Talk:What is going on at RationalWiki?
From RationalWikiWiki
You know this isn't a bad idea given that WIGOCP spurns a lot of the Conservapedia namespace content. Give that this whole site is dedicated to RationalWiki, it should spawn most of the sites content. 219.90.133.165 23:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- And now at least we can use the polls to guage the importance of certain events so that we don't end up with another "The Great Block War" incident. This might turn into the new discussion area for new pages. MrFish 23:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Not to mention the Therian Incident and Night Mode Incident, both an almost zero event. 192.43.227.18 01:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hey, a WIGO at RW! alright! Refugee 04:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- I am imposing a temporary lift on the restriction on writing WIGOs about yourself, assuming they aren't self praising. This is to promote growth. --ConservapediaUndergroundResistor 21:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hey, a WIGO at RW! alright! Refugee 04:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Not to mention the Therian Incident and Night Mode Incident, both an almost zero event. 192.43.227.18 01:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] A plan
Right. This shouldn't be equivalent to WIGO CP, a collection of links to funny events. It should be primarily for people like me to catch up on what has happened when they are away; where the interesting discussions are etc. This would make it useful, and help it to attract people. Then we can focus on the rest of the site. 
16:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, and we should be able to WIGO ourselves, otherwise absolutely nothing will get done. --Arthropleura 20:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- CUR, you still don't get it, do you? This is not a site for bragging about yourself. weaseLICIOuS Bite Me 16:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- If there's one thing I've noticed on RationalWikiWiki, it's that no one will add important things unless someone else asks them to, or they were involved in it. --Arthropleura 21:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- Arthur has a point - even if it was 2 weeks ago. He added the Schlafly Doo story to the WIGORW page after he was mentioned in a story. And I've added my own name to the RWians without articles list. Immensely sad I know. SuperJoshFor no reason whatsoever 18:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- If there's one thing I've noticed on RationalWikiWiki, it's that no one will add important things unless someone else asks them to, or they were involved in it. --Arthropleura 21:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- CUR, you still don't get it, do you? This is not a site for bragging about yourself. weaseLICIOuS Bite Me 16:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Power abuse
What's the matter Nutty Roux? Scared to have people see the insane violation of user space that you have done? --Arthropleura 15:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- CUR, let me make you a deal. If you can not make any stupid jokes and make productive edits, I will personally resysop you on Sunday evening. 21:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'll take it- but the wiki won't. --Arthropleura 22:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- After Friday's fiasco? CUR set himself back a month with that one. humanbe in 04:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Arthur - what are you talking about? This is the first time I've logged into RWW in weeks. What did I do? If you want to keep fighting I'm game. That wasn't your userspace despite your RWW whitewash. Nutty Roux 04:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Never mind. By the way, I didn't whitewash my article. --Arthropleura 15:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Arthur - what are you talking about? This is the first time I've logged into RWW in weeks. What did I do? If you want to keep fighting I'm game. That wasn't your userspace despite your RWW whitewash. Nutty Roux 04:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- After Friday's fiasco? CUR set himself back a month with that one. humanbe in 04:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'll take it- but the wiki won't. --Arthropleura 22:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] human vx nx
who cares but it might be funny if written well
- By what title should we call this latest HCM, and where does it rank on the scale of HCM? MNpunkboy 06:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Pretty low. It didn't spiral out of control and was really just Human being, frankly, pretty childish. Armondikov 16:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- I would rank it HCM 4: insults have been flung at major editors, but the rest of the Wiki has not gotten involved. ᛟ ListenerXTalkerX 19:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- While I'd agree in general with Armond, the style shown by Nx's change to the entire site - and the hard core orders "not to edit this" when "input" was finally solicited - are really, really, different than how RW has operated for 2 1/2 years. But what do I know? humanbe in 03:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- We are not here to take a position on who was right in your dispute, merely to determine how the