Difference between revisions of "RationalWiki:Chicken coop"

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Continued edit warring)
(Continued edit warring)
Line 50: Line 50:
 
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.) {{User:Phantom Hoover/sig}} 09:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 
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.) {{User:Phantom Hoover/sig}} 09:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 
:I'll back you, Hoover. 09:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC) [[File:TerrySmall.png|alt=SusanG|text-bottom|20px|link=User:SusanG]] [[Image:Toast s.png|alt=Toast|text-bottom|20px|link=User talk:SusanG]]
 
:I'll back you, Hoover. 09:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC) [[File:TerrySmall.png|alt=SusanG|text-bottom|20px|link=User:SusanG]] [[Image:Toast s.png|alt=Toast|text-bottom|20px|link=User talk:SusanG]]
 +
::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. {{User:Human/sig|}} 09:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:48, 10 October 2010

Archives for this talk page: Archive list (new)

Another Ace McWicked fan club meeting.

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.) Time word 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? ħumanUser talk:Human 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. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 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. ħumanUser talk:Human 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. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 03:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure I have. Awaiting diffs with bated breath! Bring it on! ħumanUser talk:Human 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] Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 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:
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 Talk 04:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I also do not want to dispute the merits of the reverted edits in my diffs. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
And while we're at it, this one. 24.13.203.96 (talk) 04:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Wrong editor, BoN. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Damn, let's not allow evidence in my favor to prejudice the jury! You are pathetic. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Seems to me like this is more of a how-bad-is-it question than a did-he-do-it question. Just from looking at the provided links. But there should be some evidence on Human's behalf... Back to lurking... --Chthonios (talk) 04:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Lol. Compare what I improved and created over the last 24 hours to your incredibly important concerns. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

"whether they were good or not is not the point" really? ħumanUser talk:Human 04:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
(EC) Stop changing the subject. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Stop changing the object. ħumanUser talk:Human 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 Talk 04:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Human, this is not about your other edits, but about your overuse of rollback. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 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. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Phantom Hoover's charge, while emphasizing the reverts of new editors, did not exclude others. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 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 Talk 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 Talk 04:27, 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. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 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? ħumanUser talk:Human 07:36, 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.) Time word Hoover! 09:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll back you, Hoover. 09:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
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. ħumanUser talk:Human 09:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)