RationalWiki's 2019 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2019.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $3680Goal: $6000

User talk:Tmtoulouse

From RationalWiki
Revision as of 10:46, 29 March 2010 by Kels (talk | contribs) (WP:Mediation)

Jump to: navigation, search

Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, (new)


Could you look into this? It seems if there are too many http requests the site fails to load. Disabling gadgets helps, but is obviously not the right solution. I tried ping, and there's no packet loss problem this time (last time this happened it was a crappy net connection dropping packets) -- Nx / talk 11:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Is the problem still occurring? Any suggestions on how I can replicate it on my end? tmtoulouse 18:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, although now Recent changes works, I can't load your talk page, even with scripts disabled in the browser. -- Nx / talk 19:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
So far I am unable to replicate the problem on my end which makes testing solutions difficult. I will cycle some of the network hardware and see if that improves anything......can the problem be replicated on your end with RWW or RW Beta? tmtoulouse 19:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
No, both are fine. I think I know why your talk page doesn't work: there are a lot of images on it. It seems to hang after about 30+ requests . Usually it's around 37. When I disable scripts recent changes works because it goes below that number. RWW and RWbeta work because there's not much stuff there. -- Nx / talk 20:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I will try a few different internet connections I guess to see if I can replicate the problem. But if the problem is not happening to everyone I doubt it is hardware related. tmtoulouse 20:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I've occasionally seen the site drop dead, but I either attribute it to high server load or a dodgy internet connection at my end so I leave it alone for 5-10 minutes and it works fine. Do you want me to let you know if I see it happen again? Scarlet A.pngtheist 20:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it's some kind of internet connection problem, ssh is giving me trouble too, it simply hangs randomly, and RWW is broken too, although the problem is less severe there. -- Nx / talk 10:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Is the problem consistent? Or random? tmtoulouse 17:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it's fairly consistent, whenever I allow scripts in Noscript I can't load Recent changes, it stops after 37 requests (I'm using Firebug's net panel to track page loading). As for ssh, that's more random. -- Nx / talk 18:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
If it was a hardware connection issue it should either be happening to everyone, equally, or randomly, right? The problem only seems to be effecting a subset of users, and a subset of browsers even for those users. Are there no errors in the apache logs? I haven't checked. Did you change the number of mysql connections allowed before this happened? tmtoulouse 18:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I've tried three browsers (FF, Opera, Chromium), and they're all affected. I haven't changed anything in mysql yet, but I didn't find any problems there. -- Nx / talk 19:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I have tried 5 different browsers on 6 different machines with 4 different ISPs, I just can't replicate the problem, which means I can't really test it or solutions. Hopefully other people having this problem can provide some information to make the pattern easier to see and a solution found. tmtoulouse 18:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I just experienced a disruption of access to the Wiki; at first the browser (Firefox 3.5 on Fedora) was unable to connect to rationalwiki.com, and then it did connect but hung waiting for the server to respond. Accessing rationalwikiwiki.org was not a problem during this time. After I restarted the browser I was able to access the site again. The only gadget I have enabled is HotCat. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 19:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that was a server reboot and database crash recovery, probably unrelated. tmtoulouse 19:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I've been having problems. Nx seems to have fixed it for Firefix, but Konq. is still playing up for me. See Technical support. CS Miller 19:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I have probs w/ FF 3.5.5, but they usually sort out after a few minutes. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 19:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't fix anything. I tried a few things and I thought they worked, but it turns out they didn't. :( -- Nx / talk 19:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Does it hang for you, Nx, regardless of browser? ISP? Does it happen consistently enough that we could play the "how is it now?" game where I make some changes to the network and you see if it improves performance? This distribution of the pattern of problems though just seems to suggest that its not necessarily hardware. tmtoulouse 19:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Regardless of browser, yes, regardless of ISP I can't tell. It happens every time I try to load recent changes with scripts enabled in Firefox. Chrome is a bit more aggressive with caching, so sometimes it works even with scripts, but if I force reload it fails. -- Nx / talk 19:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I work for a multinational with it's head office in Munich. At work I'm supposed to use a Munich based proxy and, from there RW is unreachable or incredibly slow. However I also know of a proxy in the BBC data centres in Maidenhead UK and, when I switched to that proxy it works fine. From my home address, also in the UK using BTInternet, I'm also fine. Oh, and I use FF3.5.5 throughout. Bob Soles 19:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