community reacted to it. ᛟ ListenerXTalkerX 04:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well RW isn't really the same place it was 2 1/2 years ago. It's grown, is still growing and can and must change and adapt to this - and this happy-clappy commune of mobocracy may be one of the things that needs to go. While unilateral action really isn't the best way to go about stuff, sometimes it's the only practical solution; as the guy said, he seemed to be the only person who cares about this sort of thing. Discussing things is all well and good but there are talk page comments and suggestions that have been ignored and never responded to. So you really shouldn't be too harsh when someone gives two fingers to due process and just goes with it, more often than not that's the only way that things can get done. Nx has got more of a response and better constructive by going ahead with it and then asking than he would by bringing it up on the template's talk page or the Saloon Bar and canvasing opinions first. Armondikov 10:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- It's not like those templates, etc. could not have waited a week or so more for a bit of discussion in the bar. RationalwikiwikiUndergroundResistor 16:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Rather autocratic! "If I think something's right (or wrong) then it is and I'll change it without asking." Beauregard Mousefeather 21:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- It's not like those templates, etc. could not have waited a week or so more for a bit of discussion in the bar. RationalwikiwikiUndergroundResistor 16:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well RW isn't really the same place it was 2 1/2 years ago. It's grown, is still growing and can and must change and adapt to this - and this happy-clappy commune of mobocracy may be one of the things that needs to go. While unilateral action really isn't the best way to go about stuff, sometimes it's the only practical solution; as the guy said, he seemed to be the only person who cares about this sort of thing. Discussing things is all well and good but there are talk page comments and suggestions that have been ignored and never responded to. So you really shouldn't be too harsh when someone gives two fingers to due process and just goes with it, more often than not that's the only way that things can get done. Nx has got more of a response and better constructive by going ahead with it and then asking than he would by bringing it up on the template's talk page or the Saloon Bar and canvasing opinions first. Armondikov 10:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- We are not here to take a position on who was right in your dispute, merely to determine how the community reacted to it. ᛟ ListenerXTalkerX 04:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- While I'd agree in general with Armond, the style shown by Nx's change to the entire site - and the hard core orders "not to edit this" when "input" was finally solicited - are really, really, different than how RW has operated for 2 1/2 years. But what do I know? humanbe in 03:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- I would rank it HCM 4: insults have been flung at major editors, but the rest of the Wiki has not gotten involved. ᛟ ListenerXTalkerX 19:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Pretty low. It didn't spiral out of control and was really just Human being, frankly, pretty childish. Armondikov 16:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
"Having left and never come back" is utterly incorrect if you look at what I edited my user page to say. I just took a break from editing as "human" to collect my thoughts and compose my apologies. humanbe in 03:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- I think it's fascinating when this type of conflict happens with normally sane, reasonable, intelligent type people, like Human and Nx. From some people, you just expect drama and upset, but when it comes from people that don't normally engage in it, it really makes you think, what would cause this level of passion and emotion to turn it into a full-blown "I'm leaving the site" type of reaction? I still haven't figured it out. Just wish it didn't happen, or failing that, the the persons involved can learn and grow from it and take away something that enriches them from it. It just can't be fun to feel so upset that one would want to leave a site that they've spent a lot of energy developing. But, what the heck do I know? Not much. lol. :p Refugee 00:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Would you and your half baked opinions every go away and fuck off. 134.226.1.234 10:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] MarcusCicero 'Vandalism'
