User talk:Isra1337/archive3

---

from "Enemies of Johnny Raven"

Isra1337: Far too intelligent, erudite, and sophisticated for Uncyclopedia, or any other wiki for that matter. When he is made an admin (which will probably take place by the time you read this), he will undoubtedly terrorize, berate, and insult virtually everyone he comes in contact with by filling their discussion pages with "wise," "well-thought-out," and "rational" commentary meant to destroy all human life as we know it. Scary.

---

Well, I guess it is time to fulfill that sarcastic prophecy, since it has fallen upon me to deal with the incident here and I do not know how to do so in fewer words.

Let me begin by saying that this is not Wikipedia: it isn't a democracy and there aren't any rights; we don't have procedures or arbitration or even fairness; all we have is a not-so-shadowy cabal of people in various positions of authority with often very divergent views on how to run the wiki who are united by their commitment to making uncyclopedia work. These are people whose dedication and judgement have been continually affirmed in the eyes of others who maintain the site.

These are also largely the people who you seem to have intentionally tried to piss off on multiple occasions. This is true of both your current persona and of other users originating from your IP address. This has granted you little good will and it puts you squarely in violation of the second rule of uncyclopedia: don't be a dick. There is no third rule.

So why are you even still here despite this? Well, you can write well and have contributed in that regard. That buys you a lot of respect with some people. Not as much with others. Some of the admins think we should take reasonable steps to accommodate you. Many simply try to avoid dealing with you. Some would rather see you gone, but out of respect to those who disagree with them have grudgingly refrained from exercising their power to remove you.

Several prominent uncyclopedians continue to resent your general attitude, your sock-puppetry and your history at wikipedia, however, and their grudging restraint does not preclude them from making the occasional joke at your expense. The user profiles you posted recently on ban patrol are just one example of this.

I don't approve of that behavior, both because it needlessly provokes situations like the current one and because it insulted other users who, however much they may be associated with you, have not acted in bad faith. Some of those involved have already admitted that it was the result of an error in judgement.

That said, I do not control the other admins and editors. I can and will delete the parody user profiles, and I will certainly revert any attacks on your work that I encounter, but I cannot promise that no one will ever mock you again on uncyclopedia. If you are unable to deal with the occasionally anonymous mockery on a humor site that your past behavior has provoked, then you are right to leave now. If, however, you can ignore your detractors and accept the imperfect efforts of others to make them ignore you, then you are welcome and encouraged to continue contributing to the site.

As for the demands you make on ban patrol, understand that you do yourself no favors by making them. Had you attempted to resolve this in a more diplomatic matter you might have had good will on your side. Because no one is inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt, the method you have chosen gives you only your ultimatum to stand on.

Now we can remove those users, and we can even block the particular IP addresses associated with them, but if what you want is to have all the people who wrote those jabs banned, then what you want is impossible. No writer, not even the best and most liked ones, has the power to force the removal of a significant portion of the people who keep this site running, just so that they will stay.

With all this in mind, if you would like to discuss other solutions to your grievances, you may respond here on this page or you may private message me on IRC. I am usually in one channel or the other during the early afternoon and mid evening by pacific time. I may not seem to be offering you much, but it is probably your best shot.

---Rev. Isra (talk) 08:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Update: It appears Chron has decided to involve himself in this matter. As a result I suspect it may be unneccessary for you to contact me. You may still do so, however. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 09:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Cosigned

• I agree with what isra said, but am not getting involved beyond supporting his statement here, and stealing his wallet. --Splaka 09:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Also agree, well put. And since Splarka got the wallet, I'll go for the pants. I mean wristwatch. Freudian slip. --—rc (t) 09:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

If I were either of the two people you think I am, then maybe this would be relevant. But I'm not. Sure, I often post from Iowa, where I'm on a Qwest DSL line, just like tens of thousands of other people. I also know the person whom you know as "JohnnyRaven," quite well in fact; I'll admit that, not that it's any of your business. But that person isn't "Lir" either, nor am I. (Here's a hint for you: "Johnny" is not a "he.") Again, you're dealing with three separate people, two of whom do not know the third. I hadn't even heard of "Lir" until two weeks ago. And until this latest round of nasty personal attacks, I actually thought I'd been quite a nice guy. When have I not been?

If you seriously cannot get past this idea that anyone who posts from Qwest DSL lines in Iowa (one of the most wired states in the US) is one or both of these people, then I'm finished here. I have nothing against any of you, but this is just getting ridiculous. Sorry.  c • > • cunwapquc? 00:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm really sorry about this too, but I have to ask one more question. When was character assassination downgraded to the status of "mockery"? Did I miss the memo on that? And if you've got a precedent for any of this, by the way, I'd love to see it - if only for the sake of intellectual curiosity.  c • > • cunwapquc? 01:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Response

First of all: could people who are uninvolved please not further complicate this, please? I am sure your images will be just as clever elsewhere and you huzzahs will be just as resounding in private.

On the first point, we are not inclined to believe that our checkuser results are in error. Maybe they are in error, but if that is the case you will have to live with the fact that we think you are the same person as Lir and JohnnyRaven. Currently you have not been banned because of your presumed identity. That is probably the best you will get. If you are unable to see how you have aggravated people already, I don't hold much hope for my ability to explain to you. If this behavior continues you may be asked to refrain from posting to or about certain people.

On the second point, this is a humor site. In that context what you call character assissination seems to me to be mere parody. Perhaps it is not funny; perhaps it was in bad taste; but we are not going to treat it as if it was an attack of the magnitude you appear to believe it was. You will have to learn to live with that.

---Rev. Isra (talk) 01:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

(response by Some User to deleted post by another user was removed. see history if you must.)

Your personal life is of no interest to me. I reiterate, "we are not inclined to believe that our checkuser results are in error. Maybe they are in error, but if that is the case you will have to live with the fact that we think you are the same person as Lir and JohnnyRaven." It useless for you to attempt to convince us that you are separate people. Since our belief in this is not currently preventing you from being an editor, I suggest you accept that we think this and move on even if it is not true. There is no point continuing to discuss whether you are or are not these users. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 02:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Isra, but I just can't accept that. I guess we're done here, then... I'll drop by occasionally to see what's going on, but other than that, I guess it's time for me to go. I'd appreciate it if you'd delete this page, though, if only to avoid "further complications." Thanks for trying.  c • > • cunwapquc? 02:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

That is unfortunate, but if you are unable to accept our position perhaps it is for the best. This talk page will be archived when appropriate. I will remove the edit containing your personal information if you request it. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 02:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I request it. Thanks...  c • > • cunwapquc? 02:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)