User:Bicycle Wheel/RationalWikiWiki Treehouse archive 4

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Vandal bin[edit]

It seems that only Administrators can use it. when we get the server, should we make it a sysop or holyroller right, as there is only one "Administrator" here. Ty 01:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Also, you should make me one.  ;) EDIT: Huh, I'm a holyroller already.. Quaru 02:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Someone also made you a janitor as well. I'll deputize you shortly, then I need my sleep.Ty 02:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Police can now use the vandal bin. 89.135.100.67 08:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Tech master page(Sticky)[edit]

Is here. Feel free to vote, or add suggestions. Ty 21:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Captcha[edit]

It seems someone managed to crack recaptcha (a victim of its popularity, it seems), they even added extra obfuscation to compensate, but it doesn't look like it's working. I've changed the captcha to a math-based one, hopefully this will stop the spammers (and the math-illiterates). Strange that RW doesn't get the same amount of spam though, and it's using recaptcha too. 89.135.100.67 08:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I hope it works, but I have a feeling that's the same one that ErfWiki uses, and it's being absolutely deluged with spam. On OMW we use FancyCaptcha, and that's pretty much stopped it. SuspectedReplicant 08:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
It's not the same, because on RWW it uses tex to generate an image (like the math tag). If it doesn't work, I can enable fancycaptcha. 89.135.100.67 09:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
OMW = ?... Parler en anglais! --Maratrean 09:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Oblivian Mod Wiki. Ty 11:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I want not approve on it, I think polite post[edit]

So, now what do we do? Goonie is on vacation for who knows how long, and Ty is gone.... I really don't think we should let this place devolve into an HCM the way RW has. I really don't want to see fighting here. Conficker 15:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

People tend not to fight here. The only time there's been tension between regulars was when I fucked up a template and two people had staggering overreactions instead of asking me to fix it, which I proceeded to do. Apart from certain assholes trying to talk about shit nobody else cares about, there's no problem over here. SuspectedReplicant 15:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
You've forgetten about the real asshole here. --Maratrean 19:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Pasta[edit]

So, who here has some good pasta recipes they can give me? I spent the last 3 days eating nothing but bagels from some place, and today I broke down and bough some pasta. My only question is: what is a good recipe for pasta-on-the-go? And ideas? Punky McPunkersen 17:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Add scrambled eggs, cut up sausage and cheese. Oh, and there is currently some bad stuff going down here right now and on RW. Ty 17:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
This is really simple but bloody delicious. SuspectedReplicant 17:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I see the bad stuff at RW, but I do not have time for it. I just want pasta recipes. And thank you, SR. Tuna is also something feasible for on-the-go pasta. I have dried tuna somewhere around here. Punky McPunkersen 17:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Even without the cayenne it would work, but the pepper just peps it up a bit and makes it lovely and warning. There isn't really a problem here - it's just a little spillover from the real fireworks on RW. SuspectedReplicant 17:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and if you have a can of sardines in oil, use the oil from those instead of olive oil, and stir the sardines themselves in when you add the tomatoes. Lovely! SuspectedReplicant 17:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
For bonus points I think wild onions grow in Nebraska, chop some up. And enjoy chicory coffee with it. Ty 17:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I have a tin of ravioli in the cupboard. Rrose Selavy 11:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Tinned ravioli is not very pleasant. Why not buy the stuff in the plastic in the fridge section? Still not as nice as the home-made stuff, but much better than anything that comes in a tin. --Maratrean 12:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
It's cheaper. Rrose Selavy 13:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
For some of us, tinned ravioli is a special treat. Ty 13:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

SuspectedReplicant's reversion of my posts on Talk:Nutty Roux[edit]

So let me get this straight, Nutty is allowed to tell me to "Fuck off", but if I try to respond to him that gets reversion of my talk posts and threats of bans from SuspectedReplicant. Rather Conservapedian of him. Funny how, over on aSK, sterile is whinging about Philip deleting some talk page posts sterile made a month ago. I wonder, if he was here, would he be making the same complaints about SR's behaviour on this Wiki. I bet not. --Maratrean 10:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

You were trying to perpetuate an argument that everybody else was glad to see over. You're only trying to cause trouble now. Stop it. SuspectedReplicant 11:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Wasn't that what Nutty was trying to do too? If you are going to revert my posts, why not revert his too. May I pull a sterile and ask what is this site's policies on reversion of posts? Or is it simply up to your arbitrary whims? --Maratrean 11:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
The argument was over. So is this one. If you don't like it, leave. SuspectedReplicant 11:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Says you. Are arguments over whenever you declare them to be so? --Maratrean 11:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
yes. One person can't have an argument, so if SR doesn't respond the argument is over. I suggest you leave yesterday's drama to yesterday. Rrose Selavy 11:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Let me rephrase things - does this place have any policies on when talk page posts can be reverted? Or is it just up to the whims of admins? That's not an argument. That's a question. --Maratrean 12:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

No. No coherent policies on anything except blocking, locking, and editing your own article were made under previous administrations. Our policy maker is away until next week, when he comes back, we really should get some coherent policy together. Ty 12:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
perhaps we should make a sticking-plaster style policy until the policymaker comes back from the Gobi Desert. Rrose Selavy 13:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Go on... Ty 13:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
We are a community, are we not? I'm highly skeptical Goonie would mind us making our own damn policies and voting on them. Heck, he may prefer it that way. Conficker 15:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Huzzah! Policy making! Ty 15:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

moved to RationalWIkiWIki:Community Standards Development

an explicit anti-trolling policy[edit]

would be a good idea. you troll, you get promoted and banned for a bit. yes, I realize I might get bancakes for that too. but we'd get much less HCM--Brxbrx 15:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

An anti-trolling policy I've always used is to ignore them. We can always rollback any nonsense they add onto articles (and use the bot rollback program Nx wrote, too, so they have no glory) and then ignore them and let them talk to themselves on talkpages. It works wonders in my observation. Conficker 15:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Agree. It's actually hilarious to watch Marcus talk to himself out of desperation. Ty 15:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

That is so fucking stupid. What is the fucking purpose of this site if you don't even fucking allow genuine criticism of RW? This site is genuinely at risk of becoming a hangout for all the losers and virgins who aren't in the inner circle or cabal. Get a fucking life and learnt to tolerate opinions different to yours, you odious fascists. 86.46.180.101 15:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

And we will tolerate opinions different from our own. On the talkpages. Conficker 15:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Or maybe not, as recent events indicate. Anyway, the problem with an "anti-trolling policy", is how do you define trolling? And, how then do you define who is trolling it, in any particular case? Trolling is a vague term that lacks a precise definition, and who is and is not a troll is going to be a very subjective decision. --Maratrean 23:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I think the above comment is a pretty good example. And I meant this for RW as well as RWW. Any commentary that has no other purpose than inciting negative emotional reactions.--Brxbrx 00:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Like certain editors saying "fuck off", "piss off", "everyone hates you", etc. Would that be trolling? --Maratrean 00:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Not when it's true, no. SuspectedReplicant 00:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
basically, any amalgamation of characters MarcusCicero would type on his keyboard would likely qualify as trolling. And that latest nastiness with Nutty Roux would have gotten him bancaked. RW needs to move on from being some obscure internet circle jerk.--Brxbrx 00:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Anti-trolling as an outright policy is stupid because it paints with a broad brush. Is somebody defending themselves against unkind words "trolling'? Is the person who said those unkind words "trolling"? To come up with an anti-trolling policy that can be applied in all circumstances, as we've seen 100's of times on RationalWiki, is a slippery slope because there is no way to define trolling that doesn't also involve stepping on someone's free speech on the website. What if there's an argument on RWW, and somebody blocks and accuses the other of trolling because the blocked person told the other to "fuck off"? Is it trolling simply because of the words one chose to use? If it's an edit war or an argument, how do we know what's trolling and what is not? Certainly, MC and Fall down are trolls, but I've chosen (as should you all) to simply let them talk to themselves. Guess what? When people do let them talk to themselves, they get bored and go away. Worst case scenario against known trolls is that we can pull out the banhammer, but this was after a site-wide discussion on how to deal with it, and with very little objection. Punky McPunkersen 23:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Seems sensible. Ty 23:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Community standards development[edit]