Wait, I missed the "gadgets" thing all together, someone point me to a run down of this? tmtoulouse 19:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

According to Nx's original message, if you had too many gadgets running it created too many HTTP requests and disabled your connection. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 19:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
That, or a lot of images like Trent's talk page before he archived it. -- Nx / talk 19:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I've seen lots of sluggishness recently - although the loading usually succeeds, RW takes longer than other wikis (CP, Awk, BN, WS) to respond when I am having "the troubles". Recent firefox on XP pro, with hotcat enabled and JS edit buttons disabled. ħumanUser talk:Human 19:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


I don't know if you did something or if it just fixed itself, but the problem is gone. -- Nx / talk 08:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I have an idea of what was happening, but following Koch's postulates I will have to undo what I did to see if the problem reemerges to be sure...but I am tired. tmtoulouse 08:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Yup, works in Konq. for me now. Thanks to all and sundry who fixed it. CS Miller 20:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

High server load

You mentioned disabling something to fix the problem above. Is that related, or are we just getting a lot of visitors? -- Nx / talk 22:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Nothing I did should effect server load, we are getting a bit of a spike but nothing we havent seen before. Not sure. Will keep an eye out on it. tmtoulouse 23:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Does revision delete on a high-use page affect it much? ħumanUser talk:Human 00:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that should affect things much. It just flips a bit in the database. I edited Template:Nolicence, so the job queue is full, but that shouldn't cause that high a server load. -- Nx / talk 00:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Yay! Ceiling cat is back! :D

Hooray! I just saw that ceiling cat has returned to the log-in warning! :D Thanks to whoever brought him back! Refugeetalk page 23:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

[1] -- Nx / talk 23:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
ahha! So that's where it is.. I couldn't find out how it had happened. Thanks Nx! I love that cat. Refugeetalk page 23:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

merry xmas dude

All the staff at McWicked Co. wish you a merry christmas.


Thanks for unborking the site whilst working through an existential crisis. Corry (talk) 18:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. As always, appreciate your tinkering. --ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 19:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

We done broke it?

We do anything wrong, or is the SNAFU? δij^{i.broke.it.} 06:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Back up, takes about 20 to 30 minutes, you can access the wiki if you are lucky, it is better than losing weeks of edits on a server crash. - π 06:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandal break issue

It does appear, based on a spam attack this morning, that the vandal brake does not prevent image uploads, nor does it limit the number of image uploads per hour. Any way this could get fixed? Lord Goonie Hooray! I'm helping! 01:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Why do you keep burning my blogspot comments?

I'm just trying to help! Coarb (talk) 05:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Honestly? Cause I found an anonymous comment on the blog solely correcting a grammatical issue to be a bit on the insulting side, and I knew burning it would annoy whoever put it up. After that it was merely an act of trolling because you seemed to be taking it way to seriously. What can I say? I am passive aggressive asshole sometimes. tmtoulouse 05:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
So Trent has grammar/language issues. Big deal. So do many of our best contributors. The message was clear and the stats interesting. Big fucking deal. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It really hurts your feelings when someone points out you made a tiny error, the kind of error everyone makes from time to time? It hurts your feelings so much that you won't even fix the error? That's Schlaflyesque. -- Coarb (talk) 05:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

