RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive9

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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

David Gerard[edit]

He is editing other people's comments, trolling, and he blocked my IP ( after I removed his trolling. #### ([[User talk:####|talk]]) 12:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

+1 This abuser does nothing for RationalWiki and must be removed without delay. FUCK SHIT CUNT PISS excuse me - 86.40.ei.π (talk) 12:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Whether he does something for RatonalWiki or not is irrelevant. This kind of behavior is unacceptable. Or at least it used to be, before you took over. #### ([[User talk:####|talk]]) 12:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I am actually kind of getting pissed at David walking around waving his dick at the troll. It is basically trolling itself and this parody shit is just inviting abuse. But what annoys me, is he waves his dick at the troll, all the while using his powers to block him. If he wants to play, he can play at MC's level. - π 12:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
MC has been more successful than you'd like to admit. He has turned you into xenophobes, destroyed the basic principles of this site, destroyed AGF, and now any anonymous user who dares criticize this website is assumed to be a sock of MC and is reverted and blocked (especially if their IP starts with an 8). It is really sad. #### ([[User talk:####|talk]]) 14:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Much as I hate to agree with MC, I feel that David has gone too far here. As Pi says, he is trolling while still having full administrative powers. I move to either have him promoted to ordinary or to leave the troll alone. Bastard harmonic Phantom Hoover! 14:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Like I said, any anonymous user who dares criticize the site is assumed to be MC. I am not MC. (talk) 14:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I think I have to add a +1 to the trolling the troll comments. Bondurant (talk) 14:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
+1 here, too 15:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
OK, OK. I'll desist from trolling the troll - David Gerard (talk) 15:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
How about you stop blocking and reverting me as well? (talk) 15:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
How about you undo your unjustified block of my IP? Blocked (talk) 19:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I've just realised who MC reminds me of. He's the kid at school with no friends who runs around shouting at the other kids, and then runs up to the one crying in the corner of the playground and says "haha, your mum died of cancer", and then when the other kid lamps him he runs to the teachers crying saying "Miss Miss he punched me for no reason". Sometimes people deserve a good kicking. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 20:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
It wasn't malicious! I only threw dirt in her eyes after I laughed at her for her mom dying because I knew I was already going to be in trouble for laughing at her. Put it in context.
On a related note, I always got in trouble for kicking that kid... No... I was that kid, who am I kidding? Quaru (talk) 20:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


Charges...Filling up "Recent Changes" with God-knows-what kind of nonsense. deleting stuff from his talk page. Generally being a pratt and a n00b. P-Foster (talk) 17:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't possibly comment. Don't think "being an idiot" comes under "Abuse". 17:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
But spamming & trolling do (assuming we are converting this to a general abuse process rather than specifically admin abuse). WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Assume good faith! - David Gerard (talk) 17:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
No. As with RobS a while back, the amount of jerking around has gone way beyond what anybody acting in good faith would do. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Ah, you misunderstand Hanlon's razor. Read and contemplate the Dumas quote. (This does not mean the behaviour is not problematic, just that it isn't necessarily malicious. And a lack of malice is actually worse in practice.) - David Gerard (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Whatever. How does this help us? A user is disrupting the wiki - regardless of whether he/she is acting in good faith or bad faith, we need to decide whether the situation is problematic enough to do something about, & what to do about it. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
These vague accusations don't help much. Can we get some links and examples? DickTurpis (talk) 17:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Pick any two. 17:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Seems just about everything is in his userspace, which isn't terribly disruptive to the project as a whole. I've ignored it so far; any reason others can't? DickTurpis (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
None at all. Let the idiot do whatever he wants there. 18:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Well, that was easy to resolve. DickTurpis (talk) 18:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
All we've got to do is ignore him. 18:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Yes, ban him, revert him, drink his blood. All hail authoritarianwiki, for she is surely righteous. (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


Lumenos has a suggestion that changes to the Community Standards be proposed and discussed and voted on in as many locations. This suggestion is not adopted. But Lumenos goes ahead anyway with putting up discussions and "backup copies" of discussions in as many locations as possible (e.g. here, here, here, here, some now deleted). Supposedly this is part of some "debate map" thing, which is all the range at Lumeniki & which Lumenos now seems to be putting in place at RW, whether we like it or not. This includes cutting & pasting whole sections from talk pages which anybody can edit into his/her own personal user space. His comments throughout the Community Standards discussion have been driving it away from productive areas of discussion and into petty quibbles basically all about him/herself (e.g. [1],[2],[3]). Plus making stupid additions to the Standards, which s/he must surely have known would be reverted. It's all making it very difficult to get anywhere with the CS revamp. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, but where is the actual abuse? The Goonie Punk Can't sleep, clowns will eat me! 21:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I never said there was abuse. I just think he's a bit of a dick is all. P-Foster (talk) 21:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
(EC) See RationalWiki talk:Administrative Abuse#Renaming for broader usage. The proposal is that this become a page for settling issues around any problem users, not specifically just those who abuse sysop/bureaucrat privileges. This hasn't been confirmed yet, but I think this case has been raised on the understanding that we're no longer dealing only with abuses of the admin abilities as listed at the top of the page. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
So... you're saying he's a dick by suggesting something, then going ahead with it before approval. And it's applicable because something was suggested, and now we're going ahead with it before approval.. I mean, personally, I don't care, and am probably guilty of "being a dick" and "filling the recent changes with random BS". This just made me laugh. Quaru (talk) 21:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Fair point, but I don't think the situations are very similar. Lumenos was told many times that we didn't want to adopt his idea, but wouldn't let it drop. The change to this Abuse page/system seems to be generally supported, & hasn't been enacted yet mostly because nobody's come up with much good in the way of an alternative title. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I think this case has been raised on the understanding that we're no longer dealing only with abuses of the admin abilities as listed at the top of the page. ...or on the understanding that he's a dick, I was bored, and figured it would be good for a yuck or two. P-Foster (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
What exactly is this about? What rules has he broken? What are you proposing to do to him? I have to say, this entire spectacle verges on bullying, as Lumnenos strikes me as a particularly simple soul. Its a shame the way this site has gone, back in the day this entire conversation would have been shouted down for being too mean, too authoritarian and too un-RW like. The more you adopt these 'rule resolution' programmes the more you cease to have a raison d'etre, and lose everything that makes you unique and interesting. Its nothing whatsoever to do with not being like CP, its do with not being like every other site out there who allow leadership castes to bully those who are a bit different or controversial. Its a shame the way this site has gone. It really is. (talk) 22:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree with BON, this whole conversation smacks of bad faith and bullying. I don't think his is trolling. I think he is another CUR. He wants to dive straight in and make changes he thinks will better the wiki, regardless of whether anyone agrees with him. This page should be for serious disputes, not this guy is frustrating me. - π 23:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Agree with the BoN and the irrationalist of numbers. I think Lumenos, though a little odd, it harmless at worst. The Goonie Punk Can't sleep, clowns will eat me! 00:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
He is technically a troll, although not a malicious one. He just likes to argue, and he is relentless, so he becomes annoying very quickly. (talk) 03:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
"Troll" implies intent. The word you're looking for is "clueless" - he really doesn't get there's a problem - David Gerard (talk) 08:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Bon, Pi, Goonie, and DG. "clogging up recent changes" is not a crime forfuckingchristssake, it's a goal. And Lumenos may be clueless, but eir is clueless in a lumenarmless way. Sort of. ħumanUser talk:Human 09:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)