As we are now a website that wants be a community with rules, I suggest we create a special forum for rules development. Say RationalWikiWiki:Community Standards Development as said special forum. Conficker 16:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Ty 16:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Block policy[edit]

According to this site's block policy, blocks are permitted for the following reasons:

  • Pageblank vandalism
  • Spam vandalism
  • Whitewashing one's own RWW page
  • Unfunny vandalism (as per RW's definition of the term)
  • Joke blocks

The policy is very clear that these are the only permitted reasons for blocking. In fact, it says so twice, and the first time with italics "Only these actions will merit a block" and "Actions not listed are by definition not block-worthy.".

Yet, despite this clear policy, SuspectedReplicant goes ahead and blocks me, even though his block cannot be justified under any of the headings above. His reasoning is "Nope. Far more than that. You have set a new benchmark for being an irritating little tit who always needs to have the last say. Now here's a lesson in the application of power. STFU or I block you for annoying me. Nobody will miss you and the site will be a load more pleasant."

I tried to point out to him that what he was proposing to do was in violation of this site's block policy, but he just ignored it and blocked me anyway.

Will SuspectedReplicant be held to account for his violation, as an administrator, of this site's policies - or are they not worth the (electronic) paper they are written on?

I also note that two of this site's goals, with respect to RationalWiki, are:

Identify groupthink
Identify power abuse

I think this will be a good litmus test of how willing this site is to apply those goals to itself. If it proves unwilling to apply these goals to itself, it has no hope of applying them to RationalWiki. --Maratrean 09:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I have taken care of undoing the damage here. Lest it continue, I think no further conversation is needed. Punky McPunkersen 23:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Bear this in mind, folks[edit]

"Keep in mind that RWW has no inherent right to reside on the RW server. It is offered as a courtesy, and I have never exerted or demanded editorial control in return for it. However, this is were to turn into a personal attack site against individuals, in a mean spirited way, RWW would have to find another home. Criticism is fine, and won't be met with me pulling the plug, but if MC comes here and is allowed to start calling people names on their articles I will issue an eviction notice. Tmtoulouse 07:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC) "

Bear this in mind on WiGo's and on pages, folks. We are not to become an attack site. A site that critiques RW is fine, but the recent events in which this place has been used to attack people like Human and Nutty Roux is not only uncalled for, but also, if it continues, we risk the site being completely 86'd. Punky McPunkersen 19:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

And, yes, these are still the rules set forth for keeping this site on RW hosting and, since I'm paying the bills here, I have no intention of moving it from our current hosting and if we lose our lease on the server, I have no intention of continuing it. Someone else can, but not me. As for SR's conjecture that Trent still owns the hosting, it's only because we haven't gotten around to changing it yet. Punky McPunkersen 20:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Understood. Ty 20:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
conflicted material also understood. Ty 20:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

To all the alleged "aspies" here....[edit]

I'm on to your game. You are not fooling anybody. I'm the only person here who is an aspie! Aspie 02:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Who has Asperger's? Who cares who has Asperger's? --Maratrean 08:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Users and rights[edit]

Alrighty folks, this month has been very disorienting for me. However, since we are trying (or were trying) to come up various new rules for this place, I'd like for us to start at the basics: let's discuss a policy for users and rights. For example: what must one do to obtain "Hollyroller" status here? And how about "Janitor" status? And so on and so fifth. Any thoughts so I can make up a reference guide to users and rights? Punky McPunkersen 14:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Hollyroller - not a vandal/troll/spambot. Janitor/police: "constructive editor". Bureaucrat: Cabal approval. Ty 14:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
(EC)My view is that as we're a small site and the regulars know each other well, there's no need for graduated doling out of this and that right - either sysop or unsysop people as seems necessary. RW may be heading towards a load of rules but we don't need to. However a user guide is necessary in case of arguments. Rrose Selavy 14:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Unless we are suddenly inundated by mackerels, we should be fine handing out hollyroller like candy, and Janitor almost as much. I only worry about crat because until server accesses we can't fix anything if they pull an Armondikov. Ty 14:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
yes, not crats. perhaps not any more crats unless somebody drops out. Rrose Selavy 16:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Works for me. Ty 16:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I can't help noticing that you agree with everything I say. Rrose Selavy 10:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
That is because I am your sock. :) Actually, it is because (currently) you make sense. Ty 12:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm starting to like you. Would you like to see my etchings? Rrose Selavy 14:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Sure, why not? Ty 14:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
[1] Rrose Selavy 14:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
oooh pretty! But I cannot afford them :< Ty 14:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Tybot[edit]

If someone with block rights is willing to watch, If this holds up I'm going to run Tybot to put all sysops in desysops later today/early tomorrow. Ty 17:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

What the fuck for? ADK and Nx may want a regime change at RW, but I think doing such things here are universally stupid. Punky McPunkersen 17:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
The categories, not the users :P Ty 17:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Then you can crow about how many edits you've on RWW too. That'll be fabulous for you. Nutty Roux 17:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Uh... why would I care? Ty 17:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Nutty, really, what the fuck is your problem? I have never seen him "crow" about his edit count. Ever. It seems like the only person who sees Ty's edit count as a big deal is you. Armondikov 17:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I see. Nutty Roux 17:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to see Ty has wronged you personally with that. Armondikov 18:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not personally wronged at all, Armondikov. I'm making fun of him. Nutty Roux 18:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Then why don't you make fun of my appearance like everyone IRL? Ty 18:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps it's because he envies your hat? Punky McPunkersen 18:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Most likely. That's a damn good hat. Ty 18:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I think nerds wearing fedoras is a weird affect, but to each his own. I can't make fun of you for that because I was no better at your age. I was a dirty hipster wearing really ugly and dirty thrift store clothes. Except I was also playing punk rock and getting laid pretty often. Because people left their houses for more than 45 minutes at a time back then. Because nobody could stand spending more than 10 minutes on the internet when a single nudie pic took like 5 minutes to download. Nutty Roux 18:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Good for you. What did you play? Ty 18:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Guitar, and then after college some of my rocknroll buddies and I started a traditional country-western band that I played drums in. I almost went to conservatory for percussion but chose college instead and stopped really playing percussion all that much except for a year in the university orchestra. So getting back to playing drums well was more fun than making noise on a guitar, which I sucked at. Nutty Roux 19:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Cool. Were you guys any good? Ty 19:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I think so. We played a few of the really good smaller venues in Chicago like the Fireside Bowl, Hideout, Abbey Pub, and Schubas and got to play with some bands that became pretty popular after we disbanded that incarnation of the band. Nutty Roux 19:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Awesome. Keep it up, music is fun, and keeps your brain active. Ty 19:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

(od) Hang on, I am struggling with "traditional country-western" and "drums". Really? I thought that 50's rock & roll had its roots in country-western, but I also thought that a part of that transition was the addition of drums. Also, I would like to say "we have both kinds of music." LowKey 01:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Pointless revolution[edit]

Hasn't this whole "revolution" been rather pointless? The end result is.... mostly the same bureaucrats, a lot less sysops. But, none of the people now minus sysop (e.g. myself, not that I really care) were abusing those privileges anyway, so taking the privileges away has had no effect.

