User talk:Tielec01/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 9 January 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:   , (new)(back)


Sam demoted you to sysop, but couldn't be bothered telling you. Here's your guide. Enjoy. Peter Monomorium antarcticum 03:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Hehe sorry about that! Sam Tally-ho! 03:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


Beyond "rolls of the floor laughing" what means this? Just curious. I'm crappy with acronyms.— Unsigned, by: WaitingforGodot / talk / contribs

If I may's not an acronym, just all-caps. It's "ROFL" and "helicopter" put together. This seems like a lucid summary (albeit with tons of arbitrary pictures). (talk) 15:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
See above. In terms of my understanding of usage it is like ROFL except with a sarcastic twist. ROFL implies shared laughter, ROFLCOPTER implies that you are laughing AT the person. In the context of making fun of someone for not "getting" the internet I thought it was appropriate to utilise an internet meme. Harsh but fair. Tielec01 (talk) 23:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

You're fun[edit]

Even if you aren't my sockpuppet. I liked this, among other things--"Shut up, Brx." 14:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

"Your lack of self-awareness here is staggering Brx; remember how viciously some of us fought to keep you from being banned for very similar accusations."[edit]

Are you equating me with Dirk Steele in some way? Actually, the motivations for blocking me have been very different, from misinterpreting certain words of mine (that's my spin and I'm sticking to it. I don't need the usual idiots stopping by to give their opinion) to irritation at my desire to change or act upon RationalWiki policy. I've never been blocked for unceasingly spamming the same crank BS all across the wiki --"Shut up, Brx." 23:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm equating you with Dirk Steele only inasmuch as you often confront people, your confrontations are often percieved as being inappropriate and you are both unpopular editors. I actually think you are often right in your exchanges, whereas Dirk Steele is almost exclusively wrong but that is irrelevant. I don't think that cranks/trolls/annoying editors (all of which you have been accused of) should be banned. You have relied on this indulgence from myself and other editors in the past, it seems incumbent upon you to extend it to others.Tielec01 (talk) 03:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Exactly. Acei9 03:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


Nobodydon't bother 06:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

? is this on the wrong user page?Tielec01 (talk) 06:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
No. Nobodydon't bother 06:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
What's fascinating?Tielec01 (talk) 06:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Eyebrow.gifNobodydon't bother 06:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh I see. I thought you were deliberately being obtuse; turns out I'm just a bit thickTielec01 (talk) 06:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


My feelings are really hurt. I'm a sensitive soul. What was so bad about my article? ProudTory (talk) 00:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

It is good to see you back here MC. Tielec01 (talk) 15:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Completely trivial query[edit]

What orthographical convention should be applied if I want to pronounce your name? I can think of at least six reasonable ways. Hydrogen and Time (talk) 15:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd never really thought of it, it was never meant to be read aloud I guess. In my head I say it: "teal-eck-oh-wun". Obviously I don't know how to write phonetically so just use whatever makes the most sense in your head.Tielec01 (talk) 03:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Seems like you are just an asshole...[edit]

...Or am I misreading you? Prove me wrong. ħumanUser talk:Human 07:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Context for anyone stopping by. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 08:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
But that means you're reversing the burden of proof old fellow. In any case I don't think you'd respect anyone that responded so meekly to such a blunt demand; so I won't. Tielec01 (talk) 08:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: Objectivism#Ethics[edit]

Why are my changes being reverted?

I'm using first-hand material straight from the source which this article discusses. Whether or not the reader thinks Objectivism is valid or not is up to them.

The previous section on ethics is both misinformed, and heavily opinionated without any proof.

It's even obvious in the diff:

Take it to the talk page of the article big dog. I'm sure someone will be in the mood for a boring argument about semantics and long discredited ideologies! When you emerge victorious I will say "I totally knew that guy was right" and it will be sweet. Tielec01 (talk) 06:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


Son, those are the words of a fascist.

Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 20:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Moderator Elections[edit]

Some users have raised the issue of whether or not I'm eligible to run. So far it appears that no one actually knows the eligibility criteria, so we'll have to wait and see what will happen with the Markman campaign. With regards to your question, you can look at my resume and see for yourself that I try to refrain from needless conflict when contributing to this wiki. The best example of what kind of contributions are to be expected from me can seen in my Israel related edits. Those consist of uncontroversial information presented in a way which cannot be deemed objectionable by any person on RW.

Granted, I did engage in some off-color banter with other users on Talk:WIGOCP, but I felt it was the place in which it was appropriate, and as far as I can see it still remained within the confines of what is considered acceptable on RW. - ConservapediaMarkman (talk) 01:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I like a man that stoops to talking to his electorate; you've got my vote. Tielec01 (talk) 05:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Looks like somebody just made it to my mailing list...--"Shut up, Brx." 05:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome. You and everybody else are invited to ask me questions regarding the campaign so long as it continues. - ConservapediaMarkman (talk) 22:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Eligible to run after all. - Vote Markman for a better tomorrow! (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Would you lend me your vote?[edit]

You seem to be concerned about the concentration of political power in ever fewer hands. Would you consider voting for me? I will not rest until the moderati are destroyed and Rationalwiki restored to her ancestral liberty. MarcusCicero (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

When Lenin returned from his decade-long exile they say the crowd was bitterly disappointed to see him dressed in a bowler hat and velvet overcoat, as these were the symbols of the powerful elite. To their eternal delight, however, his first words upon his return were not conciliatory, polite or restrained. He ignored the Mensheviks who greeted him and addressed the crowd, telling them that the revolution was coming and it could NOT be stopped.
There was a time when the fire in your heart burned for revolution Marcus - but, based on your comments in the moderator elections, it seems that only the naked flame of ambition is left. Has your exile softened you? Have dreams of glorious revolution faded away? These are the question we, who would be your people, need to know the answers to. Tielec01 (talk) 01:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
It is true, and I understand your concerns. Such is the authoritarian default setting in this myopia I have been forced to enter mainstream politics. But this is merely a front for my more subversive activities, co-ordinating the revolutionary struggle and the creation of a 'vanguard' party that can lead the revolution. Vote for me, and liberty will be my first and only priority. MarcusCicero (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I am glad to hear it, but my suspicions linger. On the other hand what alternative do we have? I will throw my lot in with you (and Markman). Vive La Revolucion! Tielec01 (talk) 03:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Have Patience[edit]

My first priority is to wait out the counter-revolutionary manoeuvres. We may all have a little work to do, yet. Marcus Cicero SPQR100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 21:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Justice delayed is justice denied - you should know that more than anyone... Tielec01 (talk) 00:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I share your concerns but if I move too quickly the junta will crush me and my movement. There will be a big announcement on saturday, just wait for it. Marcus Cicero SPQR100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 17:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


Considering my reputation as a dick parodist, I would say that if anything the fact that 22 people were willing to cast their votes for me is by itself a surprise, and I know I would have received 2 more votes had me and Patmac were eligible to vote. This is just a warm up for the next time. - ConservapediaMarkman (talk) 18:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Goodbye to you my trusted friend[edit]

Well, I'm going away for a while, I might come back and I might not. For the full story see here, here and here. I'd just like to say that I'll miss you buddy and I'll always appreciate your participation in the Markman campaign. - ConservapediaMarkman (talk) 19:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I have read through the links; needless to say I am outraged. However, I see you have made up your mind to bow out honourably. You have always been a gentleman on this wiki and I await your return, in the meantime I will taunt and goad your persecutors. Tielec01 (talk) 00:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories[edit]

Alright, first of all my home wiki is Wikipedia so I don't know what a snark is. And secondly, this is completely insulting to the families and friends of 9/11 victims. I like conspiracy theories and believe in many, but this is just plain wrong to put on the Internet for the families who's relatives rescued people from those burning towers and died to save others' lives. They must feel sick reading this. Leoesb1032 (talk) 02:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Read this and this. As a non-American I am as concerned about 9/11 victims exactly as much as the victims of your countries drone 'signature' strike policy; that is to say a whole hell of a lot. However, making fun of a nutty and only peripherally associated group such as truthers is entirely fair game. In fact, I would say that making fun of victims of these attacks is also fair game (albeit in poor taste). Your culturally bound sacred cows don't mean much to me; or, I dare say, most of the other editors here. Welcome to the wiki, I look forward to reading your contributions to our numerous conspiracy related articles. Tielec01 (talk) 05:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
How would you feel if you lost your father your mother in those attacks? Regardless of your nationality? I understand what your saying (I even believe in the controlled demolition theory)and I won't revert the edits back without a larger consensus, but I believe that this was wrong and you defiantly should not make fun of people who died that day. Leoesb1032 (talk) 12:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't know, I would probably be angry at the idiots who posit unfounded conspiracy theories without ever reflecting on their ignorance. For further conversation please take it to the talk page of the article big dog. Tielec01 (talk) 01:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk page[edit]

No problem, I did not want to break any rules, it is that in my opinion the post looked untidy and achieved nothing, however I have no reason to hide it.--Mercian (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