No, he's just bored of your whining. OMG HE SPELED A WERD RONG AND WONT FIKS IT NOW!!!! ħumanUser talk:Human 05:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Do you really live in a world where, when someone corrects some spelling in you writing, you call it whining? My first blog comment said something like "You mean 'dominant', not 'dominate'". If that's whining, what sentence is not whining? Trent, when your journal papers come back corrected, do you throw a hissy fit if any of the corrections are about presentation rather than content?
Yes, it's a small error. But certainly everyone agrees that it is better to be correct than incorrect. -- Coarb (talk) 05:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
(EC)Never said it hurt my feelings, I said the comment was insulting. Beyond that watching you crusade about is entertaining. Perspective is a useful cognitive quality. tmtoulouse 05:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
It wasn't insulting. Nobody else would have considered it so, only you. Seriously, ask 2 other people if a one line note on a blog post with a spelling correction would seem insulting to them. -- Coarb (talk) 05:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Look there is a time and a place to correct spelling and grammar issues. If I have written an article or edited on on the wiki, come in and fix it up if you see errors. I have several times requested copy editing help on papers and abstracts. Then there are times where its nit picky, like say in a talk page comment. Speaking of Schlaflyesque, random unwanted comments about grammar and spelling rings a vague bell. All in all its a silly issue, and we should all move on with our lives. tmtoulouse 05:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The time and place for correcting spelling and grammar errors is "in comments on written documents".
Schlafly says that your point is wrong because you made a spelling error. I said no such thing.
Yes it is a small mistake, but your anxiousness to be wrong for the sake of protecting your fragile ego does not reflect well on this site. -- Coarb (talk) 05:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I think you are spinning yourself up into near histrionics with this and fail to understand my actual view point on this, as well as seeming to have a drastic misunderstanding about my role on this site as a whole. Take a few steps back from this is my suggestion. tmtoulouse 05:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm done with the issue. You can be as insulted and as ungrammatical as you want with no more comment from me. Coarb (talk) 05:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Works for me. tmtoulouse 05:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Your name isn't blue and when I click on it, nothing happens. Please correct this immediately. (talk) 06:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I find your criticism of my signature to be insulting and plan to hide this revision forthwith. tmtoulouse 06:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Coarb and BON, quit criticizing our dear leader over trivial issues. You are lame. ħumanUser talk:Human 06:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Nobody but you would feign offense by my insightful comments. I have had enough of your foul signatures and will log back in no longer help you. (talk) 07:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I hope your happy your fowl insults have finally done. After I am done crying myself to sleep me, and my shattered ego, are taking the ball and going home. tmtoulouse 07:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I am am so sad, to be wrong. Or not. Lovely chickens are tasty! ħumanUser talk:Human 07:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Flattr funding?

While I'm not seriously suggesting this as an option, I was wondering what your thoughts are on micropayments. They claim that it could be popular for niche sites, and I think RW counts among the sort of thing that they're thinking of; a site that supplies content (as in, people come to read a few of the articles) but not as many that come, join up and donate via paypal. Anyway, just a thought, I can't imagine it ever covering costs exactly. Scarlet A.pngtheist 16:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Block yourself

I am sorry to say this but you are a disgrace to this magnificent and gracious website. I have discussed you and your behavior with the site administrators and other users, and we demand that you block yourself indefinitely. Thanks in advance, User talk:SHahB 02:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll block him for 5 minutes while he's gone doing more interesting stuff. Satisfied? Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 02:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Fixing rewrite rules

I backported the fix for this bug and added the B flag to the rewrite rule as suggested at mediawikiwiki:Manual:Short URL/Ampersand solution#Simple solution for Apache 2.2+ to fix ampersands and pluses in page titles. -- Nx / talk 11:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Honorable mention

You've probably seen this already, but you're mentioned in here. Tetronian you're clueless 19:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


Still interested in Citizendium? Sometimes during the last six month a bug disappeared which prevented me from gathering their data. But now, there are some pics:

Larry Sanger's prognosis for Citizendium
The reality is somewhere in between his merely double our article count every year and muddle on creating 14 articles a day. I'd say it is something like muddle on creating merely 17 articles a day.
Articles created per day
2010 looks strong. BTW, only articles are included, not their numerous sub-pages.
Edits to articles and talk-pages at Citizendium
Here, all pages (and sub-pages) of the main name-space are included. Most discussed and edited is the article cz:Homeopathy/draft, but the prominence of cz:Life/draft and cz:Chiropractic/draft shows the somewhat unhealthy occupation with fringe medical theories.
active editors
Citizendium has only few regular editors. But they are all experts - nothing like our mob or Conservapedia's flock of parodists - so that's o.K. :-)
editors in Feb 2010
Feb 2010 was dominated by the edits of a few users: as usual H. Berkowitz and D. Mietchen, but also the common editor M. Ireland.
editors in 2009
These three editors had dominated the year 2009, too.
edits vs. account creation in Feb 2010
Most active were those who are at Citizendium from the beginning, only few of those who found it in 2009 contributed last month.
edits vs. account creation in 2009
In 2009, there seem to have been three waves of account creations: in early March, late September and October. An interesting observation is that even newbies with few edits can quickly gain the status of wikieditor.

larronsicut fur in nocte 09:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you'd be interested....

in this. Šţěŗĭļė racket 03:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I think a lot of people might be. With your kind permission I might be inclined to copypasta the link to the drunkard's communal association. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Please, or I will. Šţěŗĭļė racket 14:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Ed: Ah, beat me to it. I'll get off Trent's talk now! Šţěŗĭļė racket 14:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

MediaWiki 1.16

MediaWiki 1.16 beta 1 came out a few days ago. I'm going to upgrade RationalBeta so I can port our extensions and customizations. In particular I think I'm going to change the Intercom to use the new preferences system for storing group memberships. -- Nx / talk 12:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

On a related note, I've replaced the retarded default search engine with something more useful (it can do searches like this - I hacked the default one to make that work, but the results were usually completely useless). Unfortunately it's not real-time indexed, so I've set up a cron job to update the index daily (in /etc/cron.daily, called lucene-update). Performance-wise it shouldn't have a significant impact, although it does eat up about 200 megs of memory (right now we're at 50-60%; do you have any long-time stats like the bandwidth stats?). And the searcher itself is most likely faster than the default one. The update takes about 2 minutes and doesn't lock the database while getting data, so it's not that bad. We can even move it to the botserver since it mostly runs idle and has more than enough memory and processing power to do this.
Lucene is installed in /home/rational/lucene. If you want to remove it, there's an initscript in /etc/init.d called lucene; first remove it using "sudo update-rc.d lucene remove", then delete it. Delete the cronjob, and remove the lines between "# Lucene search" and "# end Lucene search" from Localsettings. -- Nx / talk 19:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Block please

Please indef block the following:

PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 02:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

We don't do that. Just don't edit if you don't want to. Plus, who is Dmorris "impersonating"? ħumanUser talk:Human 02:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Impersonating ME and I don't appreciate it. This is getting old. It's a meta wiki issue, and I doubted that anyone here would do anything about it anyway. PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 02:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
It's fairly obvious that I am not actually you, you know. Dmorris (talk) 06:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Um, "Dmorris" does not make me think of "PCHS-NJROTC" in the least. There was no previous user here with a name even close to Dmorris. So go shut the fuck up and go fuck yourself. ħumanUser talk:Human 06:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
FYI: we do not block people around these parts. Plus, Tmtoulouse is probably busy elsewhere with more important things. The Spikey Punk I'm punking my punk! 06:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
"FYI: we do not block people around these parts." ROFLMAO! Didn't you choke just a little bit in posting that Goon? --TK/MyTalkRW User #45 07:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay, we do not permaban anyone around these parts. What are you incinuating there, TK? We do vandal bin, but that's not the same as permabanning. The Spikey Punk I'm punking my punk! 07:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you say so, Goon....perhaps if you keep saying that you will also convince others who haven't drank the Kool-Aid too. Otherwise your fellow sysops use blocks, continual ones, dozens of them, to achieve the same goal as a perma-block for anyone you don't "like" (who cannot unblock themselves as you do each other), so why keep up the charade? We've all been over this do zens of times, and I am not looking to start yet another HCM, it just made me spit coffee on my keyboard is all, so peace! --TK/MyTalkRW User #45 07:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

You moron. No one or nothing is blocked editing RW.
What part of editing once/half-hour forever versus editing never/hour for forever makes you think I drank some kool-aid. Hell, look at our block log and see for yourself that nobody is permabanned. Sure, we have vandals who can edit once/half-hour, but they can still edit. The Goonie 1 What's this button do? Uh oh.... 07:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The instant I saw "Dmorris" the very first thing that occurred to me was, "You know that looks a lot like "PCHS-NJROTC". Isn't it obvious?--BobIt's windy! 07:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)--BobIt's windy! 07:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


Would you, and User:Sid, be ammeniable reviewing Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Informal_mediation and conducting an informal mediation at this point on several issues. Take your time reviewing the process, but please let me know if your would be interested in pursuing this track. Thank you. RobSmithdon't bother me 23:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Gawd, Rob, why are you trolling yet another user here with your feeble antics? Also, let me warn you, dragging Trent into this is a really bad idea. The rest of us are but pawns to his Queen of wikilawyering. Do you seriously wish to engage one who can move in any direction as far as they like, simultaneously forking three of your best pieces? ħumanUser talk:Human 01:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Arbcom does not get involved in content disputes. nobsdon't bother me 16:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
PS, you idiot, that section doesn't even exist. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
human, fixed the link to you. Sorry. nobsdon't bother me 22:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Mediation about what? Define "several issues" since I have edited WP twice in the last so many months what mediation issues do you need resolved? tmtoulouse 05:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to review the content issues at wp:Conservapedia, which you've been involved with since you refered to it in WP as a "racist propaganda sewer." Rationalwiki editors have controlled that page since. Factual accuracy is now being disputed and discussed.
Then we have the matter of user conduct; while you and I have always had a good civil relationship, there have been problems with others in the past. RW is virtually nothing more than an attack site on Andy Schlafly, a living person. Discussions in any internet forum with most users associated with this site border on irrationality when the name Andy Schlafly is raised. Thers is no way you could remove by oversight all the hate-filled venom toward Andy posted here.
This RW/CP dispute is now creeping into WP, and neutral Admins are sick of it. It has all the making of a classic ArbCom case, where it ultimatley will go if Mediation fails. In my estimation, us three (SID, you and me) are bested suited to resolves the problems in WP's wp:Conservapedia article, without an army of sockpuppet trolls interfering.
Please, familiarize yourself with WP:DR, and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy. I am willing to work in good faith to resolve diputes. nobsdon't bother me 16:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I suggest we contact wp:WP:MEDCAB. A private discussion group could be formed with tmtlouslouse, Sid 3050, nobs and a WP volunteer from MEDCAB. I think this really is necessary. Thank you. nobsdon't bother me 17:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Shall I add "RW is attacking Andy" to the ever growing pile of your concerns? So far we got:
  • "RW is responsible for the comments that ticked Lenski off"
  • "RW is controlling the content of WP's Conservapedia article"
  • "RW is attempting to control the content of WP's RationalWiki article"
  • "RW members editing the RW article violate the COI rules"
  • "It's disputed whether PalMD founded RW"
  • "The factual accuracy of the LA Times article is in dispute"
  • "RW is to blame for the Hit List incident"
  • "Sid trolled the COI Noticeboard"
Before you drag more and more people into this, why don't you simply try to discuss some of these issues on the according Wikipedia talk pages? I explicitly invited you on the CP talk page since this seems to be what most of your concerns are focused on, and yet you just keep clinging to process instead of actually discussing. Dispute Resolution is more than just saying "I am engaging the user in Dispute Resolution", followed by ArbCom threats and accusations. I tried to bring up content on my talk page and the CP talk page, and you ignored my posts. That is your good faith attempt at DR? --Sid (talk) 16:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

(EC, reply to RobSmith) "Neutral admins are sick of it" because you keep demanding their attention, then evading their questions about what specifically is being disputed or what kind of resolution you are looking for. And again you're still discussing this at the wrong site. WP business should be discussed & settled at WP, not at RW. Admins here are sick of hearing about this too. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 16:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Give the poor man a break, Weasel. He's a CP admin, so he's got no experience in actually following rules or explaining any decision. Rules are for other, lesser people. --Kels (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

So at what point does this all constitute outright harassment on Rob's part? It's obviously got nothing to do with WP content, and entirely what he thinks is counterintelligence against RW for being mean to Andy and his blog. --Kels (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Weaseloid: Why is this here? Šţěŗĭļė racket 16:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

No, Rob. What is really necessary is not MEDCAB, ARBCOM, DR, MED, COIN, NPOVN or any other fancy acronym. What is necessary is that you ACTUALLY START DISCUSSING CONTENT. You spent pretty much your entire time here just rambling about process and making accusations. And on Wikipedia, you avoid discussing content by first making unreasonable demands (like reverting my edit to the RW article on COI grounds EVEN THOUGH THE COI NOTICEBOARD PEOPLE TOLD YOU YOU ARE WRONG) and then insisting that you are engaging me in DR. Make your case regarding content on the Wikipedia article talk page, and I will engage you there. What you are doing here is unproductive to say the very least. --Sid (talk) 17:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

We can discuss content in private mediation, without the trolling and harassment. nobsdon't bother me 22:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I won't engage CP sysops in behind closed doors. I tried that with Andy, Ed and TK way back and learned to regret it. I'm not saying that you will screw me over, but I'm simply not interested in taking any chances with CP sysops anymore. If you wish to discuss content with me, please do so on the respective article's talk page. If you don't wish to do that, I consider this case closed. My opinion on the LA Times accuracy (something you repeatedly mentioned, yet never felt like actually discussing) can be seen on my talk page. So far, you have not reacted to it. I offered to discuss content multiple times and never got a proper reaction. I have better things to do than to get dragged from Noticeboard to Mediation to ArbCom to whatever just because you're more interested in dissecting rules than simply discussing one issue at a time. This user talk page, my user talk page, the WIGO talk page and the Wikipedia talk pages and Noticeboards show that I repeatedly tried to discuss content with you and that you weren't interested in such discussions. You have kept me involved for roughly five days by now. Enough is enough. Start discussing content or stop pestering me. --Sid (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Rob, trust me, I don't need to review WP policy. I am very familiar with all of it, as I have studied it for years as a fascinating example of extreme bureaucracy creep. I also like to play wikilawyer games when I am bored. However, I am not bored right now, I am extremely busy with my research. I don't have the time to even maintain the most cursory watch on RW beyond keeping the server paid for and working. I certainly have even less time to play on WP. Upon reviewing the situation on WP the conflict fails to meet even the most basic standards for dispute resolution. There are many steps that need to be met before you start dropping stuff all over the watch boards. Meet me on wp:talk:Conservapedia if you are actually interested in doing something. Just be warned, my time is very limited and if I feel you are not actually trying to get something productive accomplished I am not going to stick around. tmtoulouse 17:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand that tmt, me too. My time is precious. But these problems go back to the founding of the CP entry in WP, and the founding of RW. It's not very difficult to convince Arbs & Mediators the problems between editors of the two wikis is disruptive to the WP project. This requires leadership. These problems can't be discussed in open forums with armies of trolls disrupting good faith editors who want to resolve problems in a spirit of civiliity. These trolls need to be reigned in.
You're asking me to engage at wp:Conservapedia right now. The question we're trying to resolve at the moment is who founded and/or owns RationalWiki? You and I are in agreement elsewhere, RW is non-notable and should be deleted. We may fail in that effort. If not, then by god, we are going to establish who founded and/or owns RationalWiki, why anyone connected with the site should be regarded as a WP:RS, and perhaps some properly sourced information on this sites own history and activity.
And given the history (I can provide ample diffs), this cannot be resolved in an open forum.
Let's open a backchannel mediation (such thing is common in WP and encouraged). We're not under any particular deadline to accomplish full agreements. If the process breaksdown, we'll move onto the next step. Alternatively, if I file an RfM, it gets assigned to a Mediator and rejected by you, then we can move on to Arbcom. You can do good now by accepting my good faith offers to resolve disputes and improve Wikipedia.
In Christ, nobsdon't bother me 22:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I do think that MEDCAB could be useful in this matter. It does stand for "medicine cabinet", right? ħumanUser talk:Human 23:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