Eh... Fuckwits?? Can't you see that Ace started the block war? I only deleted the last five pages for a laugh because the block war was getting out of hand. The vandalism was very clearly and obviously going to be reverted. And now I'm branded a vandal. I've made it very clear that I'm a troll. I'm not a vandal. Jesus H. Christ... 86.40.96.6 22:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Get fucked MC. You know that it was vandalism. Whether or not it gets reverted is irrelevant. MNpunkboy 23:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Are you a fucking idiot? Theres a clear difference since I knew straight away it would be reverted. And for some reason I'm also getting blamed for the block war, which as far as I was considered was just a harmless bit of fun. 86.40.96.6 23:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- And I know that my vandalism on CONservapedia will get reverted, and yet I don't bitch when they ban me. On the contrary, I expect it. In fact, the fact that I know I cannot change Conservapedia and will get permabanned is the reason I no longer troll or vandalize them. As far as the block war goes, that wasn't the problem, and we allowed you to retain your sysop powers right up until you started deleting everything. Then, we had to put a stop to it. It was harmless fun until you started trashing the wiki. Then it gave the community just what we needed to get rid of you. And for the record, it doesn't matter who started it, but we all know it was Ace. MNpunkboy 00:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Are you a fucking idiot? Theres a clear difference since I knew straight away it would be reverted. And for some reason I'm also getting blamed for the block war, which as far as I was considered was just a harmless bit of fun. 86.40.96.6 23:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Its not 'vandalism' if the vandalism wasn't malicious. I knew it would be reverted and it took 0.1% of effort. Stop being such a melodramatic dickhead. 86.40.96.6 11:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- MC's here to be a twat now? You guys can keep him. Crundy 19:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] The current HCM
Someone should really write about. I have done very little but RW seems intent on pulling itself apart with a free run for general illogicity. — Unsigned, by: 86.40.104.161 / talk / contribs
- It's a bit difficult to write up at the moment. If "you" 86.40.104.161 are MC then you have certainly played a large part by exploiting what seem to be weaknesses in the site. On the other hand, to a large extent RW has brought this on themselves by responding to you and allowing you to fracture the site. But the issue is now now open on so many fronts and pages that it's difficult to get good handle on it and it would probably be better written up in a couple of weeks when the consequences have become clear.
- If I may move from my usual position of commenting and make a more personal comment, I do not think that you should feel particularly proud of yourself.--False Flag 16:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Why? I live in a completely different world from them, I bask in the anonymity of the internet. While I don't feel proud, I genuinely feel no remorse. The problem with RW is that they leave themselves so open for trolling because hypocrisy is institutionalised on the site. RW really is fertile ground for some top quality truthful concern trolling. I come not to create, but to destroy.
- I used to troll various sites and enjoy laughing at the outraged responses. Many people have not thought through their ideologies and are amazed that others could have other ideas. I used to justify my actions based on the idea that I was "doing them a favor" but as I grew older I started to realize the childishness of this and that I was simply creating a self-justifying fantasy. I began to realize that my motivation was looking at the contention I caused and laughing at it rather than "helping" the site involved. Let us imagine that people have come together to admire Tolkien, one could post saying that some of his works were boring and watch the fireworks. But at the end of the day you're just reducing some people's pleasure or happiness to enhance your own. You may say it's their fault for being obsessed with some issue; but, at the end of the day, making some people sad so that you feel happy isn't the coolest thing to do.--False Flag 17:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Why? I live in a completely different world from them, I bask in the anonymity of the internet. While I don't feel proud, I genuinely feel no remorse. The problem with RW is that they leave themselves so open for trolling because hypocrisy is institutionalised on the site. RW really is fertile ground for some top quality truthful concern trolling. I come not to create, but to destroy.
- If I'm perfectly honest, I behave in this way because it gives me inspiration for the things I like to write. A couple of months ago I wrote a play based on RA and Theemperor (Which was acted in a college theatre) and a short story based around Human, Jeeves and Susan. Of course not in an internet setting, but their personalities were heavily borrowed from. This latest controversy may just give me the inspiration to write my first novel.
- In a completely abstract way I suppose that could be a justification. And on the internet we do tend to see people as abstractions or even objects to be manipulated. Simply words which appear on the computer screen. But they also exist as real people in the real world. I would like to think that you do not manipulate real people in the same way in the real world. Given that, why should people on the internet deserve less respect?--False Flag 18:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- People on the internet deserve less respect since they are projecting their personalities through words. In real life we see their insecurities in person, and this is where our concept of 'fair play' and 'good manners' come in. On the internet, we are free to say what we really think because we remove ourselves from the face to face context which determines our general good behaviour patterns.
