User talk:Nutty Roux
From RationalWikiWiki
| Welcome to RationalWikiWiki, Nutty Roux!!! Please see our policy on editing your own article, and why not tell us how you found the site. Any questions? Please see RationalWikiWiki Help. |
[edit] Sysop powers
You can haz 'em now, bitch! Punky McPunkersen 02:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
[edit] No subject
It's Goonie via his sock. I respect you too much to fight you here, so what is it you want exactly from RWW? RussianalWiki 01:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Proof
You now can have proof there are aspies here. Aspie 02:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- You could have just left a link to recent changes. But thanks. Nutty Roux 16:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Nothing weird happened.....
It's just that, after you change a photo like that, you need to clear your 'puter's cache. Otherwise, it sticks with the old version. Punky McPunkersen 00:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Oh nice. Thanks. Nutty Roux 00:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Looks like it lost your version, though. So you'll have to re-upload it. God, I'm starting to sound like Nx. I should be ashamed of myself. Punky McPunkersen 00:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Oh I got it. Nutty Roux 00:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Can I still be ashamed of myself? Punky McPunkersen 00:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- As long as it's not because you know that's a better picture of Jack Wrangler than some old man. Nutty Roux 00:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Can I still be ashamed of myself? Punky McPunkersen 00:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Oh I got it. Nutty Roux 00:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Looks like it lost your version, though. So you'll have to re-upload it. God, I'm starting to sound like Nx. I should be ashamed of myself. Punky McPunkersen 00:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Yeah seriously
I didn't do anything wrong, why was my post removed? I just wonder if we weren't too quick to assume bad faith. 46.23.65.114 04:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- I think Nutty was correct here in that you post was just a little too creepy. Given that the Ex-Troll Cheerleader is, allegedly, underage, and given that she has not come out and stated on the record that "My real name is Jane Doe," I prefer we not go down the route of using something like facebook to figure out real identities. After all, there are plenty of RationalWikians whose real names I know but that I don't give out because they, themselves, haven't revealed their identities. Punky McPunkersen 05:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, but ex-troll did reveal this as her identity. It's just we said basically no, that is not your identity liar and she basically went along with it. The real issue at hand isn't whether it is or it isn't (I don't know for sure), but whether we were wrong in assuming she was being dishonest just because she used mailinator and bugmenot. 46.23.65.114 05:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Ah. Well, in that case, my ruling is as follows: because we don't know exactly at what point her account was given away and taken over, I'd rather err on the side of caution and privacy and assume that they might as well have said their identity was Angelina Jolie or Brittney Spears. Unless their new creation (Alyssa Bryant, if I'm correct) outs themselves in the affirmative as said identity, I'd rather we assume that the facebook in question is not really them. Punky McPunkersen 05:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- There was no reason to assume good or bad faith. My decision related only to protecting an alleged minor. Given that the Cheerleader Troll represents herself as a high school student, and thus a minor, it's highly inappropriate to permit her alleged real name on this wiki unless we have absolute confirmation that it's her outing herself rather than some BoN or someone running an account under a different name. Even Allysa Bryant wouldn't be the appropriate person to out the alleged real name of the Cheerleader Troll account because we don't know if they're run by the same person. Nutty Roux 14:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Ah. Well, in that case, my ruling is as follows: because we don't know exactly at what point her account was given away and taken over, I'd rather err on the side of caution and privacy and assume that they might as well have said their identity was Angelina Jolie or Brittney Spears. Unless their new creation (Alyssa Bryant, if I'm correct) outs themselves in the affirmative as said identity, I'd rather we assume that the facebook in question is not really them. Punky McPunkersen 05:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, but ex-troll did reveal this as her identity. It's just we said basically no, that is not your identity liar and she basically went along with it. The real issue at hand isn't whether it is or it isn't (I don't know for sure), but whether we were wrong in assuming she was being dishonest just because she used mailinator and bugmenot. 46.23.65.114 05:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Hey baby
You still lookin for love? Liveware Problem 05:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
- Yep. Nutty Roux 15:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Its depressing how much Foster has changed
The man has become an out and out bully at this stage. Time was he was rational but now he seems determined to forget about our past friendship. You do know how he betrayed me, really stuck the knife in when I most needed his help? A truly vile individual and worthy only of contempt. Now it appears he has taken to harrasing me. I reverted some out and out vandalism on his part, but unfortunately the treachorous swine (Who also promised to 'leave and never come back' but unfortunately is not a man of his word) reverted that. Could you please undo his vandalism? He has also protected the page, obviously masturbating over his complete embrace of authoritarianism and fascism.
