Law blocked as an alternate account of the_undertow, Who knew? Options

[TheySeeMeTrollin]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=312524681

Interesting. I have to say that I didn't see this coming, but hindsight being what it is, it makes sense.

[LaraLove]

Moral of the story: use [[WP:RM]].

Freaking bizarre IRC backstabbing.

Exactly!

Actually several bits of the early segment there are complete bollocks. He was pinged once because he'd repeatedly gone "discussion should be on wiki" and ignored Ironholds' requiest to "name a time and place". Ironholds was pushing for on-wiki discussion; your account makes it sound like Law just randomly thought of this in an attempt to stay "chill". The whole "sidekick" section was a joke based on the fact that Law had called Dan/Iron "meatpuppets" in some way or shape.

[2009-09-29 06:53:08] <Ironholds> ..Law
[2009-09-29 06:53:10] <Ironholds> Law
[2009-09-29 06:53:10] <The_Law> i dont know why you decide to assail me
[2009-09-29 06:53:11] <Ironholds> LAW

Three times in three seconds. That's once? I guess if you add them together and divide by three, then yea... that's once.

And I think it's a far stretch of the imagination to think Law was literally calling Daniel and Ironholds meatpuppets. Regardless, completely inappropriate to go on with the sidekick shit.

[Deodand]

Moral of the story: use [[WP:RM]].

Freaking bizarre IRC backstabbing.

Exactly!

Actually several bits of the early segment there are complete bollocks. He was pinged once because he'd repeatedly gone "discussion should be on wiki" and ignored Ironholds' requiest to "name a time and place". Ironholds was pushing for on-wiki discussion; your account makes it sound like Law just randomly thought of this in an attempt to stay "chill". The whole "sidekick" section was a joke based on the fact that Law had called Dan/Iron "meatpuppets" in some way or shape.

[2009-09-29 06:53:08] <Ironholds> ..Law
[2009-09-29 06:53:10] <Ironholds> Law
[2009-09-29 06:53:10] <The_Law> i dont know why you decide to assail me
[2009-09-29 06:53:11] <Ironholds> LAW

Three times in three seconds. That's once? I guess if you add them together and divide by three, then yea... that's once.

And I think it's a far stretch of the imagination to think Law was literally calling Daniel and Ironholds meatpuppets. Regardless, completely inappropriate to go on with the sidekick shit.

:Ahh, I thought you meant literal pinging. Please quote in context, please. The dispute was over whether it should be Andrew Bonar Law or Bonar Law. Law/Undertow presented a link to a book he claimed supported his view (Andrew Bonar Law). Full context was:

11:52] <The_Law> http://books.google.com/books?id=9mj2hNGMh...r%20Law&f=false
[11:52] <Ironholds> ..Law
[11:52] <Ironholds> Law
[11:52] <Ironholds> LAW
[11:52] <The_Law> i dont know why you decide to assail me
[11:52] <Ironholds> what's that book called
[11:53] <Ironholds> "Bonar Law"
[11:53] <Ironholds> in big gold capital letters
Rude, yes. Deliberate "pinging"? No.

And actually the statements from law:
[11:55] <The_Law> you know what meatpuppets are?
[11:57] <The_Law> keep talking meats
and the like make it clear that no, he meant literal meatpuppets. You were in the chan, you've got the logs. Stop quoting things out of context to support your little bitch.

[the_undertow]

Moral of the story: use [[WP:RM]].

Freaking bizarre IRC backstabbing.

Exactly!

Actually several bits of the early segment there are complete bollocks. He was pinged once because he'd repeatedly gone "discussion should be on wiki" and ignored Ironholds' requiest to "name a time and place". Ironholds was pushing for on-wiki discussion; your account makes it sound like Law just randomly thought of this in an attempt to stay "chill". The whole "sidekick" section was a joke based on the fact that Law had called Dan/Iron "meatpuppets" in some way or shape.

[2009-09-29 06:53:08] <Ironholds> ..Law
[2009-09-29 06:53:10] <Ironholds> Law
[2009-09-29 06:53:10] <The_Law> i dont know why you decide to assail me
[2009-09-29 06:53:11] <Ironholds> LAW

Three times in three seconds. That's once? I guess if you add them together and divide by three, then yea... that's once.

