RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive16

Updating the community standards
The current standards are old and out of date, I`m not good at expressing myself very well but I'll try nonetheless. I believe this wiki should continue what it's been doing for a while now, permabanning nuisance trolls and all their socks, reverting Nazi and general reactionary bullshit, and then blocking or binning the recipients, and being less tolerant of sealions and other nuisances. — Oxyaena Harass  20:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This isn't something the mods decide on. Create a proposal and bring it to the mob for discussion. Then the mods setup the vote. AceModerator 20:19, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If we lose all our trolls, most of us would have very little to do. I like talking to sealions. It's good practice. Almost everyone you meet in the real world is basically a sea lion because I believe that they believe what you believe is unbelievable.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:21, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think business as usual is generally fine. Just go easy on banning people please. I do think obvious socks of people whose names I can't remember should get canned, but that requires solid pattern identification, not just acting paranoid. 20:29, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I`m pretty good at pattern identification. — Oxyaena Harass  21:01, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No your not. You just hand done infinite blocks on a whim. I’ll keep up my policy of reverting any block inconsistent with both policy and where your reason don’t match the problem (I.e blocking for page blanking when no page had been blanked). AceModerator 21:10, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I`m pretty good at telling who specific people are, and I will permaban them whether you like it or not, and I will continue to permaban bigots and fascists whether you like it or not. — Oxyaena Harass  22:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That’s fine - I’ll keep reverting everything you do which violates or policies. AceModerator 22:19, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Those policies are explicitly nonbinding. — Oxyaena Harass  22:20, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I’ll be checking the blocks every day and reverting your blocks when necessary. AceModerator 22:25, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "When necessary" is subjective, I know of many people here who disagree with your opinion on blocking policy. — Oxyaena Harass  22:27, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Then propose a change to the comm standards and have people vote. Until then I’ll revert you when you step outside the comm standards. AceModerator 22:31, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Let me call here to explain things to you. Until then, circumspice. — Oxyaena  Harass  23:23, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean, yeah they're guidelines, that's a good point. And honestly, relying on how things were run when you were more active isn't going to be fool-proof (and "ignore" isn't a bulletproof solution either: trolls like Sm_th have to be reverted and banned rather than be tolerated while people are encouraged not to feed them but we also shouldn't let them respond and get fed either). Community standards change but still revolve around those guidelines. Anyhow I still think blocking a bit for "blanking" is a bit hard on the ban but there are other bans you disagree with that I don't particularly agree, especially with recurring trolls (they're way past the "ignore" part and continue deceiving others who aren't as familiar with their patterns, which is evident you aren't familiar with, Ace). In the end, there has to be some clarification on blocking standards because I disagree and agree with kernels of you two's views. 23:35, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * . — Oxyaena Harass  00:10, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oxy, I’m going to keep reverting your invalid blocks. If I see you block an IP, which one tiny edit, for “page blanking” like you did the other day then it’ll be reverting. And that’s all there is to it. AceModerator 00:27, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * When most people here disagree with you on what counts as a "valid block," ugh never mind. Look, I know some of my blocks are heavy handed, me binning trolls was a compromise, I`m trying to improve, but I will continue to permaban ban evaders, I`m sorry for being such a prick about this, but the mob consensus is that repeat trolls get permabans, and btw techs still have checkuser, I know how to use it on here. — Oxyaena Harass  00:56, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Want you to see this, I`m sorry for being an ass about this and I will work with you in the future, but there's been a sort of de facto zero tolerance policy for Morris and co for a while now, I won't budge on that issue. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  00:59, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I was always under the impression that for pretty good reasons we did not have checkuser on RationalWiki. What functionality do you refer to that techs have that can do a checkuser? Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:10, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll have explain it to you. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena  <font color="Magenta">Harass  01:13, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Who's using checkuser? AceModerator 01:29, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * EK. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  01:32, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * this wiki does not have checkuser EK (talk) 12:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