The man is evil and needs to be stopped. He is evil. he is evil. he is evil. 86.41.226.231 19:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- He just has an itchy trigger finger from picking all the sand out of his vagina. Nutty Roux 19:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- He does have a sandy vagina, I'll grant you that. I'm going to call for a motion of no confidence in the man. While it is welcome to have a shining light of liberty amongst the powerful in this place (IE, you), I see no reason why an inveterate hardline supporter of the new regime is allowed such unsullied power to repress and silence those he disagrees with, in this place, where liberty reigns in such a righteous glow. After all, the man is utterly without imagination, he cares only for power and its pursuit; he needs to be stopped at all costs. All it takes for evil to suceed is for good men to do nothing. 86.41.226.231 20:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Well, good luck. There's no legitimate power structure here except Goonie. When he's not around to set things right the vacuum is filled by whoever's the biggest cunt most willing to endlessly edit, block, and rights war. Even if you can get enough traction to put Foster's crimes up for vote you'll find this place so filled with contrarians that it doesn't matter what's true: if they don't like you and you want it, you can't have it. And that's a matter of principle. Nutty Roux 20:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- I will appeal to Goonies better nature. All I want is the ability to speak my mind without that bully pushing around and hunting me like he has ever since he betrayed me so he could become a crony of the new oligarchy. He is a vile, evil man, and must be stopped. Goonie is reasonable and will see that. 86.46.171.165 20:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Well, good luck. There's no legitimate power structure here except Goonie. When he's not around to set things right the vacuum is filled by whoever's the biggest cunt most willing to endlessly edit, block, and rights war. Even if you can get enough traction to put Foster's crimes up for vote you'll find this place so filled with contrarians that it doesn't matter what's true: if they don't like you and you want it, you can't have it. And that's a matter of principle. Nutty Roux 20:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- He does have a sandy vagina, I'll grant you that. I'm going to call for a motion of no confidence in the man. While it is welcome to have a shining light of liberty amongst the powerful in this place (IE, you), I see no reason why an inveterate hardline supporter of the new regime is allowed such unsullied power to repress and silence those he disagrees with, in this place, where liberty reigns in such a righteous glow. After all, the man is utterly without imagination, he cares only for power and its pursuit; he needs to be stopped at all costs. All it takes for evil to suceed is for good men to do nothing. 86.41.226.231 20:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
[edit] uh-oh
looks like somebody is upset people don't like him--68.230.64.189 15:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- Brx, I was elected to mod with the most #1 votes or something like that. I'm not worried about what you or UHM want to complain about. I don't think it's fair that a personal beef held by 3 people get put on a ballot. I think you understand that. Nutty Roux 15:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- Don't like it, don't vote for it--68.230.64.189 15:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'd add a section called "Lowest Form of Humanity and Most Diarrhea Garglingest Cunt" with you as the only nominee so far but I'm not one for making irrelevant points like some editors. God you debate so poorly. Did you drop out of school because you were made fun of by your teachers? Nutty Roux 16:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- Riiight. I show you up and all you can say is that I debate poorly. I'm not buying your deflections.--68.230.64.189 16:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- If that's a deflection you're truly the greatest debater I've ever encountered - nobody else wins so handily without actually making any sound argument or even attempting to cite facts without lying. In other words, "deflection" doesn't mean what you think it means. Get fucked. Nutty Roux 17:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- Riiight. I show you up and all you can say is that I debate poorly. I'm not buying your deflections.--68.230.64.189 16:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'd add a section called "Lowest Form of Humanity and Most Diarrhea Garglingest Cunt" with you as the only nominee so far but I'm not one for making irrelevant points like some editors. God you debate so poorly. Did you drop out of school because you were made fun of by your teachers? Nutty Roux 16:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- Don't like it, don't vote for it--68.230.64.189 15:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
[edit] The thing about RWW
Is that the RWF had tentatively agreed to consider selling RWW to me after Trent and I could work out the details. That has not happened because every time I've tried to get ahold of Trent to discuss it, I've fallen on deaf ears. That RWW is still on the RWF's dime is not the fault of anyone here. I've been trying and trying for over a damn year now to take this place off RWF's hands. Gabe, aka RussianalWiki 02:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Ok. Nutty Roux 03:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
[edit] I threatened the site?