(EC)So it would seem that Rob's goal here is to wipe RW from WP as much as possible in some sort of Ken-style "gotcha". So instead of a redirect, he's pretending there's already agreement on deletion, which would take the history out of easy view. And, of course, reverted back to his own false version in any case beforehand. TK would love the whole taking things off-wiki and through backdoor channels to avoid documentation on WP itself, very Soviet-style. You'd make the Kremlin proud, son. --Kels (talk) 23:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Kels, please stop mischaracterizing the dispute. wp:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/RationalWiki
  • Delete and/or redirect. nobs (talk) 14:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Redirect and/or delete. -Sid 3050 (talk) 15:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Conservapedia Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
A consensus of opinion. nobsdon't bother me 09:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, yes, and I can select 3 keep votes and call that a consensus too. In reality I count 6 delete, 7 keep and 8 redirect. Hardly a consensus. -- Nx / talk 09:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough, Rob. Maybe I got confused, since you were against it before you were for it. Aside from which, THIS IS A WP MATTER, TAKE IT TO WP AS PER THEIR OWN POLICIES --Kels (talk) 10:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I am more interested in Sid's opinion of the accuracy of the Los Angeles Times article, actually.....because you here have used the accuracy of it to brand me with a name I have never admitted to, and continue to this day basing calling me by that name upon your own statements that the article is accurate. So could Trent as the controlling party of this wiki, having the server custody, publicly state which is it? Is the L.A. Times article accurate or not? If not please remove all references associating my name, TK, with someone's actual name. --TK/MyTalkRW User #45 00:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Very tricky TK but try harder. Thave been numerous other bits of info that confirm your name. Acei9 00:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
My opinion of the LA Times accuracy has been on my user talk page for several days now. Long story short:
In my eyes, "Lipson and several other editors [...] started their own website" (1) doesn't say that Lipson is the founder and (2) states that he is a first-generation member. So it doesn't contradict PalMD's statement (or our history page) that he is not the founder. Thus, I think the LA Times isn't wrong, just that it could have been worded better.
I do acknowledge that it's possible to jump to conclusions or to extrapolate things (like the Register did), but such interpretations go beyond what the article actually says. Lipson is the only named first-generation member, so some people might assume this means he has the highest status. But that's not what the LA Times article says, and it's not what Lipson himself says.
That is why I consider the LA Times piece accurate, but not the Register piece. --Sid (talk) 00:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
It isn't a matter of accuracy but rather a matter of specificity. If George bought a domain and then he, John, Paul and Ringo all got together to work on it it would be fair to say that Ringo and some others started the website, or Paul and some others started the website; it would, however, be unsupported and inaccurate to then claim that Ringo founded the site. --Opcn (talk) 06:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)