User talk:Nutty Roux/Archive14

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 5 December 2015. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: <2>, <1>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <15>, (new)(back)

Editing my userpage;[edit]

Can you please not edit my userpage without my permission, the reason I protected it was to stop people from editing it. Thanks.--Palaeonictis (talk) 20:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I obviously don't care what you protect or don't protect. There was a time when it was inappropriate to permanently protect pages, and we had big fights about it. But you don't care either. I was removing a category that goes back to a community you weren't part of. I have no idea why you'd want it anyway, but I'll keep removing it if you put it back. Thanks. Nutty Roux (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Alright, then. All I was asking was for you to gain my permission.--Palaeonictis (talk) 19:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

But[edit]

Isn't Trent a member of the Board until it reaches financial independence? Or did that happen and I missed it? FuzzyCatPotato of the Straight Killer whales (talk/stalk) 17:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Trent is the Operations Manager of the wiki, of which, from my understanding of what we say about the Board, is because the board keeps putting him in that position. He isn't necessarily always a trustee. --Miekal 17:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Trent is not a director. He can be nominated. Nutty Roux (talk) 18:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Cheers buddy[edit]

I think you've earned this:

Noisemobile (talk) 12:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks I have been in love with KH for 20 years. Nutty Roux (talk) 14:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Removing text from your talkpage[edit]

User:Ikanreed posted on your talkpage. You deleted Ikanreed's post without archiving it. I undid your edit, because I believe that it goes against RW:CS#Talk_pages and RW:NEW#What_can_I_do_with_my_user_page.3F. You undid my edit; I undid your edit, and asked you to provide a reason; and you undid my edit, without providing a reason. For what reason have you removed Ikanreed's post? FuzzyCatPotato of the Straight Killer whales (talk/stalk) 00:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