Whence came such a lie? Liveware Problem 17:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- "I truly hope to never have to interact with you again, but I know eventually we'll have a confrontation. Do you want that confrontation to lead to another May 2011? RationalWiki might just not survive another conflagration of that magnitude." Simmer down with the lying business. It's an entirely reasonable conclusion to draw, though I admit what you wrote is subject to multiple interpretations. I initially view it as I stated, but recognize the possibility that it was something else. What else it could be, I don't really know. You're the only one of you two who expressed any interest in conflict. Nutty Roux 18:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, come now; I think we all know that Blue, or any other editor, could not make an HCM on the May 2011 scale all by herself.
ListenerXTalkerX 19:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- (EC)I was expressing the exact opposite of an "interest in conflict." I was saying that if Human continued to act the way he did as a bureaucrat, he would be in danger of provoking a sitewide HCM not unlike the one that happened last time we clashed. It would not be a conflict of my creation. The interpretation that I was "threatening" anything rests on premises that are, quite frankly, delusional - namely that I somehow caused, maintained and profited from the May debacle. In fact I even stated that my intention in writing the emails was to avoid on-site HCM, however misguided I ended up being. So, unless you've completely forgotten what happened in May, there is no reasonable way to interpret my statement as a threat of any kind. Liveware Problem 19:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- You and Human have blamed each other for starting May 2011, each attempting to justify your own actions by citing the actions of the other. ListenerXTalkerX 19:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- I might have helped to kick off the HCM but blaming only me for it either in toto or for "starting" it is inaccurate in the extreme. SuspectedReplicant started the Trial of Human. Nx and Armondikov instigated the Saloon Bar Putsch. Trent instated the moderators. Liveware Problem 20:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- I am starting to think Blue is one of the biggest drama queens on RW. Ever since May 2011 she has become more and more shrill, more and more uptight and extremely strident in tone. Jeez Blue, RW is website - not the fucking UN. Ace McWicked 20:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hey buddy. Liveware Problem 20:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Calling it like I see it. Ace McWicked 20:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Look Blue, I read the essay you deleted in which you tried defending cooping Huw. Your analysis was weak and that's putting it nicely. I avoided responding because I truly do wish to avoid reopening old wounds, but I did go through the logs with an eye toward discerning any precedent regarding cratting/decratting. Neither of you was necessarily more correct than the other and you certainly weren't wearing the white hat you now pretend to when you immediately brought the situation to the coop with an "I don't even." Emulating BobM? Post hoc nonsense. Your overreaction was unprecedented and whether you admit it or not, proximately caused all this nonsense. You need to knock off this tall tale you keep repeating about Huw being responsible for all this but I'm sure you'll only become more strident and shrill. As for your rosy framing effort, I'd say exactly the same thing to you: if you act like a drama queen overreacting to something that was hardly such a great affront to your dignity that it justified 8 months of war, you're in danger of sparking another May 2011! See how that works? Anyone can assume bad faith and make up stories. If you think Huw or anyone else wants more of this divisive hostility, you've completely forgotten what happened in May. I never blamed you entirely for May 2011. The only thing I blamed you for was being an attention starved child, just as you're being now. Armondikov and Nx's outrageous conduct really was calculated to upend things as much as possible. But you couldn't have known cooping Huw over something that was quickly remedied would lead us here. As I said in another post, the context of your statement lends itself to the conclusion I proposed. Deny it all you like. It may lend itself to others I'm not seeing because I find your claim that you were expressing the opposite of an interest in conflict to be highly disingenuous. Were that true, you wouldn't have found any need to insultingly hector Huw when he never expressed any interest in making trouble with you. You wouldn't have emailed him at all. Saying there will invariably be a confrontation between you two speaks to your own intentions, not anything you could possibly know about his, so get off this ridiculous high horse about your pure motives. You were bullying him pure and simple, which you've been doing for months, from immediately accusing him of bad faith when he mistakenly voted for something with 2 accounts to that revolting business over his response to Susan's death. The mere fact that you continued gloatingly carrying on with all this back-patting bullshit with your cheer squad after overreacting by oversighting and pagelocking puts the lie to your claim that you have the least interest in avoiding confrontation. Nutty Roux 21:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- I will admit that my second email was an error in judgment on my part, and probably the first as well, because I could really anticipate what his response would have been.