- In real life people also mainly transmit their personalities through words, the main difference being that they are spoken rather than printed. You seem to be suggesting that because their words are printed rather than spoken means that they are due less respect. Is that what you believe? I get the impression that you feel that the lack of fact-to-face interaction makes a difference. But do you insult people you speak to on the telephone? I assume that you do not. Whatever the means of communication there is a real human individual involved somewhere.--False Flag 19:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oh please, less of the humanitarianism. I am an admitted troll. My purpose is to provoke emotion for my own amusement. In real life I live by a code of ethics like anyone else, but I enjoy taking the mick out of people on the internet who think they are building a shining city on a hill. I blame RW for being too easy to troll.
- I imagine you can have too much of anything; but too much humanitarianism? Possible, I suppose. But I am starting to doubt that we have much more to say to each other. You say that you enjoy provoking people for your amusement. That sounds like what I described as exchanging other peoples' pain for your pleasure. I used to to it myself so I understand where you are coming from. As it happens I agree that RW allows itself to be trolled too easily, but that is really a sign of the naivety. I'm afraid that when you say: I blame RW for being too easy to troll, you rather sound like you are blaming the victim. Like the pickpocket blaming his marks for not being more careful. At the end of the day you get pleasure from your actions, and you get this pleasure at the expense of others.
- You say that you live by a code of ethics, but I get the impression that you think this code of ethics should not apply to the net. I simply disagree.--False Flag 21:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Can I have a copy of the play? Theemperor 02:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- That could be informative.--False Flag 03:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed, as I am curious how MC managed to turn a couple of nebbish-y internet addicts into workable on-stage villains. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 06:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- That could be informative.--False Flag 03:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Can I have a copy of the play? Theemperor 02:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oh please, less of the humanitarianism. I am an admitted troll. My purpose is to provoke emotion for my own amusement. In real life I live by a code of ethics like anyone else, but I enjoy taking the mick out of people on the internet who think they are building a shining city on a hill. I blame RW for being too easy to troll.
- In real life people also mainly transmit their personalities through words, the main difference being that they are spoken rather than printed. You seem to be suggesting that because their words are printed rather than spoken means that they are due less respect. Is that what you believe? I get the impression that you feel that the lack of fact-to-face interaction makes a difference. But do you insult people you speak to on the telephone? I assume that you do not. Whatever the means of communication there is a real human individual involved somewhere.--False Flag 19:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- As much as I'd love to, the play is unpublished in the traditional sense and was merely used as an independent play which my university kindly sponsered. Also, you'd have a good chance of identifying the RL me, and that just wouldn't do. I can promise you that no slander was involved, but do you remember the jibe I used to pull on the pair of you? The pencil pushing civil service types? Basically the jist is that one of you is in middle management and the other is in lower management. The play covers a series of conversations with the pair of you (Working in the same office) Revealing your insecurities as well as the reasons why you feel the need to advance in a world no one cares about (I presume the American civil service is similar to the Irish civil service in this respect)
[edit] Has rationalwiki lost its sense of self?
Ardmonikov leaves, citing the immature nonsense which is in vogue in RW. She raises and interesting thought; why has RW deviated so much from what it promises to be? Why are the most popular discussions about spaghetti and about getting rid of people they don't like? And whats even worse is the steady insistence in deleting edits and hiding them from public view - what the fuck happened their transparancy? Its lost its focus, it has no core principles any more, and is slowly dying. Soon all thats left will be humourless dullards like Goonie, TOP, Tetronian, Weasleoid, Pie and Crundy. Good God, I'm so very proud of my work.
- So, MC, know any good spaghetti recipes? MNpunkboy 04:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
[MC]
- Why did I suggest the committee in the first place? It was a joke, I tell you. Why couldn't they recognise a short sarcastic comment for what it was? Though they have renamed it 'Shadow Government' rather than 'Miniluv'. Broccoli 15:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not dull, I know loads of stuff about model railways, stamp collections, and plane spotting. Crundy 18:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Fuck
Scrolled down the WIGO:RW page and all I see is MC, MC, MC. I shit you not. Hear my words. Mark them. I'll block and revert him everytime he sullies RW. My jack-boots fit well, thank you. Ace McWicked 10:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- Your RW is a sham of a website and requires my objectivity to rip it apart. You cannot fix something if you insist on ignoring whats wrong with it.