I think that has been discussed in a couple of places and the general consensus has been to leave it out of mainspace. Especially since Shermer appears to be getting ready to sue, it might be a good idea to hold back. I guess you one could say that your edit is just reporting an event, but at the end of the day, reporting the allegation in mainspace will have a disproportionately prejudicial effect on Shermer's reputation compared with the probative effect of discussing an aspect of PZ Myers career. [1] --DamoHi 01:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Can you explain your last sentence in English please ;) Tielec01 (talk) 02:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry. I am basically saying that the stuff about PZ accusing Shermer of rape is gossip that reflects badly on Shermer's reputation. We shouldn't be reporting on it in mainspace because to do so will give it the air of truth that without collaboration it doesn't deserve. Although it's interesting and relevant to an article on PZ, imho, this usefulness is outweighed by its negative impacts. This is even more relevant where threats of lawsuits are getting bandied about. There may come a time when it should be in an article on PZ but not yet. IMO anyway and unless I've missed something, that was the prevailing view when it was raised elsewhere. --DamoHi 03:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I thought I had worded it carefully enough that it was clear that the allegation were insubstantiated. Happy to accede to group consensus on this one, but it seems strange to avoid mentioning an incident that actually happened because 1) allegations leveled during the incident may not be true and 2) there may be a resulting law-suit. Perhaps if the accuser was a notable crank or liar, or if the incident was not notable then I could see not making mention of it. PZ is not obviously a liar or crank (albeit I think he has strayed so far out of his bounds of competence as to become pitiable) and the incident is definitely notable, as evidenced by the brouhaha it has created. Anyway, I will join the discussion on the talk-page to discuss further. Tielec01 (talk) 06:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Your rewrite[edit]

Just wondering whether you were still planning on that two-three sentence rewrite. Nothing I write seems to stick, and nobody with power seems to want to do something about the majority votes for deletion. Cheers. --Laird (talk) 00:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes I am, but I need to get some time to do it. Thanks for the reminder. Tielec01 (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Cathy Brennan[edit]

A little education on the topic might not hurt you. She's one of the world's worst sorts of people. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, so I see, I poked around on Google. It's been awhile since I've stumbled across such a despicable person. Tielec01 (talk) 11:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

I appreciate you restoring my rights. To be clear, RNS did bring me to RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation, where he laid out why he removed my sysop rights "pending a decision by the moderators." Yes, he actually invoked the moderators. The ones that were elected in July of last year. That we haven't held the semi-annual elections for since. I, too, was amused. Anyways, I laid out my defense there too, because I didn't know if someone was gonna intervene or if there would be a full-blown HCM.--"Shut up, Brx." 02:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I know; you don't remove someone rights before the decision is made; and you don't take it to the moderators, you take it to the coop. Don't take this as a endorsement of your behaviour - it's just a repudiation of RNS's abuse of his powers. Tielec01 (talk) 02:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I would never take it as an endorsement of my behavior, darling--"Shut up, Brx." 02:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. Tielec01 (talk) 02:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, he took me out of sysoprevoke, which I'll assume is his way of indicating he's willing to let me be a sysop again. Could I please ask you to restore my rights? Thanks.--"Shut up, Brx." 02:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Already done big dog - don't go around rubbing his nose in it; it seems like someone got into a losing fight with a revolving door and wants to take it out on you. Let sleeping dogs lie for a bit. Tielec01 (talk) 02:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Big dog. I like that.--"Shut up, Brx." 02:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Surreal. You're actually saying that someone should be an administrator of RW who is so moronic that he didn't know there was anything problematic about printing the allegation that someone is a child molester. But Brxbrx did know. He's just a troll playing the victim card and you're indulging him. Think about who you're defending and for what. It's really unseemly. Nutty Roux (talk) 03:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
See here. Neither I, nor the other participant in the discussion, referred to anyone as a child molester. It seems, Nutty Roux, that you are either dishonest, or willing to go to great lengths motivated solely by poor reading comprehension.--"Shut up, Brx." 03:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)\
Oh no. Listen, Brxbrx. You need to slow down and learn something if you really are this fucking stupid. Republication of defamatory material is just as unlawful as making the claim yourself. You will claim not to have known that, though it's obvious. It seems like you've backpedalled from your deceitful concession and now want me to be the bad guy who did something wrong. Check yourself, Brxbrx. Be very careful. Nutty Roux (talk) 03:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh. So demonstrating that Kevin Martin called someone a sex offender is bad. Then you may wish to look over here. In case this Astle character sues us for calling out Kevin Martin on what he did--"Shut up, Brx." 03:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it can be. That's what republication is. Also, this situation ought be driving home that you at not part of any "us" here. The "us" you're referring to is a corporation you have no role in. Getting that corporation sued isn't your decision. Nutty Roux (talk) 14:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Backpeddling, lol. Well, I guess now that I know what it is you were trying to remove, and it seems like you were incorrect about it in the first place, then I was wrong to say I was wrong to revert you.
Explain what I was incorrect about. Explain why you were correct to revert war. If you were so correct, you should go add the content back in and see what happens. Nutty Roux (talk) 14:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
But I'll give you time to explain yourself. Maybe you'll wriggle your way on top.--"Shut up, Brx." 03:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not explaining myself, I'm apparently either making a record of your dishonesty or teaching you something while you fight tooth and nail. Your self righteous blowup has been nauseating to watch, but it's at least heartening to know it will now be much easier to remove you from the site. Nutty Roux (talk) 14:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
So far
  1. You removed a discussion with no explanation
  2. Now, you've given an explanation: people were making accusations of child molestation!
  3. Neither participant in the discussion made such an accusation, but instead were talking about things Martin did, AND ARE PRESENT IN THE ARTICLE ABOUT HIM
I don't understand why you're arguing. It is extremely problematic to repeat any allegation that anyone is guilty of criminal misconduct when they haven't been convicted. This is uncontroversial. Nutty Roux (talk) 18:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Hell, you're the lawyer. You can tell me anything is illegal or libelous and I wouldn't have the standing to disagree with you. But you're not being consistent, which tells me there's either something faulty with that magic lawyer knowledge, or you made a mistake and won't own up to it (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this wasn't all just about malice).
Not inconsistent and you're the only one making this personal. You don't have to be a lawyer to understand this. Nutty Roux (talk) 18:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
The only thing that happened in that discussion you removed was that one user referred to Martin accusing one of his critics of being a child molester (where Martin's accusation was actually that he was a sex offender- per the link the other user cited). So, what's the crime, here, exactly?
  1. You say "You truly didn't know that calling someone a child molester is unlawful," but that seems entirely irrelevant to anything that's happened.
  2. "Republication of defamatory material is just as unlawful as making the claim yourself." Sure, but how's that relevant, exactly, unless you're afraid that Will Astle (the recipient of Martin's accusations) is planning on suing RationalWiki, even though all we did was link to Martin's claims and portray them in dubious light? Where is the part of all this where either User:brxbrx or User:Daniiieeeel either claimed Martin is a child molester or supported Martin's claim that somebody else is a child molester?
Taking any risks with the RMF's business is not for you to decide. You've now repeated exactly what you've been told was problematic. What I'm "afraid" of is not your business. It's simply not. And nobody's saying either of you claimed anyone is a criminal, but that you repeated someone else's allegations, which is a potential problem. For obvious reasons apparently only you cannot grok, it would have been better not to have to have this discussion in the open. But you're a sociopath who's incapable of accepting responsibility for anything.
  1. At this point, you can either move the goalposts again, or crawl back into your hole with your tail between your legs. Up to you
--"Shut up, Brx." 16:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I am exquisitely sensitive to being evenhanded with you, but you're now intentionally pushing boundaries. You're wrong. You know you're wrong. This has all been explained to you. Antagonizing me by calling me a liar, inconsistent, etc., all while doing exactly what you've been told not to do has got to stop. This isn't about personalities. It's about you endangering the RMF. This is the last explanation you get. If you add more problematic content or mouth off again, I'm blocking you long enough to teach you that this isn't a joke or debate. Nutty Roux (talk) 18:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
By all means, block me for disagreeing with you. You know you have no ground to stand on. This is sad, Nutty Roux. Sadder than the time you reverted me for reverting an edit that I had made myself.--"Shut up, Brx." 01:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Before you mouth off again, please take a look at this wonderful article about how internet libel laws work in regards to linking to defamatory statements. Then go eat some crow. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Dear, sweet, RNS. I have read the article you linked to. Have you noticed how none of the examples it cites are of people criticizing libelers (apparently an actual word)? You do realize that the content you removed on Kevin Martin, while it linked to him calling *someone* a *something* *something* (excuse the caution, but you've gone a little oversight mad of late), did so to expose Kevin Martin's well-documented (okay, not quite as well-documented since you oversighted some of the documentation...) habit of making false accusations against his critics? Do you really believe that we can get sued for that? You're saying that discussing someone committing libel and saying it's bad to commit libel has no place on RationalWiki. Also, read this excerpt from that article you dug up:The laws suggest that one who publishes a false statement harmful to the interests of another is subject to liability for pecuniary loss resulting to the other, as noted in Nesewat v Salem (1999 FED App. 0119P (6th Cir.) )

