User:SPIKE/2014-RFC

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

edit RFCs for 2014

The following RFCs (Requests for Crap-storm or Requests for Controversy) were received in 2014. Unfortunately, not all the requestors received the crap-storm they requested.

edit Three-day ban of Erectus123

There is a New Years tradition from the old country that when a user signs up on Christmas Eve, and sticks around until New Years writing stuff, that you don't cut off his head and toss the lifeless corpse off the battlements. Although that is fun. But, yeah, maybe just a little itty-bitty word of "Happy New Year" to our new friend may ease the pain of a SPIKE. Thanks, and do it for me if you won't do it for yourself. Come on, give him a Happy New Years. Give him a hug. I know you want to. And, to you too, Happy New Year!!! Aleister 17:22 31-12-13

But my goal here is to keep the team functioning, and to step in when one contributor, by failing to use his obvious gifts, pulls four others, including you, from their own contributions; not to think well of myself. Spıke ¬ 18:11 31-Dec-13
PS--I advised the other active Admins, as of two hours ago, that a ban of a good contributor might be forthcoming. He is not headless and can return in three days. By the way, the parting shot of accusing me of a king-of-the-mountain syndrome, and complaining that I was "not putting up" his Snowdon Pardoned (when all that happened is that no one stepped forward to splice his upload into his article) — time spent manipulating that could have been spent figuring out how to code correctly — was more of the same. Spıke ¬ 18:27 31-Dec-13

edit New Year's Day pardon

Please give Erectus a pardon, at least from the three month ban. He may have thought it was alright to answer my question. 2014 has dawned, and peace is upon the land. The guy has a good imagination, write's fairly well and uses interesting reference points, and was going full speed, he just needs some training and polish. C'mon, do this one, I think he'll make a good writer here. Aleister 13:07 1-1-14

He did not answer your question; he created a separate user name to evade the first ban and create new material. Four separate Uncyclopedians have tried to give him training and polish. That is not what he needs; he needs to listen and be bound by something other than his own need for attention. Therefore, he will not make a good writer here, not as good as the four others will be if they stop wasting time correcting his formatting and trying to communicate with a banned user. Spıke ¬ 14:51 1-Jan-14
Then if you don't want him here, at least write him a note on his talk page directing him to the fork. I'd be happy to do it if you don't mind. He came here Christmas Eve, wrote something like six UnNews (too many in that time but...he just came here Christmas Eve, like an elf or something, and needs a learning curve) and has good imagination. So if he wants to write for uncy, at least please let him do that there. Aleister 14:09 1-1-14
Don't you think that Erectus will be a bit less willing to learn on his mistakes and to learn his mistakes if he comes back in three months than right now? Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 17:24, January 1, 2014 (UTC)
Yup, it's now confirmed; SPIKE officially has no heart. Happy new year. Cat the Colourful (Feed me!) Zzz Sleeping Cat 17:27, 1 January, 2014 (UTC)
Cat, welcome back to our "broken shitsite," to quote one of your change summaries. Clearly Cat has no dog in this fight and you are seizing on the disagreement of the day to perform some signature trolling. Aleister, I do not need to repeat to you that using this website to obtain staffers for a competing website is a Terms of Use violation that we will vigorously enforce. Compare Steveyt0, who after a brief outburst nearby, has bounced back and found a comedy theme for his South Sudan not involving the turd hot dog. Spıke ¬ 19:38 1-Jan-14

Spike, don't you really think that 3 months is too long for a good contributor, who is willing to keep on contributing? Also, what concerns Cat's message, I am sure you do have a heart, only you don't like mixing personal feelings with an administrator's duty. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 20:05, January 1, 2014 (UTC)

You pounce on him by giving him a two-hour window to fix an article or you will ban him, then you ban him, and when he tried to answer a question I had you ban him for three-months??? Aleister 20:29 1-1-14
Again: The three-month ban was for evading a ban with a sockpuppet. Just like the one just below. The original ban would already be half over, but he is no more willing to abide by the call of the Admin of the day than he was to learn and follow our formatting rules. Spıke ¬ 20:38 1-Jan-14