My god can you not just sit on your hands and keep your mouth closed for even a few minutes? Nutty Roux (talk) 02:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Nutty, I do not believe it is necessary to criticize me at this time. May I restore Ikanreed's text, or is there a relevant reason that it has been deleted? FuzzyCatPotato of the Straight Killer whales (talk/stalk) 02:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Please leave me alone. If you are such an obsessive that you feel the need to restore something that doesn't concern you and matters not one tiny bit, go outside and ask yourself why. You are driving a number of editors nuts. Nutty Roux (talk) 02:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Don't worry, Nutty. I hope that I never have to interact with your, either, since you unceasingly attack me whenever I do. But you have broken the site rules, without reason, repeatedly, and all that I wanted to do was fix your breakage. You've stopped me each time, making this bigger than if you'd have just let the restoration happen.
May I restore Ikanreed's text, if I first go outside and ponder why? FuzzyCatPotato of the Straight Killer whales (talk/stalk) 03:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh my god I broke the site rules we need Fuzzy Cat Potato to come save the day what would we ever do without an obsessive following us around cleaning up our crumbs and occasionally breaking shit. Nutty Roux (talk) 03:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I do not understand how or why you can almost completely fail to address the issue at hand, even something as ridiculously trivial as this, and instead spend your edits repeatedly attacking me.
Since you haven't provided an adequate reason, I have readded Ikanreed's text, and will now "go away". Enjoy. FuzzyCatPotato of the Straight Killer whales (talk/stalk) 03:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
You should probably just stop. The fact that you're making such a huge issue out of this is asinine. I mean seriously, I'm as good-natured as they come, but seeing recent changes filled with this kind of stuff from you is getting taxing even for me. I don't understand your motivation for doing stuff like this. - Grant (talk) 04:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
He's our savior. How could this site possibly continue existing without Fuzzy Cat Potato talking incessant nonsense and Memememenememrmepayattentiontomemrmeme. Nutty Roux (talk) 04:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
See, if Nutty was a normal user and not a raging asshole who thinks he gets to determine the path that the wiki will take through his endless bitching, he would have said "oh, ok." when someone pointed out that he broke the rules. Most talk page comments are minor rebukes like this, telling users to sign, or place new sections at the bottom of talkpages. They are usually quickly resolved because most users are willing to follow minor rules.--TiaC (talk) 05:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Most talk page comments to new editors are minor rebukes like this. Given FCP's history of filling up recent changes with aggravating and often pointless conversations, I'm not surprised Nutty chose to respond to this particular battle. - Grant (talk) 05:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
The fact that new editors don't know the rules doesn't mean that experienced editors don't also have to follow them. This didn't have to be a conversation at all. If Nutty hadn't engaged in a pointless edit war, nothing more would have been said.--TiaC (talk) 05:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I've seen things deleted from talk pages for less reason with no comment by anyone else. While there may very well be something to be said about whether "rules" (rules exist so long as the consensus is that they should exist) should be enforced more stringently, Ikanreed could probably have handled it himself had it been a significant issue to him. I feel like nothing would have been lost had FCP not stepped in in the first place. - Grant (talk) 05:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Anyways, I'm not interested in furthering this discussion any longer. Should you wish to continue taking potshots at Nutty, don't let me stop you. - Grant (talk) 05:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Grant, I thought the edit would be uncontroversial - it's just a minor rule, and Nutty isn't in any way harmed by having Ikanreed's comment here. Apparently, it was not uncontroversial. FuzzyCatPotato of the Straight Killer whales (talk/stalk) 05:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────It would have been less controversial if Nutty hadn't recently warred with Cogswell over the exact same rule, but on the opposite side. He knows the rule, but it's pretty clear that he considers rules as things that other people have to follow. Gerard has said that skeptical groups self-select for stroppy assholes, but Nutty's attitude in this and other matters is over-the-top arrogant and hypocritical. If this earns me a spot on his javascript enemies list, so be it. Alec Sanderson (talk) 14:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Not just that, but less than 24 hours ago chastizing editors for their anything may go attitude and not following rules or good judgement. They don't do these things when long time editors go out of their way to make mountains out of mole hills even following the most simple rules they enforce themselves...because shut up if you ask a question. It really isn't a big deal and I don't see why everything needs to be a war when Nutty gets involved. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
ECW, that comparison is a little bit ridiculous. There isn't really a point of comparison between a rule like "don't delete posts from talk pages" and a rule like "don't get the RMF sued." If I'm not mistaken, the warring with Cogswell was also regarding legal matters in the same vein (an editor ended up banned for a year for that incident, though it wasn't Cogswell). I feel like equating the two situations is akin to equating a parking ticket with a head-on collision. One should probably be taken with far more consideration than the other. - Grant (talk) 17:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, if there was ever a mountain made out of a molehill, this is it. Ikanreed's concerns about the "con artist" page were already posted - and responded to, by Nutty & others - on its talk page, which is the proper place for them, so why keep insisting on posting them here as well? WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. - Grant (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Why remove it? Why make such an argument out of widely accepted community standards that talk pages are community content? FCP has nothing to be ashamed of here; he's just being stroppy (as someone else pointed out). Tielec01 (talk) 01:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion discussion[edit]

You may wish to comment on the ongoing articles for deletion discussion about article "John Duffield". FuzzyCatPotato of the Straight Killer whales (talk/stalk) 02:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Fuzzy Cat Ootato is not getting his way despite wikilawyering[edit]

Typist.gif

It predates him, but it might have been drawn for him. Sterile (talk) 03:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

IP[edit]

You don't like me. I get it. But considering how much shit about not slandering living persons is going on today, perhaps you should consider the fact that the IP I blocked was doing the same as reason to leave the block in place and not assume I'm blocking people I don't want to talk with.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I won't consider that because it's not remotely what the IP did. This has nothing to do with defamation of living people on RW. It's pathetic that you'd even bring that up, but then you're not very good at this. I won't assume you're blocking people you don't want to talk with because I've already let on to knowing that you can't resist talking to them. I assume you desperately want to talk with them and then block them. Nutty Roux (talk) 05:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Skype yesterday[edit]