- "that revolting business over his response to Susan's death." Incorrect. I never took part in that discussion.
- "overreacting by oversighting and pagelocking" Yeah, I called myself scoliotic, gender dysphoric and mildly autistic, all of which, while true, weren't aspects of myself I'd planned to release to the internet. That was the source of my overreaction. I'm not saying I was in the right by oversighting and locking the page. Just humanizing myself for you for a second. Liveware Problem 03:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Look Blue, I read the essay you deleted in which you tried defending cooping Huw. Your analysis was weak and that's putting it nicely. I avoided responding because I truly do wish to avoid reopening old wounds, but I did go through the logs with an eye toward discerning any precedent regarding cratting/decratting. Neither of you was necessarily more correct than the other and you certainly weren't wearing the white hat you now pretend to when you immediately brought the situation to the coop with an "I don't even." Emulating BobM? Post hoc nonsense. Your overreaction was unprecedented and whether you admit it or not, proximately caused all this nonsense. You need to knock off this tall tale you keep repeating about Huw being responsible for all this but I'm sure you'll only become more strident and shrill. As for your rosy framing effort, I'd say exactly the same thing to you: if you act like a drama queen overreacting to something that was hardly such a great affront to your dignity that it justified 8 months of war, you're in danger of sparking another May 2011! See how that works? Anyone can assume bad faith and make up stories. If you think Huw or anyone else wants more of this divisive hostility, you've completely forgotten what happened in May. I never blamed you entirely for May 2011. The only thing I blamed you for was being an attention starved child, just as you're being now. Armondikov and Nx's outrageous conduct really was calculated to upend things as much as possible. But you couldn't have known cooping Huw over something that was quickly remedied would lead us here. As I said in another post, the context of your statement lends itself to the conclusion I proposed. Deny it all you like. It may lend itself to others I'm not seeing because I find your claim that you were expressing the opposite of an interest in conflict to be highly disingenuous. Were that true, you wouldn't have found any need to insultingly hector Huw when he never expressed any interest in making trouble with you. You wouldn't have emailed him at all. Saying there will invariably be a confrontation between you two speaks to your own intentions, not anything you could possibly know about his, so get off this ridiculous high horse about your pure motives. You were bullying him pure and simple, which you've been doing for months, from immediately accusing him of bad faith when he mistakenly voted for something with 2 accounts to that revolting business over his response to Susan's death. The mere fact that you continued gloatingly carrying on with all this back-patting bullshit with your cheer squad after overreacting by oversighting and pagelocking puts the lie to your claim that you have the least interest in avoiding confrontation. Nutty Roux 21:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Calling it like I see it. Ace McWicked 20:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hey buddy. Liveware Problem 20:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- I am starting to think Blue is one of the biggest drama queens on RW. Ever since May 2011 she has become more and more shrill, more and more uptight and extremely strident in tone. Jeez Blue, RW is website - not the fucking UN. Ace McWicked 20:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- I might have helped to kick off the HCM but blaming only me for it either in toto or for "starting" it is inaccurate in the extreme. SuspectedReplicant started the Trial of Human. Nx and Armondikov instigated the Saloon Bar Putsch. Trent instated the moderators. Liveware Problem 20:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- You and Human have blamed each other for starting May 2011, each attempting to justify your own actions by citing the actions of the other.