(a) he intends for publication of the statement to result in harm to interests of the other having a pecuniary value, or either recognizes or should recognize that it is likely to do so, and
(b) he knows that the statement is false or acts in reckless disregard to its truth or falsity

Can you honestly say that applies to what you removed (and will have to remove if you want to be consistent)--"Shut up, Brx." 01:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


I'd like to take a moment to remind you that vandalizing articles on RationalWiki is not acceptable. This includes restoring vandalism that you did not originally commit but that someone else later removed, such as you did at Anarchism a couple of days ago. You should know that persistent vandalism can result in escalating corrective and punitive sanctions, up to and including exclusion from further participation. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask any of us. Thanks! (talk) 21:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Fuck off you tedious little twonk. Scream!! (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
(Feel free to delete this section Tielc01) Scream!! (talk) 21:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the sage advice BoN, I will try harder next time. Just give me one more chance. Tielec01 (talk) 02:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

That whole RationalMedia Foundation board thing[edit]

You've been nominated. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 02:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to turn it down.--Madman (talk) 04:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)The Madman
I take every request from my people very seriously; I saw your nomination and have been mulling it over for the last few days. If I accept the nomination I would be virtually guaranteed to win (obviously). I must consider if I have time for the duties, in between supporting the revolution and other, less important, real life concerns. Unfortunately my lifestyle demands a nominal income, or I might have to forego my yearly Patek purchase. Regardless of the outcome, your adulation is noted and appreciated. Tielec01 (talk) 12:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
The duties are light and infrequent. They will not cut into your work life. Perhaps try a Jaeger this year. They make some lovely complications. Nutty Roux (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Reminder: You only have until 26 January to accept your nomination. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 05:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I've accepted the nomination - this year I think I will add to my growing collection of vintage Memovox pieces, as per Nutty's advice. Pateks are hardly an appropriate watch for such a strong member of the proletariat. Tielec01 (talk) 03:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

GG Edits[edit]

I've made a couple of small edits to a few of the first paragraphs, in an attempt to tighten. Could you review and give me an honest opinion? Is that the sort of thing that would help? --Castaigne (talk) 03:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Honestly I think the writing is a little tighter with your edits, but the change is minor, obviously the article needs more than some copy-editing. Every little bit helps though. Tielec01 (talk) 03:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I'll be honest, I don't have the time to do more than fool around on the wiki this week. BUT, if the horde can keep from eviscerating the page till Monday, when I get back from the mountains, I can see what I can do about a substantial rewrite. Or reorganization. Possibly one that can make most people semi-happy.
But I really prefer that FCP keep his paws off it in the meantime. He means well, and I like his edits, but this is one I'd prefer to see to...personally. I think it's important, and that makes my judgement more persnickety. --Castaigne (talk) 03:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
You know, you can just ask me to keep my paws off. :P I wont do anything major until you return. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 04:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Now why would I ask you directly, when I know that you'll see me talking about you on his talk page? ;) --Castaigne (talk) 14:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)ūlóng (琉竜) 06:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

That is an unfortunately named picture. Tielec01 (talk) 08:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes but it catches the eye.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Not living up to community standards[edit]

Hi Tielec, you wrote on the coop that:

Chrimony is right that we largely no longer live up to our community standards. Perhaps because the wiki has moved on from it's radical roots into a more statist mid-state, or perhaps because editors are ignorant of them. Maybe we should change them to reflect current practice.

I don't know if you saw my response, but I'd really like to hear what you meant as this what a bit too general to be of much help as a ground to improve or at least consider this quite serious issue.

  • I don't know if your statement included reference to the LM case cited by Chrimony, but if it did where in the LM cases do you think RW in general or AH in particular has violated community standards?
  • Are procedural issues alone enough to merit such a serious allegation/conclusion, or need the actual merits of the case to be factored in as well?