That was fun, good to talk to you again after so long. I'm sorry I made light of your mustache. I went out after talking to you and got into an argument with a taxi driver at about 4am this morning because she kept trying to preach gods good name to me. Problem was normally I would polite and just disagree and put my headphones on however this was the third occasion I have had the exact same driver who did the exact same thing every other time so I called her god capricious, cruel and nasty. Acei9 03:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I hate this mustache and I can't sit down in these $300 raw denim jeans. Nutty Roux (talk) 05:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I had a moustache once; a beard too. That's the entirety of my story. - Grant (talk) 08:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Were you channeling David Suchet's Poirot? I would like to hear the extended version of your story. Nutty Roux (talk) 12:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I wish. At first I could have pulled off something similar, but then I sort of forgot to take care of it for a while and ended up channeling "isolated desert hermit" for a while. - Grant (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
My first attempt years ago ended with me channeling "pedophile who lives in a van down by the river". At least you can pull the hermit off. Nutty Roux (talk) 18:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Thankfully I avoided the van pedophile look, but the hermit was a bit awkward at social gatherings. Perhaps next time I'll remember to keep it trimmed properly, but as it stands I got frustrated with it last week and shaved it all off. - Grant (talk) 06:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm rocking the Jerry Garcia. Full Muppet. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 06:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
That was a goddam happy hippie. I miss that guy. He made terrible terrible music but he was happy. And that makes me feel good. Happy hippies. Nutty Roux (talk) 07:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Please check chicken coop history[edit]

Since I assume I'll be stupidly blocked again. Thanks. 70.56.27.92 (talk) 00:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Who are you what is this about why do I get involved I'm out drinking for a reason. Nutty Roux (talk) 04:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Polite request[edit]

Now, I'm not sure if you do it jokingly or something, and I don't want to start a fight or attack you or anything, but a lot of the stuff you say about autism and Aspergers is quite insensitive and could probably be seen as hurtful and shit. So, yeah, like, just letting you know. Sorry to waste your time. 121.222.69.81 (talk) 10:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh goodie and shit. It's, like, you. I explained my reference to autism. Like, so yeah I am sure I have been insensitive in the past, but is my intention to refer to behavior, not a diagnosis. As in FCP's rigid, obsessive, and imposing behavior. I have no idea what his actual deal is. I know what yours is and shit. So yeah. Nutty Roux (talk) 15:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I made an account. Firstly, what do you mean by "it's you"? I'm not FuzzyCatPotato, if that's what you're implying. Secondly, you should be less of a prick about the way I speak. Thirdly, okay, I guess I sorta see what you're getting at - I don't really know anything about either of you, so it's hard for me to make a judgment. Finally, I will point out that I am not autistic or anything like that, assuming that's what you're implying. I have just had many close friends who ARE cop a lot of shit for actually being so, so I'm sensitive about it. Anyway, I don't want to continue this conversation. Supper's Ready (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

"Anyway, I do'nt want to continue this conversation" Welcome to my world. Nutty Roux (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Dead Milkmen?[edit]

I never imagined feeling sentimental about them, but, alas, one look at your user page and there I go ... MarmotHead (talk) 16:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

So much fun. They've been in regular rotation for 25 years. Nutty Roux (talk) 19:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The FCP story: Aren't we (you) overreacting a teensy weensy bit?[edit]