- Got stuffed in a trash can again, MC? Colonel of Squirrels 17:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- Here, you can borrow my Luftwaffe uniform so it's even easier for MC to shout "OMG FACISTS". Theemperor 19:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- Got stuffed in a trash can again, MC? Colonel of Squirrels 17:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
[edit] susan...
...what the hell happened? RationalwikiwikiUndergroundResistor 00:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- That's a hell of a question. I think had something to do with Human bashing her science blog stuff. Not really sure, though. Check her last few contribs. MNpunkboy
- What, yet another loser on RW does a 'leaving and never coming back' stunt? Why do you people even remark on this shit as anyway interesting? — Unsigned, by: 86.45.217.225 / talk / contribs
- This is what it looks like when people have friends. User:Mei 03:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- Friends on the internet does not actually = a friend. My god you people are boring losers. With very basic social awareness.
- This is what it looks like when people have friends. User:Mei 03:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- I've always wondered why you cretins befriend each other on the internet. Is it because you've never been able to make friends in real life? — Unsigned, by: 86.45.217.225 / talk / contribs
- If
- I like X
- X likes me
- then we're friends. You see, the internet isn't imaginary; it's a network people in the real world use to talk to each other. I know it's difficult to get your head around, but it's true. User:Mei 11:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- If
- I've always wondered why you cretins befriend each other on the internet. Is it because you've never been able to make friends in real life? — Unsigned, by: 86.45.217.225 / talk / contribs
- Well its a philosophical difference then. I prefer to go outside in the nice clean air and talk to my friends face to face. The concept of an online friend is as ludicrous as it is laughable. I know some people find it hard to make friends face to face and thus the internet can help them. But they should expect to be mocked for it as a result. — Unsigned, by: 86.40.203.29 / talk / contribs
- I'm going to respond to your post in bits because you apparently turned into a different person halfway through.
- 'Well its a philosophical difference then.' - I suppose you're right. Hey, the funniest thing just happened -> you wrote something and my respect for you grew a little when I read it. I was expecting you to reply with some sneering and not actually explain anything, but you actually surprised me. This is a nice change: we should do this more often.
- 'I prefer to go outside in the nice clean air and talk to my friends face to face.' - It is demonstrably less healthy to do that where I live. The air is not so clean.
- 'The concept of an online friend is as ludicrous as it is laughable.' - Oh here we go.
- 'I know some people find it hard to make friends face to face and thus the internet can help them. But they should expect to be mocked for it as a result.' - Not everything that provokes mockery is deserving of it. Can you put Marcus back on the line please? User:Mei 15:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- I'm going to respond to your post in bits because you apparently turned into a different person halfway through.
- How come you're tolerating my posts now? You were a fascist no time ago. — Unsigned, by: 86.40.203.29 / talk / contribs
- I am compelled by the mysterious power of friendship. User:Mei 18:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
[edit] The 100th wigo is a damned good one
Even though NX doesn't think so. --Earthland 17:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- No, I think you are boring. -- Nx / talk 17:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'm "boring"! How creative! What a closer! I don't think I'll ever be able to recover from such a devastating insult. --Earthland 20:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Blocking sprees
It's not so much that I think they're funny, it's more quasi-OCD. 21:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
[edit] what is going on at RW?