I understand the point, to try to get a more ordered and structured community. But tinkering with Special:UserRights seems to me to be rather pointless. It is confusing technical powers (granted by software) with social power (granted by culture). People want a change in social power, but tinkering with technical power achieves nothing. Maratrean 13:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

There will be elections soon. I suggest you toss your vote in with the RationalWiki Jacobins. Look us me up--Brxbrx 13:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
The end result has been to change nothing while scaring off a good chunk of our regular editors. 72.43.118.50 16:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
You point out that the technical rights != social rights. It's a good point to make. Changing bits around didn't change any of the social dynamics at all. That's why so many people were against the move, and admonished ADK, and Nx over it. And now later, Blue and Ty for recrating everyone. Neither of those actions served any purpose at all, except to exacerbate the HCM more. --Eira 17:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Jokes[edit]

"I used to do drugs. I still do drugs, but I also used to do drugs." Punky McPunkersen 14:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

When my mum was 20, she had a rose tattooed on her breast. Today, she's 70 and has a bougainvillea. --Psygremlin 15:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
One night I came home very late. It was the next night. Punky McPunkersen 15:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
A panda walks into a bar. It orders a sandwich, eats it, pulls a gun, and then blows away the bartender. As the panda walks ouy, the owners asks it what it thinks it is doing. It say "Hey, I'm a panda. Look it up!" The owner pulls out his dictionary and reads: Panda n a bear like animal that eats shoots and leaves. Ty 16:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
If we're doing Mitch Hedberg, then: "A severed foot is the ultimate stocking stuffer." Nebby 16:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
An American sub notices a surfaced Russian sub. They surface and pull alongside. The bearded drunk Russian crew is being yelled at by their Captain: "Who threw their slipper at the control panel" The American captain looks at his assembled crew of clean-shaven sober sailors and remarks "you know, in America..." The Russian cuts him off "Shut up. Your stupid America doesn't exist anymore." He turns back to the crew "Who threw their slipper..." Ty 17:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
What's the difference between a fish and a piano? You can tuna fish.--Brxbrx 18:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I thought that was "you can't tuna fish." Rrose Selavy 08:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Hey, what's up with this ceiling? Ty 15:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Two birds are standing on a perch. One looks at the other and says, "do you smell fish?" LowKey 01:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
My wife walked in on me masturbating to a picture of an optical illusion the other day. I said "darling, it's not what it looks like". Crundy 09:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Guy walks into a bar and asks for a drink. The bartender says "You can have your drink for free if you can jump up and grab one of those steer carcasses with you teeth". The guy looks up and sees a whole load of beef hanging from the ceiling and says "I don't know, those are some pretty high stakes". Hhahhaharahararahn di fucking har. Ace McWicked 10:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who count in binary and those who don't. LowKey 11:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
What is brown and sticky? A stick.LowKey 11:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
What is an occasional table the rest of the time? LowKey 11:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
A meat pie walks into a corner store and asks for a can of coke. The shopkeeper says, "Sorry, we don't serve hot food here." LowKey 11:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
A piece of rope walks into a bar and asks for a drink. The bartender goes "I am sorry, we don't serve rope in here." The piece of rope goes "I'm sorry?" The bartender says "We don't serve rope, you're a piece arn't you?". The rope goes outside and sits on the curb. He thinks for a bit then ties himself up and grabs a comb and brushes up his ends before going back into the bar. The rope asks for another drink and the bartender says "Sorry, we don't serve rope, you are a piece rope right?" the rope looks at the barman and says "I'm afraid not!" Ace McWicked 20:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
So this guy at school (who I really don't care for) has a kid and was bragging about his kid doing something "cute." I told him I thought it was cute, too, and he asked "What do you know about hving kids?" I then asked him "Well, does the kid ride on your shoulders?" He told me that, of course his kid rides on his shoulders. I then responded, "Well then I know that your kid knows how to ride on the back of a jackass." Conficker 06:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Our boy was in about grade 3 or 4 (age 8 or so) when one of their school topics was "Our Place in Space" and the teacher asked what the students new about the planets in the solar system. After a few things like "Mercury is hot" and "Jupiter is really big" ours puts his hand up, gets picked, pauses, and declares, "There's a ring around Uranus." LowKey 23:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Photo policy[edit]

Something to dicuss (I don't have a strong opinion): A few times I've seen people removing photos of themselves from their articles, and deleting the photo. Is this in accordance with l'esprit du wiki? Rrose Selavy 08:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

If it is their photo, it is their property and they have the right to remove it accordingly. Punky McPunkersen 01:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
The photos of Totnesmartin and David Gerard are from Wikimedia Commons, if that helps any. Ty 15:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Ok then. here's a basic policy: 1. If the user uploaded their own photo to RW or here, they can remove it from here. 1a. if they licensed to RW only then, dur, it shouldn't be here at all). 2. If the picture is from elsewhere but under a license we can use, the user may not remove the photo. 2a. If the photo is from elsewhere but the license is unknown, it cannot be used here. How does that grab you? Please shoot holes in my knowledge of copyright, privacy and image ownership. Rrose Selavy 16:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
IIRC while the foundation "owned" RWW we could use stuff licensed to RW. I asked SJ and ADK and they didn't mind their photo/alleged portrait being here(though Josh deleted his). That picture of Blue isn't her, but she likes it there. So, we should probably ask the others if they want their photo here now that we have independence. Ty 16:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
You can't use stuff licensed to RW unless it's licensed under a compatible license like CC-SA. The default license for images and files is RW only. So no, you can just use whatever you feel like from RW, Ty. Look at the license, then leap. @Rrose: everything but 1 is close. If someone uploaded their photo to RWW they've implicitly given a license for its use on RWW. I guess it's revocable. If they uploaded it anywhere else as public domain or CC-SA it's fair game. If it was uploaded to RW without any stated license it's RW only and off-limits. You still have to check the license. Nutty Roux 16:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Ah, thank you. That was not how it was explained to me a while back. Again thank you for clearing that up. We lost several files, but a few are CC/GNU/PD. Huzzar.Ty 16:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
The picture of ADK is also not of ADK. --Eira 16:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I know. It is a sort of on-wiki joke here. Ty 16:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I know, I was just pointing it out as well. --Eira 17:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
It is a demonstration of character vs. player knowledge. Ty 17:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
that picture is in-universe. Rrose Selavy 17:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, it's not entirely accurate, my eyes are actually green. Armondikov 19:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
It's a demonstration of stupidity, not c vs. pk. humanUser talk:Human 02:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Unless this shit stops NOW[edit]

I'm sending an e-mail to Trent telling him to take this place offline. We are here to critique RW, but not to be used as an attack site. Punky McPunkersen 14:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