Please unban Erectus123. Porpous8484 (talk) 20:30, January 1, 2014 (UTC)

Correction: It is not clear that the above is a sockpuppet, perhaps only a new Uncyclopedian whose first edit is to take a position on someone else's situation. As we have had another now, probably a Darthpedian trying to exploit the disagreement. Cat, your post is reverted; trolling and speculation about my heart is detracting from the work of the website. Spıke ¬ 20:52 1-Jan-14

edit Anecdote

This summer, I made a mistake very similar to this new user's one. I was an editor of a Russian Uncyclopedia, to which I was extremely willing to contribute and where I was already the author of an article and a review of another article. However, after several contributions of mine got reverted (without any helpful message) and a debate on an administrator's talk page (the one who reverted) about these contributions, I went as far as saying that I haven't seen any worthy articles on that site.

Our relationship [with him] became worse and worse and several times I was blocked for different reasons. Finally, nothing was left from my previous enthusiasm and I left a note on my user page (very similar to this one) and decided to leave. But I was not allowed to: I saw my user page getting deleted, as well as my talk and I was blocked forever, with an explanation that the majority of my edits were trolling (I of course did not intend them to be such and I still believe that they weren't). I was quite sad after this, especially because I wanted very much to be a part of their site. But it didn't happen.

You don't have to do anything with this story, I just wanted to tell it to you. I will be very glad, if it helps you in any way, though! Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 20:51, January 22, 2014 (UTC)

We're behind you all the way Anton. I'm not one to mention certain items of cutlery that have been banned but I believe there are two soup spoons of the Russian Uncyclopedia so you may find better luck on the other one. Good luck! Sir ScottPat (talk) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 21:06, January 22, 2014 (UTC)
Anton, you are back as the self-styled conscience of this wiki, and there is nothing particular you say you want from me except for me to think about the fickleness of your enthusiasm. If past relationships deteriorated, it might involve writing to manipulate with an implicit threat to cut back your effort rather than to state what you want.
The user in question (after chronic problems, then a tirade at Wikia Community Central until they shut him down too) charged on his own talk page that this website has "hateful" articles--now undermanagement of the website rather than overmanagement. Two other Admins took his remarks at face value and replied to him, notably requesting specifics. He abandoned that conversation and opened a broadcast. He still offered no specifics and in the fourth paragraph turned personal, saying that for me to nominate new users' articles at VFH means I am somehow trying to take credit for their work. What I am trying to do is promote them! and what I had been trying to do with him is recommend, then demand, that he accept the instruction Leverage and I were giving him.
He is not trying to identify and resolve problems; he is inventing discord and baiting. I banned him this morning and deleted his Forum, expressing to the other Admins my hope that it would not disrupt users from their contributions. Of course, I cannot keep him from agitating at other websites, nor keep you from flying to the rescue.
So I must reply to your year-end Forum. Your resolutions for how I should do my job in 2014, like other gadfly-ism, do not take into account limits on resources. All of the Admins have things going on in Real Life, we all have limits on the time we can spend here, we all have actual administration we have to do, and we all have vague hopes of even returning to the comedy-writing side. This website is about producing funny pages, not babysitting. Neither you nor the user in question are entitled to justice, gentleness, patience, or a soapbox to air your grievances, notably users with grievances that are largely manufactured. In 2014, my goal is not to do this job perfectly but efficiently. When a user switches between IPs, makes a flurry of ED-style edits, and then demands his rights; or when even a registered Uncyclopedian tries to use this site to create a political persona for himself rather than help build it, the ban stick is always more efficient than cooing supportively to an anonymous stranger who could be a reinvention of an unhappy customer from a month earlier. Good day and I am not interested in your reaction to this. Spıke ¬ 23:37 22-Jan-14
It's interesting that you don't care about my reaction and still take time to explain everything in the clearest possible way. So once again, thank you for this!
Scott, thank you for your advice but I was blocked at the non-wikia site. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 17:28, January 23, 2014 (UTC)
What's one soup spoon from another! Don't worry about old Spike, he drinks soup from a fork. Just join the other soup spoon if you're not already part of it and carry on from there. And if that fails join the Ukranian Uncyclopedia, the Uncyclopedia of your home country! Sir ScottPat (talk) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 18:07, January 23, 2014 (UTC)
I should try that. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 18:12, January 23, 2014 (UTC)