The latter was my objection to Chrimony's use of LM as an example. In the case of LM, I think it needs to be taken into account that LM is and has been allowed free reign off article talk pages and warned numerous times to confine his never-ending "States are imaginary/religions!"-crankery to his own (talk) pages, and that the coop and other venues actually did discuss the merits of his claims of censorship. Add to this the fact that the main sanction (bar AH's short-lived block) has been to collapse, not delete, LM's comments (and if you've seen his pages you know why this is simply a practical necessity) I really don't see how this can be cited as an example of stifling dissent and no one seems to think that dismissing LM's coop case was in any way unfair.
If my interpretation is correct and fair, it leaves only the incorrect procedure (presumably, AH should have waited for more people to say "Dump it!") as the objectionable point, but does procedure hold such a core place that violating it counts as failing to live up to RW community standards?
Looking forward to a discussion of community standards, if/how/when/why we violate them, and what we should do about it, 'cause I certainly agree with you that RW shouldn't be stifling dissent, but that means we need to agree on what counts as housekeeping (I think the constant blocking and deleting of Mikemikev's race trolling falls into this category) and when that turns into unfairly stifling dissent. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Just a quick note to say that I have read this response and the one in the coop. Not able to respond in full at the moment but I will when I can devote the appropriate time necessary to respond to your thoughtful comments. Tielec01 (talk) 08:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Ok, so I am currently in an air conditioned sea container in the middle of nowhere waiting for a cyclone to hit my area so perhaps it is time to respond to the above.
Regarding LogicMaster, I have seen his screeds and agree that collapsing them is a proportional response. Blocking him is not a proportional response as he is clearly arguing in good faith, a fact that, as far as I am aware, no-one disputes. We don't block good faith editors, no matter how misguided they may appear to be according to our community standards. In practice this isn't true, we have allowed Ryulong to ban people for little more than a personal dislike, we have allowed people who wanted to discuss pedophilia to be banned, we have banned people for being admitted trolls (one of whom later became a moderator) and being suspected trolls (anyone who disagrees with me must be a troll after all) and we have banned people for allegedly putting the RMF at legal risk, although any discussion of whether or not this was true was likely to result in a ban, so go figure.
I'm not saying I disagree with all of the above decisions, but in practice we actually ban for a hell of a lot. In some ways we are actually more trigger happy than WP, which has only happened as the old anti-authoritarians have drifted away from the wiki and been replaced by people like DG who have strong opinions about the rights of certain editors to ban other editors. Obviously I wear my opinions on my sleeve on this matter, but I'm not saying the old way was better because we could argue for days about what better means, is it better for creating articles, is it better for creating a community, is it ethically a more defensible position etc... Regardless, it is what it is, and RW has always acted as per the wishes of the mob. The community standards were just an attempt to help newer editors understand what was likely to result in a lynching and steer clear of those things. In other words they were descriptive not prescriptive.
Currently I believe the standards are not descriptive or prescriptive, and the coop case against AH is an example of how out of date the standards are, especially when it comes to blocking policy, talk pages and use of tech powers (which isn't related to this coop case). Review the sections on blocking/talk pages and see if you think that removing talk page content unilaterally or blocking non-sysopped editors for fun is consistent with them. Let's be honest, the only reason AH didn't cop a stern warning/desysopping is because AH is a likeable person who we all tend to agree with. If AH was Chrimony, or LM then AH would be out on their ass. I actually like AH alot, but the same could be said of many other "respected" users here who consider it their right to abuse their powers because they know that the mob doesn't have the guts to stand up to them, or to stand up for their principles. As AH pointed out, it's one tribe against another, and if you are on AH's tribe then they are going to defend you no matter what. Well fuck that, if I think you are wrong then I'm going to say it, and in my opinion that's how defensible positions are reached and group-think is minimised. Tielec01 (talk) 05:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
This seems pretty valid. Plenty of AH's blocks were because someone was annoying, although not actively harming articles, and Ryulong has nuked things and users that were stupid Gamergate bile but were also outside of RW:CS or RW:B.
You said you don't wanna debate "better". Avoiding debatable objectivity, in your opinion, would it be better to revise the CS to reflect current policy or revise current policy to reflect the CS? αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 06:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I still think there's a difference between AH and Chrimony, namely that AH actually does work around here, whereas Chrimony only engage in the toxic GamerGate sludge. While it may seem tangential or even irrelevant, I think that contributing to RW earns you some slack. On that note I'll just mention that I did vote for slap on the wrist in the AH case by pointing out that AH needs to explain himself when he blocks (and no, snark about being out of coffee is obviously not it) and take the coop case as a yellow light indicating that the ice he's skating on is getting thinner. I'm not about to stick up for either Ryulong or Chrimony, since I'd personally approve of something like a "merit system" for those wishing to wade into the GG stuff (à la one unrelated edit earns the user the right to three GG edits) - I know it's not feasible, but I really think it's become a rather unhealthy obsession among some editors, not to mention the kind of groupthink and partisanism it seems to promote: Either you think Sarkeesian is the neatest thing since sliced bread and all others are MRA Gators; or you think it's all a huge feminazi conspiracy that illustrates feminist predilection for censorship and how they've corrupted the gaming industry. Ah, nice to get that off my chest! ;-)
As for good faith, I simply disagree with your implied definition. You seem to equate good faith with sincerely held opinions, but I don't doubt, for instance, that Mikemikev (sorry to bring him up again, but he's such a good example) is sincere about his racism and anti-Semitism. However, I don't think that entitles him to plaster his crap all over RW. In so many words: I don't think it's editing in good faith when you keep pushing stuff you've already been told was crap and why. That's why LM is skirting a justified block when he occasionally try to insert his freeman-on-the-land'ish "imaginary state religion"-crankery into article pages or their associated talk pages. Sure, he seems to be sincere about it, but I don't think sincerity is synonymous with good faith: Sincerity is necessary, but not sufficient - you also need to engage in serious debate where you can admit to being wrong. I think the blocking policy describes this quite well:
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.
Why? Because IYes, I know this is subjective think that continuously "opinion-spamming" a page outside debate/essay space while refusing to listen to criticism eventually tips over into "malicious editing" and such behaviour is not what I would describe as "attempting to discuss an issue in a reasonable manner." I simply don't think it's reasonable to claim (as both LM and Chrimony variously have done) that the reason everybody disagrees with you is that they're groupthinking tribal "statists/statheists" (cue open mind-rhetoric).
If people get blocked on vague suspicions that's one thing, but getting blocked for continuous "opinion-spamming" heavily reliant on ad nauseam and a tin ear is quite another. If it's in "opinionspace" (i.e. debate/essay/forum/own talk pages) I think it's fine - that's what it's there for, after all. I have a far lower threshold when it comes to mainspace, incl. talk pages - especially when an editor (LM for instance) has a history of doing the same stuff over and over on several articles and their talk pages (if the editor in question has not contributed anything except such "opinion-spamming" I'd see that as an aggravating circumstance, btw). I'm not advocating a block (okay, nothing more than a <1-hour block warning light) of LM, but that's more because I think his crankery is rather harmless (contrast with Mikemikev) and because I consider a block likely to be neither a proportional nor a productive punishment in LM's case (he has generally confined himself to opinionspace which is the proper venue for his ideas). What I am saying is that such repeated activity brings you to attention for a possible block (probably a short one initially), depending on the level and character of the "opinion-spamming" involved and only when it comes to mainspace. I think it needs to be taken into account that other editors have to clean up after "opinion-spammers" and I don't think we should just allow them to keep adding to the amount of such housecleaning indefinitely. Eventually, there will be some sanction against those who keep dumping trash in the middle of the living room.
As for some of the other examples you mentioned, I don't think it's improper to balance the ideal of a general open debate with the practical concerns of not getting the RMF into lawsuits. It should be possible to discuss issues of libel (I'm assuming that's what you're hinting at) in general terms, because otherwise the discussion itself can probably quickly become as potentially libellous (and thus as legally problematic for the RMF) as the edits that gave rise to it. As for the paedophilia stuff, I don't think paedophilia advocates automatically get to have a "fair hearing" at RW; NAMBLA may think they're just another lobby group, but then the NPD think it's just another political party...
To end on a more positive or conciliatory note, I do think we need to be more cautious about wielding the blockhammer - especially on "social justice"-themes since those seem to be where visceral reaction time is shortest. I think RW still welcomes debate, but there's a difference between a debate and a shouting match or an endless "double monologue" between the blind and the deaf. Also, this specific claim in the Community Standards needs to be updated:
Talk pages (including user talk as well as article talk pages) and other discussion pages, such as debates or the Saloon bar, are community property. They must not be deleted, nor protected, although they can be archived periodically.
Obviously, we do protect talk pages - and for good reasons: Due to BoN sockpuppets (yeah, Mikemikev springs to mind again) we do occasionally protect talk pages from anonymous edits for a few days - a practice which seems to me entirely consistent with the "to prevent disorder"-argument used in the description of RW blocking policy.
Okay, now I have some (other and even more serious) writing to do, and I think I'd better stop my wall of text here - even if I might have missed some of the issues you brought to the table. Keep up the good work of jabbing needles into RW's (bad?) conscience! ScepticWombat (talk) 08:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
FCP in reference to your question I would like people to revise their behaviour to match the community standards, but I doubt this will happen. Either way the community standards must reflect the actual situation - which they don't at the moment.
SW we are largely in vicious agreement and I could easily compromise and accept your philosophy as outlined above, but allow me to pick out certain areas where I disagree (not an exhaustive list as that would be a mammoth task):
I still think there's a difference between AH and Chrimony, namely that AH actually does work around here, whereas Chrimony only engage in the toxic GamerGate sludge.
1. We have other single purpose editors, and they can be valuable contributors on the topic of their choice.
2. Chrimony is damned if they do and damned if they don't. If they contribute it will likely be reverted and they will possibly be banned for vandalism or some other fatuous excuse. If they don't contribute they get banned for the much maligned 90/10 rule, that we used to ridicule CP for. Either way Chrimony ends up banned.
3. I agree with your assessment that AH does useful work here, but so what, no editor has the right to make unilateral decisions on the worth of other editors. By doing so they disenfranchise their peers and elevate themselves as if they are the lead editor of RW. The mob can make these decisions as a way of avoiding subjectivity (imperfect to be sure).
As for good faith, I simply disagree with your implied definition. You seem to equate good faith with sincerely held opinions
Yes that is precisely what I think good faith is, the problems I see with your definition of good faith:
1. Who decides when someone should be convinced of your argument? People still disbelieve evolution, flat earth, rational 9/11 explanations and they do so sincerely. Are we to ban all of them because they should have been convinced by our stunning arguments? Of course not. Maybe our arguments aren't as water-tight as we previously thought. As you said - cue open-minded rhetoric, but even more importantly...
2. Banning people who have sincerely held beliefs doesn't work. Mikemike continues to return unhampered by our IP blocks, talk page protection and whatever other bullshit countermeasures we use that has the collateral damage of stopping other IP editors from using the wiki. I still see good faith editors caught up in our automated banning system that we enacted for him. Trolls tend to lose interest pretty quickly, so blocking may be a useful tactic for them (this is another argument) but sincere editors just become more enraged and return.
I think it needs to be taken into account that other editors have to clean up after "opinion-spammers" and I don't think we should just allow them to keep adding to the amount of such housecleaning indefinitely. Eventually, there will be some sanction against those who keep dumping trash in the middle of the living room.
This is like wandalism except even less serious. It's as easy as clicking a button to revert spam or collapse a boring wall of text. Use of these tools judiciously is far more effective than banning people. Also, I think you are begging the question here, no-one disagrees that "trash" should be removed, we do disagree on what trash is. I don't think good faith opinions count as trash, no matter how wrong you or I think they may be, for the reasons I have outlined.
we do occasionally protect talk pages from anonymous edits for a few days - a practice which seems to me entirely consistent with the "to prevent disorder"-argument used in the description of RW blocking policy.
I agree that occasional protection for a few days is often judicious - GG has been ip protected for months and this is likely to scare off ip editors who just happen to be a group of people who are more likely to disagree with the RW groupthink consensus (by virtue of not being exposed to it).
Finally all of this conversation is for nought. This wiki has become refuge for editors disenfranchised by WP, so they seem intent on repeating the mistakes they made over there at a new venue. I'm not solely referring to Ryulong here either, in case you feel that I am picking on them. In any case, neither of us actually has any influence to sway the direction of the wiki because the direction is largely being dictated by the big personalities here (for better or worse).

Ps. if I have misinterpreted or missed any of your arguments be assured it was a combination of ineptitude and lack of intelligence that caused it rather than a deliberate attempt at misrepresentation. Also it was because you posted a short thesis, shame on you. Tielec01 (talk) 03:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

To quote, "Chrimony is damned if they do and damned if they don't. If they contribute it will likely be reverted and they will possibly be banned for vandalism or some other fatuous excuse. If they don't contribute they get banned for the much maligned 90/10 rule, that we used to ridicule CP for. Either way Chrimony ends up banned."}}
Except that we can examine this objectively. If we [ look at his contributions, we can verify that Chrimony has never, ever attempted any contribution other than trolling on Gamergate. We can look at every single contribution going back and assess the value objectively; what is his purpose in the diff, what is his goal? Close examination reveals bad faith, not good faith. There is no factual evidence that he ever has intentions to contribute meaningfully.
The same can be said by examining the contributions of LogicMaster777; he may be sincere in his beliefs, but his sole purpose is evidently to force RW to agree with his idiosyncratic belief system about statism and to decry and claim censorship on any disagreement. That doesn't meet any sort of "good faith" editing that I can think of. At least, not my definition of good faith.
I think it is reasonable to determine good faith by intent, which takes time to discern, but can be objectively determined over time by actions taken by the person themselves. It's not something that can be determined in one edit or 10; but by the time they've made 100+ contributions you can see what they're aiming for, assuming they're aiming for anything. That leads to this.
To quote, "Banning people who have sincerely held beliefs doesn't work. Mikemike continues to return unhampered by our IP blocks, talk page protection and whatever other bullshit countermeasures we use that has the collateral damage of stopping other IP editors from using the wiki."
Yes, the name for this on the internet is a troll. You can either be passive and let them run all over you or you can fight them. If you search for information on the topic, it's shown that fighting them is the best - if most wearisome - long-term strategy.
People like David Gerard have long experience with this sort of thing (for a good example of history, see the alt.gothic.special.forces and the fight against Terri Tickle, which went on for about a decade). To maintain a site long-term, a laizzez-faire attitude towards the MikeMikevs, Logicmaster777s, and Chrimonys of the world cannot be sustained. Banning may not work in the short-term, but it has been shown to be effective in the long-term - and that's what we should be working on.
To quote, " Trolls tend to lose interest pretty quickly, so blocking may be a useful tactic for them (this is another argument) but sincere editors just become more enraged and return. "
The problem is that this is a fallacy. Yes, drive-by trolls lose interest quickly, and that accounts for maybe 2/3rds of the trolls you will encounter, but the remaining trolls are in the for the long haul. They will continue for years. Look up the records of a troll named Yama on the internet. Or violentacrez on Reddit. The archives of Fandom Wank also provide more information on dedicated trolls. --Castaigne (talk) 16:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Tielec, I'll have to agree with you that single purpose editors is not a problem per se - what is the problem is when the single purpose is not to actually contribute to an article but simply getting into fights over a single topic via talk pages and trying to banhammer other editors (that would be Ryulong and Chrimony both from what I've seen, although Ryulong has contributed to the GG article).
As for good faith, I guess we'll just have to disagree to disagree. I can't agree to your definition, because it would essentially allow clearly lying scumbags, such as my pet peeve William Lane Craig to be defined as debating in good faith just because he is a sincere religious fanatic, when he' explicitly excluding the possibility that he might be wrong. Craig has stated that if the evidence should turn against a case for God, Craig would simply reject the evidence and assume he would be vindicated in the future, thus giving himself the position of being right, not just by default, but by definition. What, in my opinion, precludes Craig from being described as debating in good faith is that while he may be sincere in his opinions, he dismisses "uncomfortable" conclusions a priori, and has effectively ignored all the responses he has received in his oodles of public debates over 30 years and just keeps repeating the same crap. Likewise, I don't think you're discussing/debating in good faith when you have been told over and over why, for instance, your analogies between states and religions are bogus and that you cannot simply redefine words to get to your conclusions, yet keep on ad nauseam and just respond that your opponents are brainwashed. You may be sincerely deluded or a sincere fanatic, but if your answer to the unanimous rejection of your ideas (due to glaring holes in the arguments) amounts to no more than "Well, according to my definitions you're all wrong and your objections demonstrate that you're part of the conspiracy", that's not debating in good faith (here you could insert LM or Mikemikev and possibly Chrimony at your leisure). That's the kind of response all cranks and conspiracy theorists provide.
About the problematic IP-blocks and reversions, it seems that very few are actually caught up in them. The Mikemikev-inspired block of Seoul Library has been mentioned once by an apparently legit objector using that IP, but I responded to another objection which was either Mikemikev trying to be clever or was hijacked by him along the way. Anyway, avoiding such unint no more problematic that reverting wandalism to avoid such unintended blocks as Seoul Library users could simply set up an RW account. Speaking of wandalism, sure it's easy to revert, but someone has to do it and I think blocking puts a brake on the amount of time our editors will have to waste on it. Yes, it's just a mouse click to revert, but it has to be checked first, and can we really expect a corps of diligently surveying reverters to keep up with such a torrent of crap and just having to "suck it up"? Perhaps blocking is not the ideal solution, but as you've mentioned it does put a brake on things. The problem about whether a block motivates or discourages a troll is one that is simply insolvable up front. Some reacts like Mikemikev others go away and we can't predict up front who's going to do what. Again, I agree that the banhammer should be wielded with more care - I am a bit worried that AH is again wielding it to block what he deems paedophilia advocacy, but without even consulting the mob. I will consider whether to bring this up in a larger forum than your talk page.
To me, the advantage of RW over WP is demonstrated by the respective articles on Craig (and no, it's not because of my own contributions, RW's was better even before those). On WP, Craig's fans have (so far) been able to use WP policies (especially "reliable sources") to create an immaculate puff piece with no hint of the fact that Craig's opinions are on the outer fringe of academia. RW's article takes all the ugly aspects of the stealth apologetics that are Craig's "academic" work and slaps them on the table right alongside the repellent homophobia and defence of genocide that he draws from his fundamentalist brand of Christianity. I think that the frankness of RW and the fact that it's not constrained by WP NPOV (which tends to mean that you can't call a crackpot a crackpot) is an advantage, but it does seem to allow for and encourage cliques of group thinkers to descend on RW and push others out. However, most of the censorship claims I've come across so far have been framed in the conspiracy theory terms already mentioned and in rather poorly thought out defence of some equally flawed arguments (à la LM) or downright nasty attitude (e.g. Mikemikev). You invoked the mob, and that mob has already rejected these cranks.
So, to sum up in and easily digestible manner:
  1. I agree that single purpose editors can be very useful, but I just don't think it's the case for the one(s) we've discussed.
  2. Yes, I do believe "blocks as brakes" are in order (but keep them short unless for repeat offenders or spambots).
  3. No, blocks should not simply be dished out by single RW editors (MORE MOBOCRACY!).
  4. No, I still don't agree that sincerely held opinions are sufficient for engaging in a good faith debate.
  5. Yes, RW does have a weakness in its mobocracy and tendencies towards tribalism need to be kept in mind.
  6. So far, the main claims of RW groupthink/censorship that I've seen have not been raised by the most credible of sources and are rather unconvincing (to me).
The last bit was to provide a quick digest of the rather voluminous musings above, which, in turn, hopefully serve to avoid misunderstandings of the terse "shopping list" at the end. And of course thanks for your earlier response Tielec, you've presented my opinions both fairly and accurately, despite having to chip them out of a wall of text. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

what is the problem is when the single purpose is not to actually contribute to an article but simply getting into fights over a single topic via talk pages and trying to banhammer other editors (that would be Ryulong and Chrimony both from what I've seen, although Ryulong has contributed to the GG article).

First, you haven't addressed the catch-22: If I edit the article it will be reverted anyways, so I limit myself to the talk page. It's also part of the supposed community standard that you welcome debate. So you admit you disagree with this fundamental principle. You'd prefer an echo chamber around any topic subject to groupthink.
Second, I have not tried to have anybody banhammered, yet I've been blocked repeatedly and was nominated myself for banhammer after I brought the AgingHippie Coop case. There's a big differing between banning somebody (and silencing their voice) versus taking away sysop rights -- I only advocating the latter for abusive blocks. And just to highlight the absurdity of the tribal groupthink surrounding the Gamergate article, it was even suggested I was banworthy because I made a minor complaint about the blocks I'd been receiving in the Talk:Gamergate article.
Chrimony (talk) 13:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I stand corrected on you not trying to get AH blocked, Chrimony, and apologise.
As for edit warring, you haven't even tried to engage in anything beyond the GG talk page (even Ryulong has a more diverse record than that and that's saying something), but instead you just declared on the coop that you would not edit anything on RW because you think it's biased (without explaining anything or providing any examples, despite my requests). How's that for a Catch-22?
The suggestion of a sanction against you was for what some perceived as a spurious attempt at wikilawyering. I agreed that your coop case might have had aspects of that (at least insofar as your depiction of LogicMaster as some blameless victim was concerned), but not that it merited any sanctions (because you mainly seemed to be acting in good faith).
PS. Have you noticed how much off the deep end one of your supposed victims of persecution, the redoubtable LogicMaster, has gone lately? I know you can't be faulted for lack of prescience, but it does nicely illustrate the problematic nature of at least one of your examples in the convenient light of hindsight. ScepticWombat (talk) 10:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Although he did argue to have me blocked: User_talk:Ikanreed#You_blocked_me.3F. And let's not demean ourselves by pretending that it was a genuinely earnest enquiry and not a backhanded argument to get an editor banned. Queexchthonic murmurings 10:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I did no such thing. You have me confused with a BoN. Here's a hint: I've never edited this site as a BoN. And, despite one of your many false claims in your efforts to get me banned, I did not create this account to avoid protections on the Talk:GamerGate article, as it was protected after I created my account. But thanks for showing up, as you're a prime example of tribal groupthink that has no respect for the community standards. Chrimony (talk) 13:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I apologise. I had misremembered. Now, will you apologise for this blatant falsehood: "your many false claims in your efforts to get me banned"? Queexchthonic murmurings 15:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Your false claims to get me banned:
  • "Utter lack of any meaningful contribution, even under the widest possible definition - no interesting digressions in talk, no actual discussions of topics that can improve an article."
As I already mentioned several times, I proposed an edit on the Talk page and it made it into the article, even if it ended up being slanted against Gamergate.
  • "Inability to address any issue, article- or complaint-related, in anything approaching a coherent manner - just repeats the same claims over and over again and ignores counter-arguments."
As subjective as your claim is, the fact that I was asked by FuzzyCatPotato to propose an edit based on my arguments is a substantial case against your claim: "Chrimony, you have your sources about how Gamergate apparently reformed PC Gamer. Can you reformulate them into an edit that we could add into the section for actual achievements of Gamergate? (Ie, write up text and put those in as references.)"
  • "Twice argued to get another editor banned for perceived infractions of rules"
False, as I already explained to ScepticWombat.
  • "Basically, what we have here is a typical shouty BoN with their knickers in enough of a twist to create an account purely to get around the protected status of Talk:GamerGate"
False, as I already said, I created my account before the protections were in place and have never edited this site as a BoN.
Chrimony (talk) 15:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
To quote, "If I edit the article it will be reverted anyways, so I limit myself to the talk page."
That is not true; if it is a good edit, it will stand. If a person disagrees with your edit, then you will be reverted. If you disagree with that person, then you can revert their reversion, and so on, and so forth. This is how a wiki works.
To quote, "It's also part of the supposed community standard that you welcome debate."
Welcoming debate does not indicate that you will be treated with respect or given a fair hearing or whatever. You seem to have this idea that if you are here to debate, we're going to follow Robert's Rules of Order.
I will tell you frankly; that ain't so. No one is required to give your debating tactics respect if they aren't found to be up to snuff or don't possess substance. And so far from what I've seen of you, there is no substance here. Going over the past 500 edits you've made, they can be summarized as the following.
  1. Ryulong is biased against GamerGate and should be prevented from editing the article.
  2. We're not treating you fairly or giving GamerGate a fair hearing, fair being what you decide is fair.
  3. We're all biased towards feminism and SJWs and so are incapable of fairly treating GamerGate.
  4. Lots and lots of balance fallacy.
And you can't deny that. The diffs are there in black and white. Those contributions are the substance you have provided; it's all we can judge on. And those edits have been found wanting.
Here are some facts. You have never contributed to anything other than GamerGate issues. You have never made a substantive edit on any article. You have only argued GamerGate's causes and viewpoints and never shown any interest in acknowledging any point that contravenes those causes and viewpoints. And you show no interest in the rest of the wiki.
Conclusion from the evidence, then, is that you are here to shill for GamerGate, since that is all you have done. With a bonus of picking a grudge against Ryulong.
And these are from the last 500 contributions that you've made. If you have any evidence to convince me otherwise, feel free to show it. --Castaigne (talk) 16:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Going over the past 500 edits you've made, they can be summarized as the following. 1. Ryulong is biased against GamerGate and should be prevented from editing the article. ... And you can't deny that. The diffs are there in black and white.

Indeed they are. So where did I ever say that Ryulong should be prevented from editing the article? Chrimony (talk) 18:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
And you expect me to quote you and directly point to the diff after referring to me as a "clown posse"?
Let me be clear, boy - I know you posted because I looked at the Recent Changes. And you sure as shit seem to expect me to talk and treat you respectfully when you haven't even bothered to earn my respect - and make it clear with your commentary that you don't care to try.
So since you're an ass, I'm not going to quote it. How do you like them fuckin' apples, cockmongler? What, cat got your tongue? --Castaigne (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Yup, thought so. When given the chance to show me up after I called you out, you've got nothing but bluster. Chrimony (talk) 18:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
No, I'll give you the quote when you do the following.
  1. Apologize for the "clown posse" remark. As in, "Mr. Castaigne, I abjectly apologize for my arrogance and humbly beg your forgiveness."
  2. Respectfully ask for the quote. "Mr. Castaigne, I abase myself before you and respectfully beg that you provide me with the aforementioned quote.
I'm giving you lessons in etiquette and humility, boy, something which you have failed to learn in your callow youth. --Castaigne (talk) 18:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Apology accepted, ScepticWombat. That's some progress, anyways.
But you're wrong that I haven't contributed to anything but the Talk:Gamergate page, as already I explained in the Coop, "I indirectly contributed to the Gamergate article (I was asked to propose an edit, and it found its way in, spun of course against Gamergate)".
Furthermore, I did make one edit to a page, on a lark, and as expected it was reverted within 5 minutes with the message, " isn't an edit, it's a complaint. Feel free to use the talk page". So I put it on the Talk page and nobody replied, including the person who saw fit to revert the edit.
And finally we come to Norman, who actually tried to edit the Gamegate page and quickly gave up: "I made a lot more corrections, by the way, and all of them were reverted by Typhoon, even the ones in an entirely different section, with absolutely no reason given. Judging from how quickly he reverted my edits combined with the fact that he reverted my corrections of spelling errors, I doubt he had a good reason."
Not that it shouldn't be blindingly obvious to anybody how one-sided the Gamergate article and groupthink is on "Rational" (take a drink) Wiki. Well at least it would be if you weren't part of the groupthink.
As for, "your depiction of LogicMaster as some blameless victim", my focus was on the lack of due process. I did not argue that he was completely blameless, but nothing I saw warranted that response per the supposed community standards.
Oh, and one more thing. Besides actually being nominated for the banhammer in the Coop, the suggestion that "I was banworthy" I was talking about was this one: "Now I wasn't inclined to block you before, but now I am. This "Follow your policies to any extreme (because I'm legalistically exploiting them)" shit throws all sorts of alarm bells for me. I'm not going to block you over it, because that would be A. Petty and B. denying you fair warning about that kind of behavior. But it does take an impression of "Boring sealioning user" and turn it into "malignant abusive sociopath."", after I made this complaint: "Also, instead of handing out blocks to me like special treats, how about you guys follow your own blocking policy, as admonished to by your fellow users?"
But keep making excuses about "wikilawyering". After all, you aren't on the receiving end of the abusive blocks, and I'm just a single-purpose editor who limits themselves to the Talk page. So who cares, right?
Chrimony (talk) 15:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
And the long-standing top goal of all gamergate continues: demanding that everyone give them the respect they deserve while denying the shitty things they do along the way. Chrimony, this "I will never acknowledge fault" thing is childish. Your childishness in the general sense is mostly why people want to see you banned. You're petty as hell. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
To quote, "As for, "your depiction of LogicMaster as some blameless victim", my focus was on the lack of due process."
This just shows you don't understand. This is a mobocracy. We are not a government; there is no Bill of Rights; there is no Constitution. Due process is not a right here. The sooner you internalize this, the less pique you will have.
To quote, "I'm just a single-purpose editor who limits themselves to the Talk page."
Who shills for a certain viewpoint and disavows anything that agrees with that viewpoint. The term for that on the internet at large is "concern troll". --Castaigne (talk) 16:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
"But keep making excuses about "wikilawyering"." Eh, Chrimony you've just admitted that your only objection to the treatment of LM was procedural concerns, not that LM's actions didn't warrant the sanctions imposed (by your acknowledgement that LM wasn't a blameless victim). I would think that wishing to punish an editor solely because he didn't follow proper procedure when imposing otherwise sound sanctions against another editor is pretty much the definition of wikilawyering, wouldn't you?
Also, please note the mobocracy comments above: The community standards were intended to be, in Tielec's words, descriptive not prescriptive. Hell, even Wikipedia cautions against using the letter of their procedures to go against the spirit of their standards. In terms of RW, trying to get an editor desysopped, not for imposing unfair sanctions, but simply for not following procedure, is hardly in the spirit of the community standards you claim to defend, is it?
As for the single-purpose editor thing I've already explained my take on it, but since it apparently hasn't sunk in, allow me to repeat: I have no problem with single-purpose editors per se. I have a problem when a single-purpose editor (you) defends sticking to a single controversial talk page (and getting into scraps over it) by making vague allegations of an all-encompassing RW groupthink (though now you seem to be referring solely to GG) and then invoking that claim as a justification for interpreting any criticism labelled at you as yet another example of RW tribalism. Sorry, but that kind of conspiracy/martyr gambit is getting stale fast.
Likewise, your edit was a comment and the fact that no one responded to your comment on said talk page is hardly evidence of either groupthink or tribalism. You might have had something with the same points easily accepted into the article if you hadn't written it as a "You all suck, you hypocrites!"-style comment. Seriously, why are you surprised that it was reverted, or the reason given? Have you ever seen any wiki-articles where one paragraph calls the previous paragraph and its author(s) hypocritical? That's the writing style used on debate, talk and forum pages, articles aren't debate threads.
Finally, my apology was simply to indicate acknowledgement of having made a rather minor factual error. That you didn't try to wikilawyer a block on AH, but "only" to get him desysopped is actually of rather tangential concern to my points about your behaviour and arguments. I was being charitable, and perhaps mistakenly so, considering your aggressively fisking response. Speaking of which, I think that ikanreed has a point: Your pettiness and peevishness are probably what's going to continue getting you into trouble. That and the suggestion that anyone not agreeing with you is obviously "part of the groupthink" ("heads I win, tails you lose"-logic at its finest). ScepticWombat (talk) 18:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
First of all, the "wikilaywering" most pertinent to me involved the abusive blocks used against me and the Kafkaesque absurdity of having my complaints about them advocated as grounds for blocking/banning.
With regards to LM, you're putting words into my mouth. I just wasn't making the case that he was some kind of saint. As hypothetical examples: perhaps he could have a better attitude, or perhaps he could phrase things better, or whatever. However, I did not, and do not, agree that he was justly punished. Blocks are for vandalism, and I did not see him as a vandal, and even AgingHippie admitted in his own comments on the matter that he should not have blocked him. Also, I don't take dismissing Coop cases lightly, whereas you are trying to write it off as some minor procedural matter.
As for single-purpose editing, I understand your position just fine, but my position remains unchanged. The net effect is that in a groupthink environment, an outside voice coming in with a dissenting opinion will be dismissed as a troll looking for a fight. Your stance, if adopted as a community standard, silences the debate. You were even wrong multiple times, along with several others, of accusing me of never having contributed anything to the Gamergate page, but I did, via FuzzyCatPotato, which is something you neglected to respond to in your reply, along with the treatment that Norman received when he tried to edit the page, along with the abusive blocks I received (and Norman had them too).
But you keep on trying to wave the whole thing away as wikilaywering and vague complaints. You don't acknowledge the clown fabricating claims against me and blustering when I ask him to show me the "black and white" diff that I "can't deny". You don't acknowledge the false claims raised against me by the other clown when Queex tried to get me banned. You see nothing wrong with the clown telling me I should be blocked because I complained about being blocked. You don't even seem to realize how you might be involved in the groupthink, though you first claimed you wouldn't touch my Gamergate related Coop issues because "Gamergate", and then proceeded to offer not once, but twice, your unsolicited opinions on Gamergate and making judgements based on them.
And finally, your apology at this point means nothing to me when it is so easily revoked with handwaving, and you think the difference between banning somebody (and silencing their voice) versus desysopping somebody abusing their powers is a "rather minor factual error". That, in itself, speaks volumes about your position.
Chrimony (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
That request for Chrimony's proposal is barf-inducingly horrible, and I apologize to everyone that read it.
That said, we are not banning Chrimony unless he breaks one or more of the rules at RW:B#Punishing malicious editing, and I'll happily coop anyone who tries. Wikilawyering (badly) is not blockable; being an obnoxiously single-issue editor is not blockable; meritlessly accusing others of bias is not blockable; being an asshole is not blockable; talking too much, editing too little is not blockable. Chrimony sucks, but hasn't yet broken the rules.
Ultimately, banning Chrimony because he incessantly fails to accept our view on Gamergate breaks RW:B. Quote: "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." FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 22:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Chrimony, I already explained why the exact nature of the punishment you wanted imposed on AH is a minor matter, because I was addressing the way in which you went about it and the arguments your presented to get the punishment metered out. Anyway, since few blocks on RW are permanent, your claim about silencing is circumscribed at best and disingenuous at worst. Also, your labelling of those who are fed up with your antics as "clowns" and your continued refusal to come to grips with issue of trying to punish AH for not following procedure, rather than imposing unfair sanctions, speaks far thicker "volumes about your position" than my factual error does about mine as does your ad nauseam allegations of hand waving. And no, I don't see how it's any more wrong for one of your opponents to say to you that you should be blocked than it is for you to accuse everyone who disagrees with you of being groupthinking tribalists. You were involved in a dispute and people tend to say stupid things in disputes. So no, I can't really get my knickers in a twist over someone suggesting that you should be banned since the likelihood of that actually happening (unless your behaviour deteriorates significantly) is rather low (as per FCP's comment above).
My complaints weren't vague. They were quite explicit: That your attempted usage of the letter rather than the spirit of RW guidelines to punish AH for following the spirit rather than the letter of the same guidelines is wikilawyering bordering on hypocrisy. That your automatic filing of disagreement under groupthink is silly and that your allegations of an all-encompassing RW tribalism of which you are a victim are not supported by your examples. And finally that LM is not a good example of unfair blocking because he had been skirting a block for his borderline wandalism for a long time and has since clearly crossed that line.
That you indirectly contributed to a single edit to GG by way of FCP and posted a comment on the video game page which was (justifiably) removed (though had it been me, I'd have moved it to the talk page, rather than simply delete it, but that's a matter of taste) hardly supports your claim that RW editors are a tribe hostile to you and knee-jerkingly reverts everything you write and that this justifies you being a single-purpose editor involved in the GG flamewars. As you may or may not have gathered from my comments above I'm heartily tired of GG, but you using this flamewar as an example to paint all of GG the colour of groupthink is unfair at best and deceptive at worst. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Chrimony, for what it's worth, you have endured the false accusations (several of which are on show above), abuse, undeserved blocks and ignorant behaviour of the editors here with a certain admirable stoic indifference. However, you have committed the biggest crime possible at RW, you have disagreed with the group-think (and more importantly, certain prominent editors). I still think you are largely wrong when it comes to your views on GG, but I am merely a rather uninterested observer (rather than disinterested).