- Oh, come now; I think we all know that Blue, or any other editor, could not make an HCM on the May 2011 scale all by herself.
[edit] Here's something to chew on
Long-time regular users/core community members/senior admins/whatever conducting a prolonged wall-of-text bitchfest about stuff that happened as long ago as it takes to create a new human life is not very productive and serves only to reproduce bad energy all around. The RW community is basically vibrant, and the election of a new crop of mods should be an opportunity to look forward to making the place better, not to dredging up old shit. So unless you have something to say about the future/making RW work better, why not drop this whole thing, start with a tabula rasa (that's Latin; look it up) and put the energy spent on this nonsense on maybe making some fucking mainspace edits on RW. Or something. RationalwikiwikiUndergroundResistor 03:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Lets stuff loads of fruit down our trousers and be pirates. Then we can take all our clothes off and wriggle around in the sandpit pretending to be snakes. Ace McWicked 03:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- I am practically fucking mentally drained by all of this so really I'd like nothing more than to do either or both of what RWWUR and Ace suggest. Liveware Problem 03:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't have much time to spend editing these days. I've been very busy with work. I'll contribute by continuing to do the RWF's books, taxes, taking care of corporate filings, etc. Thanks for your concern. Nutty Roux 04:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- I am practically fucking mentally drained... As Secret Squirrel said to me back when I was a newbie and overreacted to an inaccurate statement in an article, "Take a chill pill. You are taking this place way too seriously." ListenerXTalkerX 05:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- See my statement in the section above: Jeez Blue, RW is website - not the fucking UN. Ace McWicked 05:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- I am practically fucking mentally drained... As Secret Squirrel said to me back when I was a newbie and overreacted to an inaccurate statement in an article, "Take a chill pill. You are taking this place way too seriously."
- I don't have much time to spend editing these days. I've been very busy with work. I'll contribute by continuing to do the RWF's books, taxes, taking care of corporate filings, etc. Thanks for your concern. Nutty Roux 04:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- I am practically fucking mentally drained by all of this so really I'd like nothing more than to do either or both of what RWWUR and Ace suggest. Liveware Problem 03:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Accidentally revealed he is the SusanG vandal and perhaps the most disgusting excuse for a person I have ever encountered in 37 years.