And I think it's a far stretch of the imagination to think Law was literally calling Daniel and Ironholds meatpuppets. Regardless, completely inappropriate to go on with the sidekick shit.

:Ahh, I thought you meant literal pinging. Please quote in context, please. The dispute was over whether it should be Andrew Bonar Law or Bonar Law. Law/Undertow presented a link to a book he claimed supported his view (Andrew Bonar Law). Full context was:

11:52] <The_Law> http://books.google.com/books?id=9mj2hNGMh...r%20Law&f=false
[11:52] <Ironholds> ..Law
[11:52] <Ironholds> Law
[11:52] <Ironholds> LAW
[11:52] <The_Law> i dont know why you decide to assail me
[11:52] <Ironholds> what's that book called
[11:53] <Ironholds> "Bonar Law"
[11:53] <Ironholds> in big gold capital letters
Rude, yes. Deliberate "pinging"? No.

And actually the statements from law:
[11:55] <The_Law> you know what meatpuppets are?
[11:57] <The_Law> keep talking meats
and the like make it clear that no, he meant literal meatpuppets. You were in the chan, you've got the logs. Stop quoting things out of context to support your little bitch.

Let's make this clear. As Law, I refused to use my tools to make a page move that was clearly out of policy. When I refused, Daniel decided to do so. I disagreed. I was called some pretty shitty things. I don't log shit. My IRC client doesn't do it, nor have I seen a need for it. When I pointed out it should be taken on wiki, I was told that I was a bloody fool and will feel the full impact of a six-pack of Guinness up my ass, or something relative to that. There are those that do have the full logs.

So while I didn't want to use the tools or be coerced into using them by a 6-time RfA hopeful and and Arb clerk, I told them to do what they need to do. Ironholds apparently needed to dime me out. Not really how I wanted to go out, but what the Hell? It happened.

Before you call me a little bitch, please realize that you will end up as unpopular as Ironholds. My friends online have ousted him for causing this situation. My enemies have ousted him for sitting on this information. The rest have castigated him for using this information to coerce an admin into his bidding. There is no win here.

And yes, I see a little undertow coming out. 2 days of this shit, where I've kept quiet, and I think I deserve to vent. I've admitted and apologized to everyone and anyone. I've listened to just about every insult that I can take, but I'm nobody's bitch, nor have I ever been. I think you're a bit hurt that I could go through 2 successful RFAs, when all you have are personal attacks. But be a man about it - contact me directly for the discussion. Don't hide here. That sort of makes you the bitch. While I may not be the most popular person here, my identity is no secret. Anonymity may free you, but that is problem #1 with tough guys on the Internet. I'm quite confident with supplying you to a GoogleMaps path to my door should you want to have a beer and act as a peer, as opposed to another badass who hides behind a screen name. I don't feel that a violent approach is ever appropriate. If you are not willing to say such things in person, that is something altogether. PM me with your concerns. Have a beer with your concerns. But it's just too easy to drive-by and call someone a bitch. Anonymity is cowardice.

Chip Kochendorfer


As a caveat, while I don't have a loyalty with WR, nor do I expect the reciprocal, I do regret bringing the drama I have caused to this board. I'm at a point where I really don't want to sit by and watch the re-occurrence of my first Rfar, so if I have tainted this board with my obvious willingness to break silence and spew my disdain for those with who I don't quite understand, I have no problem with you removing me as a user. I never wanted this to spill over here, contrary to how I used this website as a noticeboard in the past. I really have a high tolerance. I just have hit my boiling point.

This board, and all WR users, have my apologies for making this a WR issue.

[Deodand]

Moral of the story: use [[WP:RM]].

Freaking bizarre IRC backstabbing.

Exactly!

Actually several bits of the early segment there are complete bollocks. He was pinged once because he'd repeatedly gone "discussion should be on wiki" and ignored Ironholds' requiest to "name a time and place". Ironholds was pushing for on-wiki discussion; your account makes it sound like Law just randomly thought of this in an attempt to stay "chill". The whole "sidekick" section was a joke based on the fact that Law had called Dan/Iron "meatpuppets" in some way or shape.