What makes a good Wigo-RW entry? There are several things going on, but which ones are note-worthy? I avoided talking about the whole waron crisis of last week, didn't think it appropriate, but what is? I want to add something, but what? Refugee 00:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmmmmm, good question. And now you know why I don't do WIGOs. Anyways, I think a good WIGO is anything that you want it to be, so long as it isn't the same shit, different day type stuff. I was highly surprised, for example, that nobody WIGO'd Tweety's deletion spree. But, basically, just anything that is odd or abnormal or, and especially, historically significant to RationalWiki's history. I know this probably didn't help much, but I also suck when it comes to WIGO stuff, so I'm sorry. MNpunkboy 03:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- I do a few WIGOs and I agree with the Minnesotan. Anything out of the ordinary or historically significant. As the page says, if in doubt, add it anyway. Rrose Selavy 10:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'd say you can't go wrong with adding as many as you want. Keeps the page interesting. Like "human instigates low-level HCM by unilaterally [fill in the blank]". humanbe in 02:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- That reminds me of that old TV show that had that song in the opening... "where everybody knows your name..." ..oh, now I remember it was called "Cheers", about a bunch of friends that meet in a bar, and you remind me of the guy that everybody cheered and yelled out his name when he came in the door - "Human!!!" :D Refugee 03:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks for all the feedback, wrote a WIGO! :D Refugee 03:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- That reminds me of that old TV show that had that song in the opening... "where everybody knows your name..." ..oh, now I remember it was called "Cheers", about a bunch of friends that meet in a bar, and you remind me of the guy that everybody cheered and yelled out his name when he came in the door - "Human!!!" :D Refugee 03:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'd say you can't go wrong with adding as many as you want. Keeps the page interesting. Like "human instigates low-level HCM by unilaterally [fill in the blank]". humanbe in 02:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- I do a few WIGOs and I agree with the Minnesotan. Anything out of the ordinary or historically significant. As the page says, if in doubt, add it anyway. Rrose Selavy 10:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Unblockable
Hmm, this looks set to create an HCM. It's already brewing. Crundy 12:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- Typical. Now my mother will never buy me a new pony and some Barbies for my birthday! Hmph! 86.40.207.125 14:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- Marcus, you are so predictable. Guess what a sysop can also do? That's right, unblock themselves. 89.132.239.149 14:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- I have no capacity for introspection or criticism, and have no conception of the necessity to prevent authoritarian precedents, which owning a pony undoubtedly is. It is objectionable that a sysop can make themselves 'unblockable'. And you are now defending the actions of a tyrant. 86.40.207.125 14:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- 1. A sysop can unblock themselves. Shocking and authoritarian, I know. 2. blocks at RW are generally joke blocks, which can be annoying and can lead to data loss. This new power prevents that. It doesn't somehow give sysops vast new powers. If a sysop is abusing their powers, a bureaucrat is required to stop them regardless of the "unblockable" right. 3. I have a capacity for introspection and criticism. But why should I listen to "criticism" from a troll? 89.132.239.149 15:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- I have no capacity for introspection or criticism, and have no conception of the necessity to prevent authoritarian precedents, which owning a pony undoubtedly is. It is objectionable that a sysop can make themselves 'unblockable'. And you are now defending the actions of a tyrant. 86.40.207.125 14:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- Marcus, you are so predictable. Guess what a sysop can also do? That's right, unblock themselves. 89.132.239.149 14:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- You have no capacity for introspection or criticism as you are more content to play up to the propaganda and hideous oligarchy of RW rather than come up with an independant opinion, free of bias and your insufferable need to suck the cocks of the RW leadership elite. And they only call me a troll because I'm right. 86.40.207.125 15:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- That's all cute, but unfortunately completely wrong. 89.132.239.149 15:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- Its easy to say something is wrong, much more difficult to prove it. 86.40.207.125 15:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- It's easy to say something is right, much more difficult to prove it. 89.132.239.149 15:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- Its easy to say something is wrong, much more difficult to prove it. 86.40.207.125 15:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- That's all cute, but unfortunately completely wrong. 89.132.239.149 15:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- I've proven it, you've hidden behind petty sophistries. 86.40.207.125 16:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- You are fascist scum and I'm never going to allow you to turn RW into a parody of Wikipedia meet up geeks on a beach holiday. When you combine humourless fuckwits with a complex and hard on for creating regulations and templates and such stuff, and then throw in a load of miserable memes and geeky senses of humour, the end result was always going to be terrible. 86.40.207.125 20:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