STRONG AGREE. Fuck it. Do it now. P-Foster/RationalwikiwikiUndergroundResistor 16:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Closing down the whole site is a little harsh. Just shut down editing except for a select few. --85.76.153.109 16:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Night mode? RationalwikiwikiUndergroundResistor 16:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes. That vs 403 everybody --85.76.153.109 17:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I think you're over-reacting. The site is not rampant with personal attacks. If it bothers you so much, temporarily demote and block the perpetrators.--Brxbrx 17:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Rather surprisingly, I find myself agreeing with the masseuse among us. Please don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Block the culprits, protect a few pages and you're done. There's too much overreacting going on as it is. Rrose Selavy 21:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
grrr It's masseur for men, but that's irrelevant. The overwhelming majority of massage therapists in the US prefer the term massage therapist because masseuse and masseur are associated with the sex trade.--Brxbrx 22:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I do but jest. Rrose Selavy 22:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's the thing: how many of you want to bet that, when Ken showed his ugly face this week, he looked around RationalWiki at all this drama bullshit and laughed his head off? This whole headless chicken mode and all this drama are utterly ridiculous and the people who are pertpetuating it all are, unfortunately, people who should know better. Fuck, many of them are years my senior, and yet are showing that my 8 month old nephew has more maturity. Naturally, I expect to get more lfames for being blunt with this post, but you know something? I frankly don't give a flying fuck about all you drama whores! There was some vandalism I once saw in the bathroom at Minneapolis' famous First Avenue nightclub. One was a flyer for an Anti-Flag concert. Someone had crossed out the flyer and written "Fuck those Anti-Flag posers!" Someone else crossed out that comment and wrote "Fuck you! Poser!" But the crown and glory of it all was that, underneath, a member of Anti-Flag (or allegedly so) had written "Fuck both of you. Quit fighting eachother and fight the real enemies, you dummies - #2 Chris". Frankly, the "Quit fighting" comment is the essence of how I feel right now. Rather than do what we do best (make fun of Conservapedia, write exposés of pseudoscience promoters, etc.), the vast majority of RationalWiki seems to prefer to fight eachother over petty, nonsensical bullshit. It is a sad commentary. Punky McPunkersen 01:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I empathise with that position. I do think RW has developed some enemies who are absolutely loving the in fighting. Regardless of how that sort of thing was dismissed by some, sarcastically, as "oooh whatever will the neighbours say?!?!?!" I think it's very valid. If a CP admin was watching, I wonder how much strength of will it would have taken not to shout about it all over Conservapedia. Certainly it would have been making an appearance in whatever the hidden groups were since we know that at least one or two have an unhealthy obsession with RW. But, ah well. Armondikov 20:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
But the wiki is still running. We have our political squabbles, but mainspace still grows and refines itself, WIGO:CP still harbors discussions about CP, and the Saloon Bar still harbors discussions not about the HCM--Brxbrx 01:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, but someone poking their head into RC will see this: ChickencoopeirasABitchPsyisLANCBbutstilleditingChickencoopForumUserRightsEiraisStillaBitchFuckYouHumanAuthoritarianismFascistFascists. No good. RationalwikiwikiUndergroundResistor 02:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
It's still running, but we're losing a lot of significant contributors. --Eira
If anyone flames you they suck. You're making real criticism not "personal attacks". And yes, I'm taking your comments to thought. --Eira 02:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
"most people" don't know or care what RC is on a wiki. They follow a link from elsewhere, click on a few links maybe, perhaps bookmark the main page if they are curious. "RW has developed some enemies who are absolutely loving the in fighting" - who? humanUser talk:Human 02:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Consevapedia probably enjoys it. But so what? Let them have their fun. Goat knows we've had far more laughs at their expense--Brxbrx 03:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The Great RW War of 2011[edit]

has opened another front, as the raging battle spreads to RWW.

Somebody drop a chill bomb on this place. --Maratrean 08:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I am sorely tempted. I am also confused by by the idea of people leaving RW but coming here to pick up where they left off. If user:x had unfinished RW business, why did user:x leave? Rrose Selavy 16:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

To attack others/defend themselves I guess. Ty 16:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I think more often to attack others... if they want to defend themselves, they usually stick around on RW to fight it out. --Eira 16:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Rename[edit]

What do you guys think of "DionysianValkyrie"? Suggestions? (This is for Blue.) Liveware Problem 19:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm getting a good mental image. Ty 19:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
How about OdinistMaenad?--Brxbrx 19:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
DionysianValkyrie sounds outstanding. You always think up the most wonderful sounding usernames.... Punky McPunkersen 19:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
How come my username doesn't get any compliments...--Brxbrx 19:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I like something like MadMaenad. Alliteration and everything. Liveware Problem 19:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I presume I need to recrate you for this? Oh, and MadMaenad works. Ty 19:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
It may be redundant. Maybe MadMaiden? Or MaidenMaenad? MadMammaries?--Brxbrx 19:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to go with MordantMaenad. Yes. Liveware Problem 20:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Fitting. Would you like me to do it, or me to restore crateship? Ty 22:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Does a crateship go over water or in the air? Is it sturdy?--Colonel Sanders 22:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Crateships are rare things, and soon the last of them will disappear. Once one acquired one, they were usually hard to involuntarily dispose of. Ty 22:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Wasn't there a crateship on Super Mario Bros. 3?--Colonel Sanders 22:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't know. There are 31 known crateships left. But I know of one sunken beneath the deep blue sea. I am fairly confident I could restore it if the owner wished me to. Ty 22:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Tornadoes[edit]

So, I was literally about 2 miles away from one of the most destructive tornadoes to hit Minneapolis in a while. I am now the proud owner of part somebody else's roof, a smashed bicycle, and and a stop sign. Who says life is boring? Punky McPunkersen 15:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

How good is the bike, you might be able to get something out of it. Ty 15:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Nah, the bike is wrecked. It's more like twisted scrap metal. RussianalWiki 15:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Sell it to an foundry. Ty 16:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Funnily enough, I am the proud owner of a bicycle wheel, a bottlerack and a urinal. But that's just me anyway, nothing to do with tornadoes. Rrose Selavy 18:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Virginity[edit]