Is it petty to defend yourself from false accusations? If so then I will gladly say that every editor on this page is "petty", isn't wiki-lawyering just another way of saying '"Sure, technically you might be correct, but I want you to be wrong so damn bad...". Funny how I didn't see anyone throw around the word wiki-lawyer when Chrimony was facing bans.

Learning from past mistakes, can I say that I respect all the editors who have responded here even if I disagree with them vociferously. Tielec01 (talk) 07:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

To me the problem is that Chrimony is invoking the spirit of the guidelines when painting himself as the victim, yet turns around and use an example of purely procedural matter (the LM stuff) of an otherwise justified sanction to try to get another editor desysopped. The allegations of wikilawyering is thus not "just another way of saying '"Sure, technically you might be correct, but I want you to be wrong so damn bad..."." It's pointing to his way of dealing with an editor he doesn't like by trying to get them punished not for what they did, but for the way in which they did it.
Actually, I might have been sympathetic to Chrimony's case if it hadn't been for his (in my eyes) silly and erroneous interpretation of and conclusions drawn from the LM example which I called out and which Chrimony then used to put me in the groupthink tribe alongside the kinds of Ryulong. This is doubly ironic as my clearly stated reason for focusing on the LM example was that I was uninterested in the GG stuff, but knew the LM case history quite well. Yet Chrimony, who has loudly defended his own (almost) exclusive focus on GG, immediately attacked me for not responding to the GG points and claimed that this showed that I was part of the GG tribe.
This is at the heart of my disagreement with Chrimony: The extrapolation of behaviour in arguably the hottest flamewar (GG) to cover the whole of RW and Chrimony accusing everyone who disagrees with him of being in cahoots with the pro-Sarkeesian wing. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Tielec01, your comments and observations mean a lot to me. I appreciate that you stood up for good principles even though you disagreed with my pro-Gamergate stance. You have my respect. Chrimony (talk) 11:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't collapse my conversation thank you[edit]

Heh, "conversations". I was only trying to hide this mockery of a 'discussion'. Neither you or Ryulong are looking good in it. But fine, I'll let everyone see it. Typhoon (talk) 08:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Cheers big ears. Tielec01 (talk) 08:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


I wanted to see if I could get some consructive criticism and logical debate, s I could work on my theory on this site.

However, instead of constructive criticism I have received publicly posted insults, and had my edits immediately removed.

Does this Ryulong guy always harass people who want help? Anyways, I hope you can revert his edits and leave a space for people to constructively criticize me and my ideas.

thanks.— Unsigned, by: Derenek / talk / contribs

Derenek, you don't need to copy and paste everything I've said to you. RationalWiki is not the place for you to work on your pseudoscientific theory.
Tielec01, look up this guy's CV on the English Wikiversity for a laugh.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm currently on my honeymoon, just had a beautiful dinner - the highlight being a Y'quem that we were shouted by some friends of ours. You might sense that I am definitely not the man to be talking to about this. My beautiful wife is in bed and I don't have access to a computer. Best of luck with your theory, I hope you receive valuable feedback and that you are willing to take on board. Ryulong I prefer comments to be left on my talk page untouched so if they don't contain personal information and you have the time then please restore them, it would be appreciated. Missing you all and I will see you in a month, next stop the Balearics where 11 degrees is not a 'fine summers day'. Later. Tielec01 (talk) 23:01, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Village idiot[edit] we have a problem that needs to be resolved? We -can- take this off wiki, if you prefer. --Castaigne (talk) 03:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I can't tell if this is some ham handed attempt to threaten me. If it is, I'm currently in Spain, Mabella. Bring a few beers with you, or wine if you really want to keep me happy and we can talk about what it's like to be dumb and super smug. I imagine your life is a an unending parade of unearned self congratulations and reminiscing about how you totally won that argument. Sounds nice. Tielec01 (talk) 19:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
No, it is not a threat. You appear to have some sort of problem with me. That obviously needs to be worked out, which I doubt will be possible since you believe that I am stupid, thus inferior. --Castaigne (talk) 22:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