Where? -- Nx / talk 17:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- On the talk page for one of the IP's within the range he used to vandalize when he forgot to turn TOR off to respond to Goonie. Nutty Roux 17:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oh please. That was somebody impersonating me. Forgot to turn off Tor? I don't forget to turn off Tor. Tor is so fucking slow whenever I'm using it I'm constantly aware. I'd hardly be shocked if this lame detective work of yours is really founded on the fact that you left that message. I was not the vandal, and I wouldn't shit on the dead (except maybe Ronald Reagan).--Brxbrx 17:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- You mean this IP range, Nutty? 77.247.181.163 18:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- That was me btw. And if the vandalism you're referring to is this, where's that response to goonie you are talking about? -- Nx / talk 18:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- RA posted links at the top of the 77.xx page. Nutty Roux 18:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- That was me btw. And if the vandalism you're referring to is this, where's that response to goonie you are talking about? -- Nx / talk 18:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- You mean this IP range, Nutty? 77.247.181.163 18:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oh please. That was somebody impersonating me. Forgot to turn off Tor? I don't forget to turn off Tor. Tor is so fucking slow whenever I'm using it I'm constantly aware. I'd hardly be shocked if this lame detective work of yours is really founded on the fact that you left that message. I was not the vandal, and I wouldn't shit on the dead (except maybe Ronald Reagan).--Brxbrx 17:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- {edit conflict- geez, Nx, way to miss the point} Yeah, and that was swiftly debunked. I used Tor once to post a comment or two because Hans had blocked me. Other people use Tor, I was not the fucking vandal.--Brxbrx 18:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- The vandalism was all of a kind occurring in a relatively short period with the person doing it clicking from Tor node to Tor node. Do you find Brxbrx's simple denials credible, Nx? Do I correctly understand that you don't believe this is extremely strong circumstantial evidence? Lol if you were still server admin you would have been on the server logs like a fly on shit. Nutty Roux 18:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- This reminds me of the time when I went as an IP and jokingly claimed to be you. You'll believe anything an IP says, won't you? Or at least as long as it's you behind the numbers--Brxbrx 18:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- (ec) Yes, I find it quite credible that a person using TOR might end up with an IP that another person using TOR used to commit vandalism. When I first fired up TOR today I ended up with an IP that was blocked for a year for vandalism. With a little bit of hopping I was able to find an IP that was only one number off from the one Brxbrx used. -- Nx / talk 18:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- The evidence is exactly as RA stated. I do not find it credible that Brxbrx just happened to be using Tor and just happened to get the same IP address as one used by the vandal and just happened to post on RA's page in the middle of the attack. Nutty Roux 19:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- In the middle of the attack? Brx posted on RA's talk page on December 13. The deleted edit is from January 11. -- Nx / talk 19:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, you're right. I was mixed up on the timing. So the vandal just happened to use the same Tor node as Brxbrx previously used. It could have been anyone. After all, all you have to do is click around enough to get a nearly identical IP address. Nutty Roux 20:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- TOR doesn't connect you to the same exit node every time. It's just as unlikely that you would get the same IP after a month, unless you force TOR to use a certain exit node. -- Nx / talk 20:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well shit. What types of evidence would we would look for then, Nx? Nutty Roux 07:17, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- I dunno. I'm just pointing out that your rage on Brxbrx is founded on extremely weak and misread evidence. -- Nx / talk 13:11, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Also, I said it wasn't me.--Brxbrx 14:41, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Lol my rage. I'm not kidding Nx. What would you look for? Nutty Roux 15:05, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Also, I said it wasn't me.--Brxbrx 14:41, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- I dunno. I'm just pointing out that your rage on Brxbrx is founded on extremely weak and misread evidence. -- Nx / talk 13:11, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well shit. What types of evidence would we would look for then, Nx? Nutty Roux 07:17, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- TOR doesn't connect you to the same exit node every time. It's just as unlikely that you would get the same IP after a month, unless you force TOR to use a certain exit node. -- Nx / talk 20:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, you're right. I was mixed up on the timing. So the vandal just happened to use the same Tor node as Brxbrx previously used. It could have been anyone. After all, all you have to do is click around enough to get a nearly identical IP address. Nutty Roux 20:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- In the middle of the attack? Brx posted on RA's talk page on December 13. The deleted edit is from January 11. -- Nx / talk 19:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- The evidence is exactly as RA stated. I do not find it credible that Brxbrx just happened to be using Tor and just happened to get the same IP address as one used by the vandal and just happened to post on RA's page in the middle of the attack. Nutty Roux 19:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- The vandalism was all of a kind occurring in a relatively short period with the person doing it clicking from Tor node to Tor node. Do you find Brxbrx's simple denials credible, Nx? Do I correctly understand that you don't believe this is extremely strong circumstantial evidence? Lol if you were still server admin you would have been on the server logs like a fly on shit. Nutty Roux 18:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- {edit conflict- geez, Nx, way to miss the point} Yeah, and that was swiftly debunked. I used Tor once to post a comment or two because Hans had blocked me. Other people use Tor, I was not the fucking vandal.--Brxbrx 18:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