All these people fussing about virginity, throwing around the world virgin like it was an insult. When I was a virgin, many a year ago, I thought virginity was a horrible horrible thing, and I could not wait to get rid of it. Now that I have been many a year without it, I no longer hate it so. It's more meh, yeah, whatever, who cares, what matters, virgin or virgin not. It's not that hard to lose one's virginity; maybe those who still have it after a certain age are a bit uptight or shy or misfortunate, or maybe they are just a bit more discerning. But anyway, it makes me think, are those who think "virgin" an insult, virgins themselves?? Maratrean 07:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Personally I would have allowed him to remove the evidence of it if he felt embarrassed by it. Since when did we become such bastards that we need to highlight every potentially embarrassing thing someone says. I suppose we have the rule of no deleting talk page comments but this was unnecessary and slightly cruel if you ask me. Just my 2 bob. --Pinetree 10:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
As I've said a few times, I don't care. Actually, the only people we have evidence of non-virginity for are Eira, PalMD, and Quaru, though most of the married ones probably aren't. Ty 12:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Wait, what? Who said I wasn't a virgin!? Lies!! Quaru 00:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Your article mentions you having a son. --JC
She said she could get pregnant from kissing!! Quaru 03:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I have some unfortunate information to convey to you. You have to... ah, this is difficult. Suffice to say, she is lying. John Childermass 03:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Jesus fuck Ty. You don't know these people so why are you talking about where they put their dicks?! Haven't you learned a thing about privacy since yesterday? Fucking stop it you little creep. Nutty Roux 14:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
*ahem* some of us don't have dicks... thanks for your misogynistic patriarchy-enforcing rhetoric... --Eira 15:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Eek embarrassing. I admit I skimmed the list quickly, immediately saw PalMD's name, and saw red. Nutty Roux 15:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, point number one, by deleting it a person is calling attention to it. See Streisand effect. And point number two... what?! When did I give any evidence of my non-virginity? --Eira 12:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Talk:WIGO world, a while back [2]. Ty 13:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Just WTF people. What's the impediment to learning boundaries? Jesus fuck man. Nutty Roux 14:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Right then... --Eira 13:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm just questioning the need to broadcast it here. And yeah, in hindsight, deleting the revisions were a terrible idea (on so many levels).--Brxbrx 14:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
It's a point making exercise about how creepy it is that several of you, mostly Ty, trawl RW for personal details of people you don't even know to post on RWW. I hope Ty finally learned that it's an Invasion of privacy, regardless of this site's policy, to tear down the fourth wall like this. And as to RW related information that's not behind the fourth wall of peoples' private lives, some of you use this site as a therapeutic for some kind of obsessive compulsive disorder and it's hard to watch, yet we're forced to when we have to come over here lately to monitor whether we're being called names and defamed by others who use this place to continue old fights from RW or as a real-time attack site. To the obsessives: Go outside. Get a girlfriend. Pick up a bad habit. Get in a fight. Learn to ride a motorcycle. Anything. And go to a different psychiatrist if your present treatment isn't working, as I suspect is the case. To the others, you're playing fast and loose with this site's existence and your corporate overlords are watching. I will fuck you up. This site is a cesspit and as long as some of the users here, whether or not we suspect them of being mentally ill, want to defend without humility the invasions of privacy I will continue to teach them that the fourth wall stays up unless someone comes over here to let it down. The more strident some of you defend the political attacks and name calling the faster and harder I'm going to be right up in your face to teach you that you're being a motherfucker and that if you pulled this shit in your neighborhood or on the street you'd either get the living shit beaten out of you or have a restraining order against you for stalking. RW is not CP. We are not public figures running a hate site that's also documented elsewhere across the internet. We're not the child of a world famous female misogynist. Your presence on RW indicates you'd agree with that. The fourth wall stays up as to non-RW related personal information for people who don't let it down. You think I'm wrong? I will teach you I am not. This is WIGO RW, not WIGO strangers' personal lives. As for the obvious hypocrisy of me frequently calling Maratrean names and telling him to get fucked, I'll only note that even people I'm feuding with here privately tell me they agree a crank like him who doesn't fit in and won't go away is a cancer on the site. You'll just have to be generous when reading the above and deciding whether, notwithstanding my admitted hypocrisy, you'll accept that I've made a valid point. And finally, I'm looking at Brxbrx and anyone who calls me names for allegedly having nothing better to do than look at this shit heap. Lately I spend about 30 minutes a day here. Otherwise I'm lawyering and making money, spending time with friends, chasing tail and getting laid, etc. How about some of you? If you're unemployed or live with your parents... Do really think I have nothing better to do than even look at this blight or that I'm really spending all that much time doing it? Stop the stalking and personal attacks and you'll never seen me here again. We'll all be happy with that result. Nutty Roux 14:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
So instead of politely raising your concerns you decided to start bullying everybody? Right. It's not like such personal information was a staple of this site in the first place. Recording people's jobs IRL is hardly an invasion of privacy. Besides, we know you're not actually trying to "teach us a lesson." You're just trolling. And you may be living the high life, NR, but you seem to check back here quite often.-Brxbrx 15:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Excuses that add up to nothing that's actually responsive. What's the point in politely raising my concern when you've already got it figured out? And what makes you think I haven't politely told relevant people this shit is creepy and needs to stop? Recording a person's IRL job on RWW is a an invasion of privacy if they merely let it slip on a talk page on RW, knowing that it would fade into distant memory in an archive. I'm sure very few people ever intended for you all to run over here to add it to articles they're not allowed to edit. And what makes you think it's any of your fucking business anyway, boyo? You like calling anyone you don't agree with a troll. You need to learn what that word means and get off it. Smarten up, twerp. Nutty Roux 15:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
You're never far behind, are you? Well, I'm unemployed, I've an excuse (a sorry excuse, but at least I'm honest, right?) to be here. Wow. That RW article is a good reference, thanks. Allow me to highlight these defining characteristics of a troll that I found there:
  • Deliberately angering people.
  • Breaking the normal flow of debate/discussion.
  • Disrupting the smooth operation of the site.
  • Deliberately being annoying for the sake of being obnoxious. For instance, using abusive names to refer to all the members on the site.

Hmm... Kinda like how people bring up non-issues and repeatedly insult other members with little to no provocation. I'm shocked that anyone would accuse you of that, really! And before I forget- if you'd kindly present evidence of you citing your concerns with RWW in a polite way, I'd be happy to accept it, boyo. So far it seems you're just bored and trying to stir up shit. Maybe you should try going outside. Gettting a girlfriend. Picking up a bad habit. Getting in a fight. Learning to ride a motorcycle. Anything to get you out of this rut you're in, that you have to vent your frustrations here and disrupt the site.--Brxbrx 16:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, make a substantive point instead of calling me names and we'll get along a lot better. I don't even really know who you are or why you think you have a dog in this fight. Where did you come from and when? What are you getting out of this and why do you think it's worth fighting me when you've got nothing but name calling? I guess you can say I'm stirring shit if you ignore the substance, which is what I'm coming to expect from you, but it's not true and anyone who's paying attention can see that. Nutty Roux 16:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Nutty, let's be honest: No matter what we bring up it will not suffice for you as any "valid" point. And when we point out that you are calling names, you tell us names and defend calling other people names because they first started it and you want too show how that feels? What are you going to do when that potential future wife of your's gets shut - pick up a AK47 and go postal in the streets. The normal form of human conduct is to raise a question peacefully and not just simply attack people. Fuck yes, it may be that some of us have don't have those great lives and some of us have chosen that lifestyle. So that makes us lesser then you? Does it give you any right of lecturing anybody? No for fuck's sake. And absolutly not in that style. Your whole speech sounds like a pathetic over-compensational rant against us the people you seem to see us scum. You say you make money, get laid and spent so absolutely not much time with us - if that is true - why would that at all be desirable? If I'll end up like you calling people names and behaving on a cooperational wiki like a corporate rivalry asshat to prove who has the longest dick and is therfor "the best guy in town" solely to proove a the point that deep inside you are not a completely alone looser, I'd rather kill myself. Assumptious? Yes! True? As far as I know the world, 100%. --Ullhateme 19:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
That AK47, corporate asshat, "best guy in town" shit is creepy. Knock it off. You don't know anything more about me than what you've seen in a few posts here in which I've been addressing a few really important problems perhaps tactlessly. I came here to defend myself and my friends but was attacked, called names, blocked and IP blocked multiple times, as well as had my rights removed. If you're lining up to defend RWW here, you've got absolutely no moral authority. And based on what I can tell about you from your posts here and RW I think I actually am a lot cooler than you are but that's obviously beside the point except to say that the only "us" you're part of seems to be like 3 people who keep popping up in these discussions to call me names yet failing, like you, to respond to what I'm actually saying. Nutty Roux 14:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Nutty, I only used reductio ad absurdum on you - twice. Once clear with the AK47 thing. Then the second time with my assumptions and personal judgment about you - which do not differ in style from what you did with Ty. You telling me to knock it off, is exactly what my emotional reaction was to what you did. On many instances I agree with you image about Ty. For some reason the guy reads all of RW and edits like an ox. But there isn't much to criticise against that, if he's lonely it's better then beating people up or getting a depression. I don't think we have a right to criticise how somebody lives his or her life. If somebody wants to spent much of their time on a wiki doing small edits and has fun with it - who are we to criticise that. You could, off course, drop Ty a line and tell him not to spam RC with his personal details or to stop adding stuff to your article - and frankly I can't think of any reason why you did not do that. Back to the original point: You said it was creepy, how would you think would it have looked if I did the same thing with your article here? Creepy, possibly? Because that is exactly how it looked to me when you edited Ty's article. You at least see that I might have a point, the BoN (down there) that I assume is Marcus, stopped making any point at all and went straight to insulting people. And while I don't take his insults seriously, an image of the guy forms in my mind that not at all friendly or flattering - what would happen if I told him what I think about him? Probably nothing good. If you want Ty to stop beeing what you consider "creepy", just tell him and don't be creepy about it yourself.
PS: I don't care if people think I'm not cool or not, it never has (completely aside that "cool" is a null term and highly subjective). --Ullhateme 17:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Nutty, "As for the obvious hypocrisy of me frequently calling Maratrean names and telling him to get fucked, I'll only note that even people I'm feuding with here privately tell me they agree a crank like him who doesn't fit in and won't go away is a cancer on the site". I thought RW welcomed people with different views, including people who disagree with some of its fundamental perspectives. Or are you trying to say it doesn't, or it shouldn't? Maratrean 19:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure, RationalWiki does and should welcome people with different views. Many people of RationalWiki seem to not welcome you. Nutty Roux 14:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Holy mother of God. Nutty has articulated what I've been trying to say for the last few weeks. A great and rational man with a unique ability to see right through the bullshit. He's dead right about the obsessional thing. Ty and the Brx idiot strike me as thoroughly nasty freaks who get their kicks from e-stalking. The same goes for Ullhateme, who seems to be the least charismatic noob ever to emerge on the site, and with miniscule intellectual ability. I go through binges on RW (Look at my editing history, I go months without posting anything - whereas Ty et all seem to have spent countless hours reading obscure talk pages long into the night, something which genuinely freaks me out) but mostly I live a interesting fulfilling life, full of books, drugs and light hearted political and philosophical arguments among friends. RW affords me a window into a world where I can tear people asunder, assassinate characters, and generally spar with people who I think need to get out in the real world and do something useful with their lives. 86.47.76.251 23:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
what else could we expect from you? You aren't just annoying, you're predictable.--Brxbrx 23:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for those kind words, Marcus. --Ullhateme 00:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, about what I expected. Fucking dorks. 86.47.76.251 00:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Nutty is spot-on about some things. It's probably not a good thing to snatch details from conversation and list them in a reference about that person. I'm not a big fan of the practice. It gets downright creepy with the level of detail that can be commanded, as with Eira, above. Especially with the female Rationalwikians, this sort of thing is a phenomenon they have to endure in too many other places - and it's uncool. RWW seems like it can be fun and snarky in its own way, although I haven't seen much of it. But it also seems like it indulges a lot of the worse aspects of online communities: a hypervigilance towards the partial anonymity of the Internet that borders on stalking; a desire to control the narrative of confrontations and events that leads to over-categorization with everything becoming "HCM"; vanity and pleasure at being interesting enough to be observed (I usually only check my own profile every few months, for example!); and the like. The history of RationalWiki might be better described on RationalWiki itself, and people might be better off deciding themselves what information about themselves to list as reference. On those lines, and because I've just convinced myself, I'd like my profile wiped, please. I hope that will be allowed?--AD 09:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

My opinion[edit]

The real problem here, in my opinion, is exhibitionism. Anyone who notes "this user likes it kinky" deserves what they get. As to the accusations that this is a "hate site" the articles seem mostly positive. John Childermass 02:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

We've reverted most of the "hateful" comments. --Eira 02:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Ah. Given the rancor most people seem to feel about the site, whoever did so deserves an award. John Childermass 02:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

RWW-and-RW vs RW-and-CP[edit]

RWW is a meta-site of RW, which started out as kind of meta-site of CP (although has in part grown beyond it). So that makes RWW a kind of meta-meta-site. Of course, not quite the same thing, given that RW started from a highly critical posture towards, whereas RWW has on the whole a friendly posture towards RW (although it claims one of its purposes is to critique RW).

A question, which others have posed already, but let me pose it again - if Andy Schlafly demanded his page at RW be deleted, would RW comply? I would guess not. So, by the same logic, if RW editors request the deletion of their page at RWW, should RWW comply? If the answer is yes... might I suggest then there is little point left to RWW, and it might as well be shut down. Maratrean 08:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

There's still a case for documenting events at RW, rather than personal info about the people who happen to be writing on it. Rrose Selavy 08:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Here's the problem: This is an event at RW that should be documented, but it also contains personal info. -- Nx / talk 08:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Whether that should be documented - in essence it's just one more argument with RobS - is debatable, but I see your point. However I think we should not include personal information for its own sake. Incidents like the link above should be up for discussion first, perhaps. We are a shoot-first-ask-questions-later kind of site, pretty much. Time for a change? Rrose Selavy 08:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
It is useful to make distinctions between public figures like Andy Schlafly and editors like Karajou, as well as to make a distinction between personal information and other sorts.--AD 08:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
TK wanted to get his name off RW and we refused. -- Nx / talk 08:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Short of libel, it is the official policy of RW to not take down an article about a person. --Eira 08:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
So, why should RWW be different? -- Nx / talk 08:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Because RWW is a different site from RW. RW is openly antagonistic to CP, RWW isn't openly antagonistic, it's critical, but not antagonistic. --Eira 08:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Because this is a community of like minded individuals and, as such, when someone wants a favour you can assume they have a good reason. Ace McWicked 08:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
So, one rule applied to members of this clique, another rule to members of another opposed clique? I would suggest, whatever rules are applied to CP editors by RW should be applied to RW editors by RWW, and vice versa. Maratrean 09:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
(ec) So it's okay when you stalk a CP sysop, but not when someone does it to you? -- Nx / talk 09:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
You are either to stupid to see the distinction, Nx, or just being a cunt for the sake of it. Since I know you are not stupid I'll leave my comment as is. I stand by the above. We are a community of supposed friends and/or like minded individuals and when a friend makes a request of me I do my damnedest to help in which ever way I can. The fact you are not aware of, nor care about, this particular social contract/mutual respect speaks volumes to me. Ace McWicked 09:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Like AD said, I'm an idealist. So when a friend asks me to hide his dirty laundry while he is happy to air someone else's dirty laundry for all to see, I'm going to point out that he's a hypocrite. And you're not my friend, you're just someone on the internet. -- Nx / talk 09:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Whoa whoa! Let's not get into it that way. I suggest we direct our attention over to the manual of style thing - or rather, you guys should, since I don't think someone like me who never edits here should be making up the manual of style.--AD 09:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, an outsider's view can be helpful, but it's up to you. Rrose Selavy 09:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Why we're here. The mission statement and a proposed total retooling.[edit]

I -- for the first time -- read the RWW mission statement on the front page. That bit of text does not accurately describe what this website presently does. As a few people -- AD and Ace for two -- have made noise about the role that RWW plays in documenting personal information, I propose the following:

  1. Delete and memory hole every article about every editor.
  2. Start a new article about each of those editors that focuses uniquely -- not primarily, but uniquely -- on their RW activities. Relevant information would include date of joining, rights changes, wikibreaks, significant projects/articles that the editor in question gas been involved in, and objective. critical analysis of the various conflicts/responses that the person has been involved in and their behavior therein.
  3. Snark shall be limited to jokes that are obviously harmless, or to stuff that the person in question has publicly teased themselves about (ie. P-Foster has repeatedly joked about the time he vaped the TWIGOCP page, so that would be fair game. )


Thoughts? RationalwikiwikiUndergroundResistor 00:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

that's a good plan, but trashing all articles seems extreme. A lot of articles aren't that bad. Mine, for example, is noticeably devoid of insults (is devoid even a word? I typed it and my spellcheck isn't saying anything...). I do think we should include criticism of editors, but TOW style. with both sides presented. The criticism, should, of course, be limited to their mannerisms on RW.--Brxbrx 01:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
My thoughts on some things (devoid is a word)
  1. date --easy
  2. Rights/renames -- also very easy
  3. breaks/Leaving and never coming back -- announced are easy-ish. Unannounced is a bitch. You'd have to trawl Special:Contributions looking for gaps, then cross referencing with their announced breaks. It is do-able but somebody would have to give me a hand.
  4. Articles created: easy, but time consuming. Would have to be updated periodically, and limited to fun/main/CP/project/help/cat/tmp space. I'm not touching File space with a ten foot pole.
  5. Articles deleted: meh. Doable, but annoying. More so than the above. The deletion log is hellishly boring reading.
  6. edit count: I do this already, False flag asked me to break it down by namespace and added to article. Again, very time consuming, and couldn't be updated with any frequency (monthly?) Despite protests to the contrary, it is a good measure of activity and interests, though not of "value" to the project.
  7. Socks: simple enough, in theory.
  8. Snark: Everyone has idiosyncrasies. Not too bad. We can poke fun at everyone
  9. Controversies: This is hard. New ones would be a snap to record old ones... nope sorry, unless Rrose has more stuff squirreled away. The first problem is intrest. No offense, I'm the main editor here. I don't give a flying flip about CP or ASK. I filter CP:Talk from my RC. Likewise, Punky avoids it, as does LP.


Site politics is a copper plated bitch, due to POV. Only Rrose and Conficker could really claim neutrality on most issues(and False Flag on the rare occasions he shows up), and even then they'd have opinions. The "new cabal" doesn't exist, but several of the editors here have similar opinions on several issues. We don't want to be accused of partisan-ship. That's what happened to RA.
IMO memory holing all the articles isn't a good idea, but most of them could use a good trimming gutting. I'll say it, that's my fault, stubs and empty fields annoy me so I looked for anything that could fill them. That was a mistake. Age, real name, gender, preferred music etc. are all pretty unnecessary. Location is vaguely because of politics and spellings. RL politics fill the wiki. Religion has generated controversy, keep it. Archetype -- keep, and actually try to implement.
I know my OCD is a bit of a gag, but contrary to popular belief, I do sleep and go outside and things like that. I'm willing to support an overhaul, but only if people are actually going to help me do it. We all worked together in March to make 50 new articles. Let's see if we can do it again, and be back to being a community.


Comments? Ty 03:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I would like for this site to no longer exist. Nutty Roux 04:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
how about this, ty: everything someone puts up on their userpage about themselves, is fair game for RWW. Talkpages, though, whether user, wigo, or article, are off-limits because of the implying implications of following someone about their conversations (although I always thought it was pretty clear that Ty and others didn't spend hours looking through revisions, but only came across things in recent changes and added them to articles here).--Brxbrx 04:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
@ Nutty: I agree, but that's not gonna happen, unless you feel like filing an injunction. This seems like a reasonable compromise. @ Brxgsjeb or whatever the fuck your name is: no, it all should be memory-holed, a fresh start, give people nothing to bitch about. A link to a userpage will be sufficient; no need to reproduce what's already there. @ Ty: like I said, memory-holed, give the folks nothing to bitch about. Only stuff that is directly related to what happens on wiki. My being from Iceland should only come up if that plays a central role in shaping my position on a debate. RationalwikiwikiUndergroundResistor 04:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
As long as it's strictly wiki related stuff and nothing personal I'll go with the wise RWWUR's program. This site is presently a cesspit. Nutty Roux 04:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
And you will soon learn my wrath with the upcoming Night of the Blunt Turds. I will teach you. Nutty Roux 04:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I've got nothing wrong with the site being critical of RationalWiki and poking fun at editors for their on-Wiki activities. But I do, generally, agree that the stalker stuff (i.e: adding peoples' details down to their address) needs to go badly. I also think that, if criticism is to come, it should be presented in a neutral way. For example, if we are discussing someone's admin abuse case, it should talk about just the facts, and nothing like "then the asshole went even further and did thing #X just to prove a point. What a moron!" Punky McPunkersen 06:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Some of the more raw facts suggested above could be maintained by a bot... date joined, edit count history, rights log, articles created/deleted, most-edited, etc... But actually I think this site is doomed. A lot of its mission statement is impossible to square with the unwillingness of the people in power here to permit critical information. People claim there is a difference between "criticism" and "personal attacks", but there isn't one — at least, not one which could be drawn in any sort of impartial, objective, non-hypocritical way. Imagine if the standards people are trying to impose on this site were actually imposed on RW? ... Might as well just give up now. Maratrean 07:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Memory holing all the user article is a bit extreme, there are so many user articles that simply list when somebody joined, was sysopped, gender and so on, that it makes no sense deleting them all. The core group of articles isn't that bad either. What people have to stop is using this site to put crap in others editors articles, to revenge something. A simple listing of errors and power abuses should suffice as criticism, no need to criticize directly on RWW, and the brought up criticism on RW. As for country: what is bad about that? If nobody calls you something because you're from Iceland that shouldn't be any difference and if somebody calls you X for coming Y it will probably considered trolling anyway. Also, for example, the sexual preferences and experiences somehow come up sometimes, but in some cases (Leotardo, AMassiveGay) they are quite voiced about it so we can hardly let that go.
How about this: If you think something is too private take it out of the article or ask the user on RW if it's ok (if the user says it's ok, you can't really argue against it). Let the users decide how private the article can get, and if somebody gives permission to document all of his stupidities, slips and other embarrassing stuff, who cares? --Ullhateme 10:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't want to go down the road of askng RW users if it's OK to use certain bits of information. If they constantly mention their age group or sexuality or whatever, they're obviously not bothered about revealing it. one off-revelations to illustrate a saloon bar discussion ("it's raing here in Florida"/"I voted for Walter Mondale"/"My wife said to me..." etc) should be left out, probably, especially if it has no relevance to RW. We should err on the side of caution. Rrose Selavy 10:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I meant asking if controversy pops up, not before editing. --Ullhateme 12:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh lookie, a edit button[edit]

I'd like (if, indeed, changes are to be made at RWW) the way articles about RW personalities and history went beyond merely gleaning what has/is already there and editors from RWW as editors from RWW "interview" say, like the old cabal members (where possible) to get a fuller sense of the institutional memory. Sid for instance, showed early on (April 2007) what a dick the swabbie could be, but what's in his article? Squat. Julius Marx 14:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

clearly you are Sid That could work, but it's only Sid, Trent, Human, Sterile, Cracker and Bob left nowadays. Do you think that would be enough? Ty 15:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Come up with a privacy policy based on objective criteria that has moral authority and get rid of the rogue admin or shut the fucking thing down[edit]

After a day of looking at this and waiting for more replies I have a few more thoughts. I'm torn between agreeing in theory with the second policy post Sir RWWUR made in this thread, but want to clarify and explain why at the end of the day I believe with some of the present actors this site faces an uphill battle.
The content and culture here are plagued by obsessive compulsive types fingering information about strangers like the pussy they'll never get, gathering and arranging minutiae that's none of their fucking business except for their own personal entitlement to it according to this site's amorphous and poorly enforced editorial policy. Personal attacks get protected by admins abusing their power. Which brings me to. …
Editorial policy re: personal information:
I absolutely do not trust but a few people here I personally know to actually be responsible adults to handle RW editors' personal information. RWW's approach to personal information has been a failure of inconsistent ad hoc approaches implemented on a user-by-user basis, sometimes by juveniles with terrible judgment. Nuking it all is the only option to uniformly purge all the bullshit without permitting yet more shitty judgment being employed to decide what's Ok and what's not. This site must amputate that gangrenous limb and start over. And because it's not practical to nuke WIGOs the policy going forward must be leave out the personal attacks. Stick to the facts and wiki related controversies, but describe them fairly and dispassionately.
I'm not going to name names, so scroll up and read the substance of what some of these people are saying… to those people, if I have anything to say about it, which I may not: you're not going anywhere near the slippery slope of deciding the difference between whatever you think you've seen Leotardo or AMassiveGay say and any other editor's personal info; you're not going to follow people around lifting nuggets off their userpages unless you want this shit to happen again; no more internet stalking users to sites other than RW even if it's easy to find them there; you're not waiting for controversy arising from posting something private to decide what's too private to post (this was seriously proposed!).
The problem is not whether the info is verifiable simply because someone put it on his userpage or whether you've got your own ad hoc rule for deciding what personal information, rather than solely RW related info, goes into an article. The problem is that it's just not right to follow people around gathering their details and then forcing them to take a stand on whether they want you to publish shit about them, particularly if they don't even know this cesspit even exists.
I don't care if an RW editor made the mistake of letting some personal detail slip on his user page. We're not CP editors and this isn't a site partly focused on documenting the zealotry and abuses of public figures like CP admin. None of us is like TK making legal threats, telling some of the licensed professionals associated with RW that he's personally going to fuck with their careers, asking Andy Schlafly to oppose their membership to the bar, telling me he's going to report me to the bar for my association with RW, etc. Thus, if this site continues it should cover what's going on at RW, not RW editors' personal business.
Admin abuse:
None of this is Goonie's fault. He can't supervise everything himself and it's not fair to ask him to police his own admin. But look at what some crats here did with this specific example, which is basically the first substantial encounter I had with this site: when I tried to remove shit like SR using mainspace to call Human a drunken troll and pronounce him guilty before the vote was even in, or SR and some children edit warring over a WIGO calling me a dick, SR blocked me and removed my rights multiple times. All for defending Huw and me. And he's not the only one who blocks and removes rights to protect objectionable content. This went on for days. I wouldn't have had to edit war if this site had a decent editorial policy preventing attacks and lies, but right is right and I'm going to fight when it's personal like this. All day. The editorial and rights/blocking problems didn't even get solved when Goonie wasted his vacation time to intervene: SR still didn't get the picture and removed my rights and blocked me yet another time. Ty quickly restored them. Thanks for that, Ty. That was the right thing to do. But when the shit hits the fan Goonie's influence is the only thing keeping this place from descending into madness.
This and this are an outrage. This shouldn't ever happen again.
So my proposition if this site is to continue is (a) come up with objective criteria for what goes into WIGOS and user profiles and (b) get rid of every admin and sysops unless they are personally known to Goonie to have good judgment. Some of you can't be trusted.
Nutty Roux 17:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
A few points: none of this information is private, it was posted on a public wiki for crying out loud. If you don't want others to know you're gay/a virgin/whatever, don't fucking post it on a public wiki for all to see. Two, the wigo was accurate in calling you a dick, because you acted like a dick. Don't be so thin skinned. -- Nx / talk 19:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Sign of maturity?[edit]

I think that there is something which has been missed during all the HCM which occurred recently at RW.

Many prima donnas got a bit twisted out of shape, overreacted, left to never come back, embarked on bizarre self-destructive behaviours, viscously attacked each other and so on. But many regular members of the site simply ignored it and kept on with editing the site. I think that's a quite positive development.--False Flag 15:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep. It's getting there, slowly and surely. As a long time watcher, what is your opinion of the new structure? Ty 17:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
until we figure out who the moderators will be and how they handle things, I think it's too early to tell.--Brxbrx 17:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Welll..... that's an interesting question. The user rights thing is really just another way of doing things. Was the actual problem caused by the user rights set up, or by various people simply deciding that they could do whatever they liked? I think the problem was really caused by some long-established members thinking they could do whatever they liked. While they might have gotten away with that in a small community with a common bond such as that shared by those who came together at CP, it failed utterly in the new community which is now RW.
And while the situation was not helped by trolls and socks, some of the major difficulties were visited upon the wiki by long-time heavyweights - members of the foundation no less.
All of which suggests to me that the problem lies with attitudes, personality conflicts and such like and not with the distribution of user rights themselves.
As for the moderators I think that is going to be a real headache, not because it's a bad idea, but because I can't imagine anyone volunteering for the role.
But, as I said, the positive thing is that much of the site simply ignored all the flaming.--False Flag 20:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I think the changes in user rights is seen as a means to disempower those users with poor attitudes.--Brxbrx 20:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
The problem isn't who has what rights (whether technically or officially), the problem is cultural. I don't see how tinkering with user rights is necessarily going to make any difference. Choose a group of moderators with a better culture than the site as a whole, it might make a difference. But, assuming the site is going to vote for the moderators, will the masses vote for their better part? Or will it just be a beauty contest? Maratrean 20:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
When we gonna get our moderators?--Colonel Sanders 22:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with most of FF's comments. The dramas were caused by drama queens being dramatic & egotists being egotistical, not with site structure. I don't agree that nobody will volunteer for Modship; I think everyone will & they'll be further disgruntlements re those who don't get voted in. weaseLICIOuS Bite Me 22:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm worried that the same troublesome users will be mods. There's this "HE'S MY FRIEND LEAVE HIM ALONE HE CAN'T DO NO WRONG" mentality about the wiki--Brxbrx 23:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
The thing about the mods is this. Two of the most prolific editors on the wiki who are also members of the board were involved in the recent unpleasantness along with the most able technical specialist on the site.
Each one of them has previously contributed massively the the development of the site. It would not have become the place it is without them.
Yet all three of them seem to be prepared to act on occasion as though opinions other then their own are either less valuable or do not need to be considered. When called on their actions they are fully prepared to fight their corner and - depending on the user - respond with insults, swear, look for allies, use their wiki powers against those they disagree with, throw out ad hominem attacks, generally raise HCM etc etc. They are not the sort of people to "go quietly" when accused.
The people suggested as mods, however, will tend to be largely non-confrontational types who do not go in for histrionics. In other words exactly the sorts of people who will not want to get into battles with other users. Yet, if the site is asking them to moderate - and if moderation fails - then at some point they are going to have to make hard decisions about who is in the wrong. This will put the hypothetical non-confrontational, moderate users in exactly the position in which they do not want to be. In the full line of fire.--False Flag 17:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Suggested mods[edit]

FWIW, this is my list of suggested mods: Goonie, PFoster, BobM, DickTurpis. I think they are all pretty levelheaded, and weren't too involved in the recent HCM either. This assumes of course, they'd be willing. And others will have other suggestions, this is just to get the conersation started--58.163.175.132 23:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

seems good to me. go on RW or take it up with trent--Brxbrx 00:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with BoN. Ty 00:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)