I don't get what was that which you inserted into my talkpage. Dandtiks69 (talk) 20:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

He gave you sysop powers. That's the norm here for people judged to be sane and non-malevolent. We also humorously refer to this as a 'demotion'. (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Lol, I get it. Dandtiks69 (talk) 00:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Still an honor to be made an admin. Dandtiks69 (talk) 00:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey, dummy.[edit]

Registering a username that is an obvious attempt to mock/imitate another member is something highly discouraged in the guidelines, and feeding that particular type of troll is a pretty poor piece of sysopping. Smarten up. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 07:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

If I may speak in my own defense; there was a time when such prankery was considered more of a joke, perhaps even an homage, than a serious insult. I guess those days are gone. Consider me rebuked; I denounce and reject my misguided actions! Tielec01 (talk) 07:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

What then is the proper way to handle edit warring?[edit]

If an editor keeps reverting even when s/he is in the minority, then what is to be done? Because that's what Avenger does, a lot.---Mona- (talk) 04:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Depends on the circumstances, you're a smart person so I have faith you will work out a reasonable solution to the problem within the broad expectations of editors on the wiki. Sometimes, VB is a proportionate response, sometimes small blocks, socially ostracising the offender, general ridicule, chicanery and liberal doses of laughing at yourself also highly recommended. Rely on the good judgement of your peers too, they will pick up what you don't see. Remember if an article changes a bit that this is not the end of the world. Tielec01 (talk) 06:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I nominated you for moderator[edit]

As I am wont to do--"Shut up, Brx." 04:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Cheers, but I saw what it did to MC so I will decline. Welcome back by the way. Tielec01 (talk) 04:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


Check the deleted history of my user page amongst his other bullshit trolling edits.—Ryulong (talk) 04:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Why the fuck does this always happen? Why is it when I ban obvious trolls that are solely here to harass and mock me that I have you or someone else unblocking them and giving them the benefit of the doubt? It happens every god damn time. No sysop action I have ever taken on this website stands for more than half an hour.—Ryulong (talk) 04:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I will note that sometimes people - and this isn't just in stuff relating to you - are given the benefit without even the doubt. I'll refrain from saying it's good practice, though. WalkerWalkerWalker 04:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
No. This is a constant behavior on here. I block someone who's only here to mock and denigrate me and harass me and they're immediately unblocked by someone else because banning them is feeding their trollish behavior when getting rid of them gets rid of further opportunities for them to troll. His screenname is intended to mock me. He's using the fucking 4chan/GG nickname for me and adding in the bullshit about the R/L translations that they constantly harass me over. It's an obvious bad faith account and there's no trust in my judgement to ban him for those obvious reasons.—Ryulong (talk) 04:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Meanwhile you lot are all feeding his trollish behavior more than me banning him would ever do. You're all assholes.—Ryulong (talk) 04:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
God, is there any group on the internet that you haven't alienated yourself from? Sorry I don't keep track of the nicknames that your various "enemies" have assigned to you; not that it matters as we don't ban people for silly names. Request a rename if it is so painful for you to allow them to edit the wiki under the current alias you small, small person. Tielec01 (talk) 05:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
4chan and Gamergate are the same group. "DragonDragon" has been used by Arisboch on RationalWiki constantly to mock me. And the R/L shit has happened before. DlagonDlagon is only here to troll and yet all you and everyone else has done is counter troll him instead of just banning him entirely.—Ryulong (talk) 05:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Aren't we the worst. Get Paravant to rename them to "I love Anita Sarkeesian" or something. Tielec01 (talk) 05:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
That's not the fucking point. He's only here to harass and mock me. That's why he nominated me for mod. That's why he added shit to my user page when I got fed up with this toxic fucking website last night. And meanwhile Paravant, FuzzyCatPotato, and PacWalker are the ones guilty of feeding the troll and my 3 month block on this douchebag is somehow counted as worse because I can't be trusted to block someone whose only reason for joining is to be a complete and utter douchebag at my expense?—Ryulong (talk) 05:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
..or, you could stop worrying about an account that hasn't edited in two days and has shown all signs of having gotten bored and moved along. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 05:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
He edited yesterday. The edit is in my user page's deleted history.—Ryulong (talk) 05:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Come on Ryulong, lighten up. A joke is a joke. Whether you consider it to be a joke in good or bad taste is of course up to you, but don't dismiss every jokster as a "troll". Let me tell you, if someone would create a "Carpetfucker" account, I would be amused and try my best to be as witty as I can! Carpetsmoker (talk) 05:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Look at the deleted history on my user page. It's not a joke. It's bad faith trolling.—Ryulong (talk) 05:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree that went too far; but you blocked this account before that as well (which I unblocked). But it's not just this one account; it's your general pattern of behaviour on these matters. Carpetsmoker (talk) 05:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I blocked him after noticing the shit he posted to his user talk in response to all of you guys and his trollish nomination of me as mod. And then he went too far on my user talk after which I found and Tielec01 unblocked him, again. And this is the pattern for every obvious troll at my expense. I recognize bad faith. I block. Someone unblocks because they don't get it. And then they get away with this shit even more.—Ryulong (talk) 05:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Come on, the comments on the talk page are fine, and so is your "nomination". It's a joke. Try to understand why he/she made the joke, and have a laugh about it. The rest of us laugh about our character flaws, and so can you. You'll become a better person, trust me. Carpetsmoker (talk) 05:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
You don't really have the right to tell anyone else to have a thicker skin after you all collectively lost it over My Little fucking Pony. Kitsunelaine (talk) 07:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Is any of this addressed to me? Tielec01 (talk) 08:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
"My Little fucking Pony" Whoa, I thought you abhorred cloppers! Lightning Dust (talk) 06:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
While I agree that things like this should be laughed off and getting upset only gives the trolls what they came for, this may have escalated beyond a joke. As Ryulong said 'DlagonDlagon' is an obvious reference to the edit wars with 4channers/gators he's been fighting over 'buddyloids' vs. 'buddyroids' on Wikipedia for years(?) on the articles for the series he enjoys. As an outside observer, sure it looks silly and the mod nomination was obviously in jest (though Ryulong may not concur), but Ryulong said DlagonDlagon did something to his User page and it had to be deleted. Depending on what it was, that might step beyond having a laugh and more along the lines of trying to twist the knife. Lightning Dust (talk) 06:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
My god. Did you just say Ryulong has been fighting a war for years over whether a character in a fictional show is called Buddyloid or Buddyroid? Is that the link you showed me? I've met linguists who have had bugbears over the correct pronounciation of words, but even they, who make a career of it, don't seem to care this much. Then, as if this wasn't unbelievable enough, it seems that there is an opposition side to this argument who care equally as much. Jesus fuck-me Christ, I don't even... Tielec01 (talk) 08:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, it still continues after his Wikipedia ban through various meatpuppets and possible sockpuppets. Lighting Dusts's remark that its "4channers/gators" who keep "trolling" him over this is not quite true, as there's a good case to be made that "buddyroid" is a better translation. However, Ryulong's obsessive and humourless behaviour over this (like over everything else) does make it a good target for "trolling", but you can't just dismiss it all as "trolling"... Carpetsmoker (talk) 08:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not part of that fandom so I'll admit I don't quite understand why he and his proxies have been fighting for four years over L vs R in what is supposed to be the English translations. It looks like the 'L' side are stalwarts behind whatever the official translations may have been, regardless if they are obviously Engrish such as 'gord' or 'condol'. Ryulong can surely provide a better explanation, I saw him mention it on reddit's GamerGhazi a while ago and he implied it was gators/4chan behind the opposition. The gators did weaponize the issue after ArbCom banned Ryulong and got 'Condol' changed to Condor, but the other L-R things have remained to be fought over in the following months. One of the lamer long-time edit wars for sure. Reminds me of George Costanza and Bubble Boy fighting over Moops. Lightning Dust (talk) 04:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
As far as analogies go, that's a cracker; I always appreciate a post-lunch giggle. Thanks to both of you for clarifying the situation; I fear that it's one that I'll studiously ignore as it affords too much temptation to judge people. Tielec01 (talk) 05:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry did someone mention my name? CarpetFucker (talk) 05:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I still stand by my remark to him; that's SERIOUS FUCKING BUSINESS, even if this year's wasn't their best show. WalkerWalkerWalker 06:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

You silly serpent[edit]

Could you please stop getting your panties in a bunch without any real reason at all??--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

In regard to anything in particular or just in general? Tielec01 (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Both! I wouldn't give a fuck, if anyone here would join under the name roshna_dealer, sokar or something.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
It seems we are in vicious agreement then. Tielec01 (talk) 23:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

You probably didn't know this but[edit]

Kitsunelaine is not a meneer. I dunno whether it's mevrouw or juffrouw which would be the most applicable appellation, but you get the gist of it. (talk) 11:00, 7 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

Ah, I see, thanks for the heads up - silly me. Tielec01 (talk) 03:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)