edit Revert war

YOU LOOSE The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.132.107.177 (talk • contribs)

Editor trying to spit my words back at me (from the Block Log) might be last night's contributor to RationalWiki (butt-hurt to see it nominated for deletion and then rewritten by ScottPat with quality that the editor will obviously never match). That edit tried to add "Fat Aardvark" to the gallery of offsite celebrities in the old version of that article. Romartus banned him for this post. Spıke ¬ 14:11 20-Feb-14
Hahahaha (evil laugh) Yep that's me.--81.152.253.138 13:45, February 21, 2014 (UTC)

edit User:Banzaikitten

The turn around of that user was amazing. One second an innocence, next second full of hate. I really do hope that this hate has not been fed to him for this discussion only reminds me of the play Olleana. A sad loss. Sir ScottPat (converse) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 20:55, February 24, 2014 (UTC)

Do not trust cats. No, I am joking. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 13:20, February 25, 2014 (UTC)

edit Sheesh, go get some joy in your life Spike

How's this for a joke ban request? Ban me, why not? I'm trying to have a little harmless fun, which is something that used to happen on here as well as writing jokes. Why not go along with it, what harm does it do? I used to relish the occasional joke with established users during trawls through logs, ban patrol and so on. I'm trying to find a reason to come back and try to write again, but if this is how a harmless bit of silliness is dismissed, I don't know that I can be bothered. Let your hair down a little. --UU - natter UU Manhole 19:21, Jun 13

I assume this refers to my revert of your misuse of Ban Patrol. Whether a veteran Uncyclopedian or an anonymous vandal, this site is here for you to write stuff to amuse others, not to rant at others because they won't pay sufficient attention to you. And I have too much to do undoing both cases of vandalism and occasionally even writing actual content to indulge it further. Spıke ¬ 19:33 13-Jun-14
Wow, that's a very, uh, interesting view of the world. I'm not looking for attention (if I was, I'd be blanking stuff and vandalising, but I'm not into that). I was looking for a bit of fun interaction, to ease my way back into the site. I'd love to write here again, if I had the time and the inspiration. I always used to get inspired by joking around with other users, whether on talk pages or with joke bans. As did other users. I used to undo vandalism, ban, delete, write, review and so forth as well. Daily. I know how it feels etc etc, and I still found time to have a little harmless fun with other users. This obviously isn't the place I remember - I have no wish to get involved in any contretemps with you, people obviously like and value what you're doing and good luck with that, I'll trot off again. I'd say have fun, but I guess maybe take care would be more appropriate. --UU - natter UU Manhole 19:46, Jun 13
Well, you asked for a joke-ban and got a joke-revert (let's call it that way). This is Uncyclopedia, no? Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 11:47, June 14, 2014 (UTC)
When THE LEAST VAIN user (with the exception of MadMax) ever in the history of Uncyclopedia (Under user) is accused of being an attention whore I would suggest that no. This is no longer Uncyclopedia. MrN Icons-flag-gb HalIcon.png WhoreMrn.png Fork you! 12:22, Jun 14
Spike you can't blame someone trying to find some light hearted fun for being attention seeking. We can't just have a all work and no play policy here. Sir ScottPat (converse) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 12:45, June 14, 2014 (UTC)
Uncyclopedia is always a pair of short pants step away from reality. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 12:54, June 14, 2014 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects