Difference between revisions of "RationalWiki:Chicken coop"
Line 60: | Line 60: | ||
:::Persecution complex much? We are complaining about your refusal to acknowledge the concerns of others, even with sizeable evidence of your abuse of administrative rights, and your general attitude that you can do what you want, the community be damned. {{User:Phantom Hoover/sig}} 10:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC) | :::Persecution complex much? We are complaining about your refusal to acknowledge the concerns of others, even with sizeable evidence of your abuse of administrative rights, and your general attitude that you can do what you want, the community be damned. {{User:Phantom Hoover/sig}} 10:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC) | ||
::::"We"? Omigod, I count four so far? Or is it five? Fafucksake, I have been trying to use "undo" more than "rollback" since the sizzlefest on my talk page. I also suspect I use the "Mark as patrolled" more than any of you do. Make some sense here, can you? {{User:Human/sig|}} 10:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC) | ::::"We"? Omigod, I count four so far? Or is it five? Fafucksake, I have been trying to use "undo" more than "rollback" since the sizzlefest on my talk page. I also suspect I use the "Mark as patrolled" more than any of you do. Make some sense here, can you? {{User:Human/sig|}} 10:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC) | ||
+ | :::::I wonder why people keep criticising you? Could it perhaps be because you keep doing the same fucking things over and over again and show no sign of listening to other people? –[[User:SuspectedReplicant|SuspectedReplicant]] <span style="font-size:xx-small">[[User_Talk:SuspectedReplicant|retire me]]</span> 10:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 10:26, 10 October 2010
This page is for the reporting of abuse and other problems
Human
He persistently reverts clearly non-vandalism edits without any explanation whatsoever, especially edits by fairly new editors. This behaviour is toxic to good community structure, and I recommend that he either stop or be stripped of all his administrative powers. (As an aside, please change this page back to Administrative Abuse. The current name just reinforces its trivialisation.) Educated drug Hoover! 20:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Accusations would be better presented with a shred, or better yet, a cornucopia, of evidence. For instance, are you defending this edit? ħuman 03:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Phantom Hoover about changing the page's name back, but I think a slapped wrist is a more adequate sanction for Human than desysopping. ListenerXTalkerX 03:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, but a slapped wrist for what? No evidence has been presented. I move for summary dismissal on account of complete lack prosecutor's/plaintiff's case. ħuman 03:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- You have reverted a number of my edits without explanation, for starters; several of which other editors later restored, if I recall. Diffs to follow. ListenerXTalkerX 03:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sure I have. Awaiting diffs with bated breath! Bring it on! ħuman 03:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- [1] — this was objected to on the talk-page, by myself and at least two other editors. You did not appear to respond.
- [2] — this one was out of the blue.
- [3] — later restored by TheoryOfPractice, or whatever he is calling himself these days.
- [4] — I changed this one back, and Blue reverted me, but with explanation.
- Some others: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] ListenerXTalkerX 03:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- From going through your last 500 mainspace edits, here are five instances in which a registered user (not an IP or an offensively named user) made a good-faith, non-vandalism edit which was reverted by Human without explanation:
- Afterwards restored by another bureaucrat:
- Heavy metal music, restored by Phantom Hoover and then again by Armondikov
- Southern strategy, restored by Nx
- Deepity, restored by Armondikov
- Not restored, but no explanation given:
- I am not defending the quality of these edits - whether they were good or not is not the point. Blue (pester) 04:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- I also do not want to dispute the merits of the reverted edits in my diffs. ListenerXTalkerX 04:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sure I have. Awaiting diffs with bated breath! Bring it on! ħuman 03:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- You have reverted a number of my edits without explanation, for starters; several of which other editors later restored, if I recall. Diffs to follow. ListenerXTalkerX 03:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, but a slapped wrist for what? No evidence has been presented. I move for summary dismissal on account of complete lack prosecutor's/plaintiff's case. ħuman 03:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Phantom Hoover about changing the page's name back, but I think a slapped wrist is a more adequate sanction for Human than desysopping. ListenerXTalkerX 03:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Lol. Compare what I improved and created over the last 24 hours to your incredibly important concerns. ħuman 04:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- "whether they were good or not is not the point" really? ħuman 04:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- (EC) Stop changing the subject. ListenerXTalkerX 04:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Stop changing the object. ħuman 04:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- (EC) New users don't give a flute about how many edits you've made, Human, all they see is your revert. Blue (pester) 04:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Human, this is not about your other edits, but about your overuse of rollback. ListenerXTalkerX 04:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oops. Please show me the good-faith high quality edits by noobs (not LX, as that seems off-topic, doesn't it,now?) that I rolledback in the last two weeks. LICK YOUR MOTHER'S PUSSY doesn't count. Or do they? Tweenk? You guys can fuck off any time, I defended this whole issue on my talk page days ago. ħuman 04:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Phantom Hoover's charge, while emphasizing the reverts of new editors, did not exclude others. ListenerXTalkerX 04:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if you caught this, but none of my examples were from "Lick your mother's pussy" or Tweenk. And does telling Nx to "go back under your bridge and stop wasting my time with your whiny orange boxes" constitute this "defense" on your talk page? Blue (pester) 04:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- To address your other concerns: The first two examples I gave were from within a week. These edits were restored by other 'crats, so at least someone thought they were quality edits. Blue (pester) 04:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Phantom Hoover's charge, while emphasizing the reverts of new editors, did not exclude others. ListenerXTalkerX 04:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oops. Please show me the good-faith high quality edits by noobs (not LX, as that seems off-topic, doesn't it,now?) that I rolledback in the last two weeks. LICK YOUR MOTHER'S PUSSY doesn't count. Or do they? Tweenk? You guys can fuck off any time, I defended this whole issue on my talk page days ago. ħuman 04:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Human, this is not about your other edits, but about your overuse of rollback. ListenerXTalkerX 04:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- (EC) New users don't give a flute about how many edits you've made, Human, all they see is your revert. Blue (pester) 04:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Stop changing the object. ħuman 04:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- (EC) Stop changing the subject. ListenerXTalkerX 04:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I think human has been given enough friendly warnings already, and he has responded with abuse every time. It is time to decide whether we will just move on and ignore his abuse because he's the queen of the wiki, or do something about it -- Nx / talk 05:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Given his blatant denial and prevarication in the face of evidence from several editors, I am now in favor of a stiffer penalty than I was initially. ListenerXTalkerX 05:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- I reckon Human should just back off from being King of the Whats Allowed on Rationalwiki. I have always thought that. i9 06:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Lol, I agree with The Wicked One. Wait, King? Shirley you meant Queen? ħuman 07:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Prevarication? Are you sure you can spell that, let alone define it? ħuman 09:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Charge looks proved to me.
- "He persistently reverts clearly non-vandalism edits without any explanation whatsoever, especially edits by fairly new editors."
- Links were asked for and provided.
- Is this contrary to RW procedure? Yes, see here.
- As a punishment I suggest the meme "It's Human's wiki" should be changed to "It's not Human's wiki".--BobSpring is sprung! 09:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Charge looks proved to me.
- Prevarication? Are you sure you can spell that, let alone define it? ħuman 09:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Lol, I agree with The Wicked One. Wait, King? Shirley you meant Queen? ħuman 07:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- I reckon Human should just back off from being King of the Whats Allowed on Rationalwiki. I have always thought that. i9 06:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Continued edit warring
Unless all parties stop this immediately and begin discussion, I am seriously going to start doing things that would qualify as administrative abuse in and of themselves. (And yes, I know that I am also guilty of edit-warring, but it's gone too far and needs to stop.) Educated drug Hoover! 09:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'll back you, Hoover. 09:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- This whole thing is a tempest in a teapot. Have none of us something better to do? Oops, I guess busting on me is fun once in a while. Oh well, enjoy it while it lasts. ħuman 09:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Persecution complex much? We are complaining about your refusal to acknowledge the concerns of others, even with sizeable evidence of your abuse of administrative rights, and your general attitude that you can do what you want, the community be damned. Educated drug Hoover! 10:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- "We"? Omigod, I count four so far? Or is it five? Fafucksake, I have been trying to use "undo" more than "rollback" since the sizzlefest on my talk page. I also suspect I use the "Mark as patrolled" more than any of you do. Make some sense here, can you? ħuman 10:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- I wonder why people keep criticising you? Could it perhaps be because you keep doing the same fucking things over and over again and show no sign of listening to other people? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 10:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- "We"? Omigod, I count four so far? Or is it five? Fafucksake, I have been trying to use "undo" more than "rollback" since the sizzlefest on my talk page. I also suspect I use the "Mark as patrolled" more than any of you do. Make some sense here, can you? ħuman 10:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Persecution complex much? We are complaining about your refusal to acknowledge the concerns of others, even with sizeable evidence of your abuse of administrative rights, and your general attitude that you can do what you want, the community be damned. Educated drug Hoover! 10:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- This whole thing is a tempest in a teapot. Have none of us something better to do? Oops, I guess busting on me is fun once in a while. Oh well, enjoy it while it lasts. ħuman 09:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)