Hi Nutty, I'm a bit surprised that one who's always so quick to decry the current debased state of RW should feel it necessary to wield the permabanhammer on another editor - especially in this case. FCP may be far too fond of rule-writing, but creating a debate (in which FCP was told it wasn't the right way, btw) does not mean that FCP "[p]urports to be entitled to draft legal policy on behalf of others". I thought that one of your objections to the current group of RW editors was exactly their liberal use (in both senses of the word) of the banhammer? And seriously, a permablock?? How is that upholding the grand old traditions of RW? Even more so, how is one RW editor playing the role of judge/jury/executioner without calling in the mob? I feel very tempted to unilaterally change at least the duration of the block, but I might be missing something so I'd thought I'd better ask. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay fuck it. I went ahead and changed the block to ½ hour from now and reopened FCP's access to own talk page (why was ticking that box necessary?), because I can see that someone else already questioned your permaban. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Nutty also seems to be conflating me with Brxbrx and "Longdog" (who?), and has added me to sysoprevoke. I'd love an explanation, especially given that I haven't touched libel for a week. FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 11:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I believe the technical term is 'spitting the dummy'. Based on the Parthian shot left, there's some legal brouhaha regarding a Longdog-edited article lit the blue touchpaper. Queexchthonic murmurings 12:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
For some reason best known to himself Nutty Roux has blocked me (I'm longdog by the way) without giving any reason or duration. Not only that he has blocked me from editing my own talk page so I can't protest so I've had to reboot my modem to get a new IP address. It seems Nutty Roux doesn't feel bound by the blocking policy http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Blocking_policy and has just gone on a rampage.
Does seem a bit excessive for what is likely a genuine mistake. noted here. Not gonna coop it yet. Scream!! (talk) 13:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Excessive? I still don't understand what my crime is apart from some rambling nonsense about a law suit which may or may not exist (it's certainly the first I've heard of the matter and by the way... Something is only defamatory if it's not true and the article is well sourced) and some utterly bizarre comment about me and my parents owning property. Quite how my parents come in to all of this I have no idea unless somebody is planning on suing a corpse and a senile 90 year old woman for the 'transgressions' of their 50 year old offspring. Incidentally... I've had to reboot yet again to post this as Nutty Roux has blocked the IP address I used last time. Here's an idea Nutty... Why don't you try discussing thinks like an adult instead of doing everything in your power to stop me defending myself? Seriously... Go and look up the blocking guidelines because from where I'm standing you have just ridden roughshod over the whole lot of them. Not only have you blocked me you've made damn sure I have to fuck about with my connection just to protest.
"Blocking should never occur if somebody is attempting to discuss an issue in a reasonable manner."
"Blocking is not to censor alternate opinions, but to prevent disorder."
"Blocking should only be used if somebody is maliciously editing a page or pages, as explained below. "
"Prevent this user from editing their own talk page while blocked: Usually, blocked users will be able to edit their own userpage and talkpage. This checkbox should almost never be checked, because blocked users should always be allowed to protest their block. The only exception is if the blocked user decides to spam their userpage, in which case this box may be checked and the block extended."
Yours sincerely... Longdog
It's pretty obvious that it's just Nutty losing their temper. If I had a mop, I would have reversed the ban changes immediately. Queexchthonic murmurings 13:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
True, but Nutty never seems to have his temper under control. After going off (repeatedly) about how other editors are screwing things up by acting unilaterally in violation of the rules or good faith...that's all he seems to do. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Anyone offering odds on whether he'll stick the flounce? Queexchthonic murmurings 14:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
(EC)From observing, as burnt as this roux seems, he is at least acting in good faith. The particular article in question, truth or not, is particularly aggressive towards the subject, and according to Nutty in the transgressions, resulted in a lawsuit aimed at RMF. Whether or not RMF is liable is not the issue in question, but the fact that it costs money to defend ones self or corporation is what's been causing problems. He consistently and correctly, though caustically, refers to the fact that the editors who "should" be held responsible are actually under a sort of legal blanket of protection by the RMF who ends up taking all the blows, letting others get off easy, even when the lawsuits are a direct result of their writing and actions.
TL:DR, bad methods, good intentions. Trick (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
This is the first I have heard of a lawsuit and the only source for its supposed existence is Nutty.... There has been no discussion of a lawsuit on the page or it's talk page, there have been no edits to remove any allegedly libellous comments and the idea that somebody could go after my parents for something I have written is too bizarre to be worthy of any further comment. In the absence of confirmation from somebody higher up the food chain than Nutty I'll work on the assumption that this law-suit doesn't actually exist and is simply a product of Nutty's fevered imagination.Longdog (talk) 14:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Good intentions, but losing ones temper and going nuclear in every interaction isn't excused. If it's such a lawsuit factory that has no benefit in seemingly his opinion, or at least a majority of the users, why does this still operate as is? Lock it down and Nutty's choice users can edit it in the legally approved way. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Frankly, it looks like Nutty got drunked up last night and decided to take his frustrations out on a guy who last created/edited the article almost 3/4ths of a year ago. And then hit FCP to boot because he doesn't like him either and blames him for wikilawyering. Maybe Nutty ought to keep off the sauce if he intends to go on editing rampages. --Castaigne (talk) 15:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
"Bad methods" is an understatement. "Good intentions" is being way too generous. "Good faith" would be true in a parallel universe where blocking an user indefinitely for a genuine mistake he made six months ago and blocking another completely unrelated user for no reason whatsoever and then leaving a rambling, semi-coherent diatribe about "culture of entitlement" counts as good faith. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg We exist in different epistemological paradigms, fuckpants! 14:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I think I've tidied up the blocking mess now. I'd be grateful if someone more experienced with mopology checked my work, though. Queexchthonic murmurings 14:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
This, Raysenn. --Castaigne (talk) 15:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Are you guys seriously suggesting he fabricated a lawsuit?[edit]

