Ole! ^moral 15:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Verdict

I declare Nx to be guilty, as arbitrarily as he treated NU. ħuman 06:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Sentence

To be suspended from a trestle bridge in a comfy chair until dark, and to be tagged as an "irrational number" by PoonieGunk1002. ħuman 06:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Nx: Further issues

I suggest the three Nx sections be melded. I also suggest:

• Nx be blocked from root server access, as he has abused it so many times it's not even funny any more.
• Nx be left a non-sysop. His "non-sysop" status as of now is a vanity posture.
• Nx be told to "fuck off" for being an asshole.
• Nx be told we "don't really need" an editor who can't tell the difference between having root access and being an editor like everyone else.

In other words, I propose Nx be censured for confusion of privileges. ħuman 09:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Now now, I don't think we need to go to those kinds of extremes, since Nx does do an assload of good work for this site. However, I do think that he should be lambasted for the above abuse complaints, because, well, he did abuse archiving for the sake of archiving something he didn't like, and because he locked Neveruse's user and talkpages. I don't think it needs go beyond that at this point, but he does deserve a good reprimand. As far as other issues with Nx not addressed above, people just need to learn to get along. We are not always gonna get along on the Wiki 100% of the time, but that doesn't mean it has to be an "either they go, or I go!" scenario. Conservative Punk (talk) 09:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. A reprimand is in order, but nothing beyond that. You wanna write it? ħuman 10:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

So long as you people have no fundamental principles in terms of limiting power, dryarses like Nx will proliferate and try to make this site quite like wikipedia. Its pathetic. If any of you had any backbone (I don't expect Goonie to, the man is such a hypocrite he doesn't know what he stands for) you'd stand up to these dryarse cunts. 86.40.223.25 (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank god we have you to save us from that. -- Nx / talk 14:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, lets be honest. I tested RW through a series of sociological experiments and single handedly made it turn into the authoritarian hell hole it is. I then challenged your authority - and now thats went from your routine deletion of edits to the threatening of your power structure itself. I'm not your messiah. I am your conscience. I test you for your own good. Sometimes you pass the test, most times you fail. But one conclusion raises its head above all the others - you are surplus to requirements. 86.40.223.25 (talk) 14:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, nice work. Why are you complaining about it being an authoritarian hell hole then? -- Nx / talk 15:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I wished to test you, hoping that liberal values would prevail and the spirit of rationalism would triumph. How badly it went. I watched with horror, much like Einstein watched the first atomic bomb explode, and cursed my genius that had created a monster. 86.40.223.25 (talk) 16:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Judgment

Some 86.x.x.x is guilty of lameness

Sentence

86.x.x.x is hereby instructed to memorize every line of MPFC and THGTTG. Memorize, I said. You will be tested at any time on a moment's notice. ħuman 12:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Tmtoulouse

I dunno. ĵ₳¥ášÇ♠ʘ no hell below him 03:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Case dismissed! The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 03:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Does the accusation that Tmtoulouse is abusing is administrative privileges have machismo? ^moral 12:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Does Tmtoulouse have machismo? Is he just a liberal pantywaist? Do hispanic ladies think he has more yin than yang? Olé? Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I looked in my dictionary under "macheeeesmo" and the definition was scribbled out, with a stick figure marked as "Timmy Tittle Mouse" replacing it in the margin. He is most definitely soft-spoken, I don't know about his panties. I have never investigated his popularity among Latinas. Olé! ħuman 06:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Verdict and sentence

Tmtoulouse is hereby guilty of having too much machismo, and is sentenced to community service in the form of slavery to the Wiki being forced to be primarily responsible for RationalWiki's existence. Lord Goonie ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 06:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Armondikov

For blocking a user who is not a vandal, which is a grave violation of the community standards and freedom of speech. [13] -- Nx / talk 15:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Hooray! Attention for me! Now I feel validated and loved! ^moral 15:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You may mock me now, but we'll see who is laughing when you are desysopped. Justice will prevail. -- Nx / talk 15:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Verdict

Guilty of not wiping down the goat after enjoying him. ħuman 12:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Sentence

Once again, a user is instructed to enjoy the pleasure and engineering delight of cable-stayed bridges. Please report with a 12 page single spaces paper on the joys of the history of suspension bridges. Or not, since we won't read it. ħuman 12:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Nx redux

for bringing Armond here over a one-hour block of a trolling BON/MC and generally being no fun lately. P-Foster (talk) 15:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe Nx is just upholding the rules that the mob are currently enforcing. Nx would be in the right for bringing up my actions here as the last thing I'd ever want is a double standard. ^moral 15:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec), PFoster, I bet next you'll say I'm a troll - typical authoritarian fascist tactic, smear your critics with labels like "troll" and use that as an excuse to silence them. -- Nx / talk 15:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as you have never,ever, not even once (_{since 15:52 on June 3}) blocked a BON for more that 30 seconds, I'll withdraw the charge...P-Foster (talk) 15:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

So what if I have? Does that somehow make Armondikov's block acceptable? -- Nx / talk 15:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Everyone who has commented above this section

For creating this giant, waste of time, wankfest and for allowing our pet troll to once again influence the discourse of this website. - π 15:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

We should be thanking him for showing us the truth. -- Nx / talk 15:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Since I agree with Nx's actions in WiGO CP and regarding Neveruse, shouldn't I get an official "you're not welcome on our wiki" notice too? --Kels (talk) 15:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is it that the establishment always label those with the bravery to speak out as 'trolls'? 86.40.223.25 (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not that hard to read these talk pages and simply ignore 86's insertions. They are usually indented out of the flow anyway, making it super easy to skip past them. ħuman 00:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

It's easy for you to say "just ignore him" because you haven't been personally attacked by him as much. It's like asking Kels to "just ignore" when TK is being a dick to people on this site. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 00:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Human's kinda like that, though. He's got that all-too-common blind spot that says "well, I don't mind, so nobody else should either". He's hardly the only one. --Kels (talk) 00:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Verdict

"Human" is guilty of "being kinda like that". ħuman 12:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Sentence

"Human" is sentenced to contemplating his obsession with cable-stayed bridges. Very slowly. And with no lighting. Also, so is everyone else. ħuman 12:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Ace McWicked

For forgetting to buy coffee yesterday, forcing himself to go to the shop on a cold, rainy morning. That Fascist Bastard. Aceⁱ⁹ 21:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Death's too good for him. --Kels (talk) 21:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll settle his fucking hash, just you wait and see. Aceⁱ⁹ 21:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Ace McWicked prevented me from having the last word by replying to my post, which is an abuse. ABUSE, I say! --Kels (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

90/10. Hit "Random page" thirty times and see what needs tarting up - David Gerard (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Hehe, that's exactly what I do when I catch myself being a complete dick. This is why I have many edits to so many random articles... I even did it once on WP. ħuman 00:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Can't we consider the fact that Ace's honest admission reminded me to buy coffee? Yeah he did something terrible, but omgwtf get a sense of perspective, people!! ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 15:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Force a caffeinated beverage down his throat! Šţěŗĭļė binder 21:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Or any other orifice. Ace should be sentenced to a severe coffee enema. On a cold, rainy morning. In the street. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Verdict

Ace is guilty of anything anyone wants to accuse him of, especially having to get up in the morning. ħuman 12:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Sentence

Ace will be required to write a complete sentence, at the time and place of his choosing. ħuman 12:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Liquid Bastard

I think the title speaks for itself. Aceⁱ⁹ 16:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Does such a user exist? Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

its me. Aceⁱ⁹ 11:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Mei

for being gone when his usefulness could be useful. Cheerleader Not Troll (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

"His"? Totnesmartin (talk) 11:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Verdict

Cheerleader not get much grok. ħuman 12:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Sentence

Lame section should be archived. ħuman 12:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Totnesmartin

For Leaving and Never Coming Back. Totnesmartin (talk) 11:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Take it the move was a success? 11:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Surely as you posted this it should be for failing to leave and never come back. ^moral 12:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You miss the true meaning of Leaving and Never Coming Back, as opposed to mere leaving and never coming back. Totnesmartin (talk) 12:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Nx again

He turned me into a newt! EddyP (talk) 12:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I assume it got better? ħuman 12:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but my pet newt was never the same again. EddyP (talk) 12:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Verdict

In that case, GUILTY as frogged! ħuman 13:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Sentence

To crawl in the mud for an hour, or at least until he wants to research bridges on wikipedia. ħuman 13:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Human

For making endless sections with the same headers. SRS BSNS CRIME. Please archive. ħuman 12:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Verdict

Guilty as sin. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 22:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Sentence

Sentenced to eat a handful of magnets and attach his magentic turds to a metal helmet he shall wear so that all shall know of his shame. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 22:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)