[2009-09-29 06:53:08] <Ironholds> ..Law
[2009-09-29 06:53:10] <Ironholds> Law
[2009-09-29 06:53:10] <The_Law> i dont know why you decide to assail me
[2009-09-29 06:53:11] <Ironholds> LAW

Three times in three seconds. That's once? I guess if you add them together and divide by three, then yea... that's once.

And I think it's a far stretch of the imagination to think Law was literally calling Daniel and Ironholds meatpuppets. Regardless, completely inappropriate to go on with the sidekick shit.

:Ahh, I thought you meant literal pinging. Please quote in context, please. The dispute was over whether it should be Andrew Bonar Law or Bonar Law. Law/Undertow presented a link to a book he claimed supported his view (Andrew Bonar Law). Full context was:

11:52] <The_Law> http://books.google.com/books?id=9mj2hNGMh...r%20Law&f=false
[11:52] <Ironholds> ..Law
[11:52] <Ironholds> Law
[11:52] <Ironholds> LAW
[11:52] <The_Law> i dont know why you decide to assail me
[11:52] <Ironholds> what's that book called
[11:53] <Ironholds> "Bonar Law"
[11:53] <Ironholds> in big gold capital letters
Rude, yes. Deliberate "pinging"? No.

And actually the statements from law:
[11:55] <The_Law> you know what meatpuppets are?
[11:57] <The_Law> keep talking meats
and the like make it clear that no, he meant literal meatpuppets. You were in the chan, you've got the logs. Stop quoting things out of context to support your little bitch.

Let's make this clear. As Law, I refused to use my tools to make a page move that was clearly out of policy. When I refused, Daniel decided to do so. I disagreed. I was called some pretty shitty things. I don't log shit. My IRC client doesn't do it, nor have I seen a need for it. When I pointed out it should be taken on wiki, I was told that I was a bloody fool and will feel the full impact of a six-pack of Guinness up my ass, or something relative to that. There are those that do have the full logs.

So while I didn't want to use the tools or be coerced into using them by a 6-time RfA hopeful and and Arb clerk, I told them to do what they need to do. Ironholds apparently needed to dime me out. Not really how I wanted to go out, but what the Hell? It happened.

Before you call me a little bitch, please realize that you will end up as unpopular as Ironholds. My friends online have ousted him for causing this situation. My enemies have ousted him for sitting on this information. The rest have castigated him for using this information to coerce an admin into his bidding. There is no win here.

And yes, I see a little undertow coming out. 2 days of this shit, where I've kept quiet, and I think I deserve to vent. I've admitted and apologized to everyone and anyone. I've listened to just about every insult that I can take, but I'm nobody's bitch, nor have I ever been. I think you're a bit hurt that I could go through 2 successful RFAs, when all you have are personal attacks. But be a man about it - contact me directly for the discussion. Don't hide here. That sort of makes you the bitch. While I may not be the most popular person here, my identity is no secret. Anonymity may free you, but that is problem #1 with tough guys on the Internet. I'm quite confident with supplying you to a GoogleMaps path to my door should you want to have a beer and act as a peer, as opposed to another badass who hides behind a screen name. I don't feel that a violent approach is ever appropriate. If you are not willing to say such things in person, that is something altogether. PM me with your concerns. Have a beer with your concerns. But it's just too easy to drive-by and call someone a bitch. Anonymity is cowardice.

Chip Kochendorfer


As a caveat, while I don't have a loyalty with WR, nor do I expect the reciprocal, I do regret bringing the drama I have caused to this board. I'm at a point where I really don't want to sit by and watch the re-occurrence of my first Rfar, so if I have tainted this board with my obvious willingness to break silence and spew my disdain for those with who I don't quite understand, I have no problem with you removing me as a user. I never wanted this to spill over here, contrary to how I used this website as a noticeboard in the past. I really have a high tolerance. I just have hit my boiling point.

This board, and all WR users, have my apologies for making this a WR issue.

My comments were addressed to Lara, not to you. Either you're her bitch or she's yours - either way, all I see is her skewing a bad position to portray you as an innocent party here. Those comments above about beating a path to my door? From what I hear they were replicated to Ironholds, but with the addition of violent threats. Doesn't sound too much like an innocent party to me. I've been given the full logs by Ironholds and at no point did he try and "twist you to his will" and make you move it with threats - his threat to out you was after you threatened to own him and destroy his on- and off-wiki existence.