Is this some kinda wikidrama wag the dog scenario? Chill. Out. Please. I totally get complaining about indefinite blocks with empty block reasons, but that's about where my sympathies with the situation ends, considering how far you're taking this. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Concern about legal issues is fair. Care to avoid attracting the lightning of meritless (or meritful) legal action is required. Gratitude to the official RMF bods who stick their necks out and suffer when that lightning strikes is deserved. None of those purposes is served by Nutty's behaviour, though. I would have thought that the first notification of such a problem would be some serious locking-down of the pages as issue from admin level; maybe Nutty was just the first set of boots on the ground when the news hit the grapevine, but nothing he did was the least bit helpful. Queexchthonic murmurings 14:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Trent or David or Stabby would've spoken about it by now. And Nutty is also no longer part of the RMF, so I'm kind of not relying a whole lot on his word. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg ZA! WARUDO! Toki wo tomare! 15:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Also, the difference is than when Brx got banned for 6 months via a RMF-issued order, it was on the spot. This is six months later. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg RationalWiki, did you kill Rita? 15:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
While I don't think that it is completely fabricated, it is certainly not documented yet like the other lawsuit. Also a professional at legal conflicts shouldn't be losing their shit every time the mere suggestion comes up, unilaterally acting on behalf of the foundation in direct violation of the limited boundaries, is disconcerting. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I confess that that is actually an excellent point, ECW. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
(EC) I think Nutty should probably be taken to the Coop & have all his rights (ninja, moderator, sysop) removed - He goes off at the slightest thing (I know legal action isn't slight) He's sysop revoked two now (FCP & LD) & I think he's overstepping his "authority". Scream!! (talk) 16:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Seconded. --Castaigne (talk) 16:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I concur.--Madman (talk) 19:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)The Madman
Just a clarification, as in slight I was thinking of the times where Nutty unilaterally decided that certain entries/pages could possibly be perceived as litigious by people (or their estate) in the future without much of an explanation and many insults. Which takes over a page to wring out of him, and many insults "SHUT UP"s later, instead of a simple statement at the start. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
"unilaterally acting on behalf of the foundation" he's no longer part of the RMF, BTW. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg EVERY SINGLE MISSILE HIT THE TARGET!!! AAAAAAAAAGHH!!!!! 16:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
He knows people on the foundation so I didn't want to make the call if it was with their knowledge/consent or not. If he is unilaterally acting on behalf of the foundation without their knowledge, or consent, it is even more disconcerting. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I believe he does act totally unilaterally - he seems to have a misplaced sense of his own importance (not really what I mean but ...) Scream!! (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Incidentally: He's not in the list of moderators, so how come he has the powers of the position? Scream!! (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
He is a tech. He is also on "staff", whatever that means. SmartFeller (talk) 20:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Two things 1) He is still a member of the RMF until the new Board convienes (he is the secretary) and 2) if there is any question as to whether or not Trent is getting sued, you need only look at RationalWiki:Fundraiser. 174.20.15.146 (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Furthermore, however angry Nutty can be, his actions are taken to protect RW and the RMF. Yes, he may irritate people and even if he goes overboard (I'm not saying he has), it's entirely undoable. So, yeah, he left an irritating aroma of ammonia, but it's because he was cleaning up. MarmotHead (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, though does that mean any statement/action is just fine as long as the end result is to protect the RMF? This seems less like being irritated by smelling ammonia because things are being cleaned...and more like angrily rubbing it in the peoples faces that not only made the mess (intentionally or not), touched where the mess was made, and those that questioned why rubbing it others faces was needed. Even if you, or others, can flush it so there is no damage done it's still not acceptable to do in the first place. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Also true. It's a flexible analogy. Personally, I believe he wasn't horribly wrong, but, if I were the one banned, I'd be pretty miffed. Yeah, I'm a hypocrite! MarmotHead (talk) 20:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Not horribly wrong. Um.
So, Nutty gets on, goes on a tear, bans a dude for an edit done in in July of 2014, bans another dude because Well Fuck That Guy I Don't Like Him, all the while ranting in a way that spells dra-hunk to me when reading the edits, and....that's not horribly wrong. Oh, and no coop, no discussion, just Nutty saying "I'm the LAWYER, DON'T FUCK WITH ME LAWDAWG. - Fuck you, PERMABAN, I'M THE LAWDAWG UP IN THIS SHIT."
And that's not horribly wrong.
So, can I get some of that crack you're smoking on? Because that must be some smooth shit. --Castaigne (talk) 21:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Probably Four Loko. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg Never got enough hugs as a kid 21:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Anyone can coop Nutty, but saying Nutty was wasted probably doesn't help anyone. FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 22:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
It allows us to be charitable. I'd rather be accused of being drunk/high when I make an edit than being accused of being a fucking asshole who needs to be permabanned from the site himself for absolute fuckwittery. --Castaigne (talk) 22:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I think I'm the one being accused of being wasted, not Nutty. I get why people disagree with my not-horribly-wrong and that's cool. Reasonable people can disagree, sometimes in reasonable ways. MarmotHead (talk) 22:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
No, I like to think Nutty was wasted when he went on the permaban rampage because it's charitable. We've all drunk internetted.
That you don't think his actions are wrong, yes, I'm rhetorically asking if you're on crack, because that opinion is plain wrong. ;) --Castaigne (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
No, I'm pretty sure he's on Four Loko. That stuff fucks you up, yo. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg Never got enough hugs as a kid 00:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I had to look that stuff up. We don't have it down here in the Southron boonies. Probably a good thing. --Castaigne (talk) 16:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't care if you're joking, please stop trying to turn this into some personal failing on Nutty's part. I never got along with him, but what you're having here is a disagreement. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't see how these assumptions are relevant or productive. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Oke-doke, if that's how you want it.
If that's the case, then Nutty's recent actions show him to be a malevolent troll who needs to be stripped of all access and rights, and if necessary, permabanned from the site himself in order to stem his wanton vandalism. If we're not assuming personal failing/stupidity, then the only other option is malice. I don't know why you would prefer it that way, but I'm more than happy to go Inquisitor on the subject. --Castaigne (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Err, I think these speculations aren't helping. Nutty did something unusual, but nothing that wasn't easily reversible. Clearly this needs to be addressed a bit more formaly, so how about going to the coop and letting him have a chance to explain himself before jumping to conclusions and proposing verdicts? Just my two pieces of silver Super Dude,What does mine say? Sweet! 17:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, I don't put people in coop, just as I don't sysop, so when it gets there, I'll vote on that. --Castaigne (talk) 17:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Coop[edit]

Fuck it, I summoned a Coop case. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg Do you accept Madoka as your Lord and Savior? 18:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)