This is the problem with Oxy: She's way too zealous with blocking people and too single-minded. Even after one edit of suspected vandalism, without any regard of collateral damage, she blocks them. Regardless if it's a centrist who edits something on the wiki, they get blocked with no warning whatsoever and get turned away from contributing from the site for good. Magic Master (talk) 00:08, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Summa Atheologica
This user is repeatedly adding a naked lady (an unattractive one I might add) to the sexual selection article. The image ruins the article. Users on forums sometimes cite RationalWiki articles on evolution for useful material against creationists (I have seen this very article cited). We should keep the articles on a moderate academic or educational basis, not ruin them by citing inappropriate images for the "lulz" like ED does. The same user also has very poor spelling and editing formatting (I can sympathise because of my French background and I make mistakes) but some of his writing is dubious to say the least, "white people can be considered mutants". etc. John66 (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, the image is unprofessional and serves no useful purpose. 23:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh bullshit, while posting nudity might be over-the-top Rational-Wiki has always been snarky and silly with plenty of dumb sexual referneces. What's next, censorship on the Saloon Bar? Get off your high-horse, this isn't a peer reviewed academic resource. Besides that, the image is from the Wikimedia Commons, which is way more respected academically than this site is., save us all. 71.215.91.202 (talk) 23:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This isn't ED, such content should further the article and, after reviewing the disputed content it is my opinion that it does not serve a clear purpose in furtherance of the article's subject matter. While other Mods may disagree, this is my opinion on the matter given the current information. 23:16, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Cease verbally abusing other users. If you don't like this site, no one is forcing you to stay. 23:17, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * (e/c)To be fair, I would vote against inclusion of this image in this article, but it's annoying reading people post about how academic this wiki is. Please, this wiki was blocked by my high school for adult content. 71.215.91.202 (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Said image is also not used anywhere on the Commons and was previously nominated for deletion. Also, it contributed nothing to the article. 23:19, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "We should keep the articles on a moderate academic or educational basis" - John66. Look, I'm not looking to verbally abuse anybody, I just think that particular line of his argument is complete bullshit. Where did I verbally abuse someone? Did I call someone an unkind word? Just saying bullshit is not verbal abuse. 71.215.91.202 (talk) 23:23, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Innuendo is fine (as long as it's not forced) but full on NSFW images should be unacceptable on the wiki. However, Summa Atheologica has pointed out there's a filter here which is outlined in Help:Images, but unfortunately, I don't see the option (so is the page outdated?) and I see the image nevertheless. In the end, the image isn't appropriate at all given the context of the article, and it's unwelcome especially without a warning, and it's not even funny? Snark in of itself doesn't substitute for content, and if snark detracts from an article (which it does IMO), then it's removed or at least hidden. 23:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I'd say LGM is on point here. Although NSFW is a relative term, and there's plenty of articles on here that are NSFW. 71.215.91.202 (talk) 23:25, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Anyways, I went ahead and added images that are more illustrative of the article's content. 23:28, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * They are quite nice and informative, thank you. 23:31, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to see that you have come around on snark not being sufficient. Everything is funny until the joke is on me. I don't care about keeping the photo, and  I don't see it as snarky, or if it is, what the joke is. I will say  that the attractiveness of the lady is a matter of opinion. She seems OK to me.Ariel31459 (talk) 01:11, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah. Unattractive? In what weird alternate universe? I was expecting to see a photo of some hideous old hag like the ghost in the bathtub in The Shining.

Good old. A true connoisseur of Wikimedia Commons who has a real knack for brightening up dull pages with the right pictures. That's a major reason why he's one of my favourite ever RW editors.

I'd like to know what you thin about the picture that's currently on our Mermaid article, especially since that's another article that I plan to translate The picture is, after all, one from a piece of late 19th or early 20th century porn Spud (talk) 04:22, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I think it'll be funnier with just the manatee there, though that probably has been done to death. I think historical porn does get a bit of a pass compared to photography but still, the manatee one's superior because the other one's just "lol lesbian women". But honestly, I'm biased: I hate porn, I don't understand the appeal of it, I might be missing something. 04:29, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Point taken about it just being laughing at lesbians for being lesbians So, I have replaced the picture with this much more tasteful one as a special present for you because you deserve it. Spud (talk) 04:45, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * OMG it's a hideous manatee. 04:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Checkuser
Hey - Oxy has admitted using checkuser which has always failed in votes to whether it should be used or not. I think he should either be stripped of his tech rights or the teachs remove the capability. AceModerator 01:35, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't use checkuser, I just stated that it exists. I exaggerated a little when I said I use it. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  01:36, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I am alarmed that there's some way someone with advanced privileges can do some some kind of a checkuser function here. It's been debated here several times in the past that we not implement the checkuser extension. IMO this feature is potentially abused and its use needs to be curtailed. Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:39, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * So Oxy, just made it up to "exaggerate"? That doesn't fill me with any confidence. AceModerator 01:45, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I exaggerated when I said I use it. Given that you reject any and all evidence patterns of certain problematic users I thought it'd be the best bet to get you to shut the hell up about things you don't care to know about. (hint: calling me a "little freak" and having several different accounts and spoofed IPs show up to harass me is one of them.) — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  01:46, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * So now you're back pedaling and just saying it was a joke? This is concerning. Checkuser is a big no-no. AceModerator 01:51, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Oxyaena doesn't appear to have used CheckUser nor knows how to get IP addresses. Only that she knows someone who knows that, and maybe there was a bit of a slip there. 01:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You're refusing to listen, you you should not be a mod. It's pretty fucking obvious who these people are, fuck you. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  02:12, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * But why are you getting IP addresses? 02:15, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Desperation. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  02:16, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll take my leave now. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  02:17, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hm well it was an honest question. I tried to provide a possible reason, but I'm no mind reader. 02:19, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I don’t see what this has to do with me being a mod. AceModerator 02:20, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't think she likes how you tolerate obvious trolls but in the end, it's up to how policy is interpreted, particularly if its application is a hard rule or a guideline, that boundary. I think we need to review dealing with recurring harassment and throw-away accounts designed to drag drama. I don't think ignoring works as it requires everyone to have the same approach and judgement on what should be reverted and what should be ignored. 02:30, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Cosmikdebris (talk) 02:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I think that we do need to revisit blocking policy if for no other reason than the RationalWiki:Blocking policy page disagrees with the block user drop-down menu:

The question also arises as to what "should" means in the policy. Most people would interpret "should" as not meaning "must", which is the point that Oxy has made. However, one could interpret the policy as implying that repeatedly flouting the recommendations can result in desysopping ("For instance, if someone makes an edit that is not that bad but you personally disagree with it, then you should not block them, as you will most certainly be promoted for doing so..."), but this example could also be interpreted strictly as to only apply to this type of blocking. It's really not that clear, perhaps it was intentionally vague when the policy was written. Bongolian (talk) 03:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * A lot of blocking could just be avoided totally if people could ignore trolls and just be adult about things. AceModerator 03:53, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That's assuming everyone has the exact same judgement as you. Telling people to "ignore" is not clearly not working. 03:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * But also blocking could be avoided by not flipping out about the fact that someone might possibly avoid a ban by creating a new account. This is Oxy's problem - she is so hair-triggered that the slightest offense ends in a ban, even for the smallest of reasons. The other day she banned infinite for mindless vandalism in what was a mere case of bad grammar. AceModerator 03:53, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Another one of Oxy's problems not only being unable to ignore trolls but actively seeking them out in order to get them banned. By which I mean if a troll makes a comment on my talkpage it should be easy for Oxy to ignore but instead she'll check the edit then engage. If she just practiced a little forbearance then her wiki life but be a little more tolerable. There's no need to freak the fuck about everything but she does. She has been stalking me round since I first raised her block history and still hasn't let it go. AceModerator 04:08, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The drop-down control for blocking reason has become completely useless. In the past year or so, so much has been added to this menu that it now needs to be scrolled to see all options. This fails the usability test; who has the time to process all that data while contemplating a block? These days I always choose "Other" and write in my reason. It's much quicker and avoids all the crap that's accumulated in the control. I suggest that this list be completely rebooted in addition to clarifying the guidelines for what offense deserves what block. This, I think, would help us janitors when mopping up the floor on the wiki. Cosmikdebris (talk) 04:12, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I see that the flipside to banning is that trolls rereg, even with short term bans and you can wrongly suspect wrong users to be trolls (which has happened). Banning, however, has advantages in that it requires reregs to take additional steps, which costs time for trolls no matter how easy it is to rereg, and so trolls can't disrupt the place as efficiently as they need to. Maybe it's best to work in tandem with ignoring and banning; ignoring is priority; but ignore, revert, ban is another viable option especially if intent to harass is obvious.
 * This is a recurring problem with Oxyaena overall I agree, and it's one of the reasons I decided strongly against endorsing her for mod position. I do think she has a problem with keeping a cool head and not overreacting (especially when she calls others a "Nazi", you a "sea lion", etc.) and this can lead to me expending energy having to moderate people. This can scare off contributors that don't quite agree with her and this especially concerns me because I make an effort assuming good faith, being friendly, and cooperating with most users and this effort can be thrown out or at least whittle patience with that hostility.
 * The drop-down has been simplified at some point, but users readded the old stuff back because they thought it was funny and it added character to the wiki. Most useful block reasons are already on the top of the list for easy access. Can't say for sure it really is overwhelming. 04:22, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Back to the original topic for a moment. Oxy has claimed that and  have found some kind of way to do a checkuser, even though the extension is not enabled here. I'm concerned that the use of tools available to a tech may be open to abuse in this way. I'm all for actively identifying abusive people and preventing them from harassing our community using the tools we have. However, we should not be allowing any users to deep mine the wiki to pevent abuse in such a way that subverts the mob, such as the supposed checkuser tricks Oxy has described. This is, I think, more of a threat to RationalWiki than some stupid asshat basement dweller who gets off by harassing Oxy. Cosmikdebris (talk) 04:41, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I too am concerned, given that such "tricks" (read exploits) are not only breaches of community trust but also potential breaches to digital security, depending on exactly what's being used. 04:45, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Spud (talk) 04:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Given Oxy's glib admission of using checkuser then back down calling it an "exaggeration" is not very confidence building. AceModerator 04:47, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * How do we proceed with this issue? AceModerator 04:50, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Ace, it may be all bullshit, but I think we all would like to see if there's anything behind their claims. Cosmikdebris (talk) 04:51, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * TBH I'm not sure if tech rights are relevant, but don't quote me; years back in MarioWiki (which doesn't have the equivalent of a tech role aside from maybe bureaucrat), I think I was told by someone (who was not a bureaucrat ever) that CheckUser is only an *easy* way to get IP addresses and getting IP addresses is not particularly difficult. Again, don't quote me, I might be misremembering. 04:55, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Remember a while ago I started asking about checkuser? It's because a former high level user said IP's were viewable by techs through a type of edit filter. And Oxy's "exaggeration" makes me feel that it is being used and we need to find out whether it is being used and how to stop it. AceModerator 05:01, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * (ec) LGM, that seems completely plausible. Point is, that having the tools available is one thing; using the tools in a subversive way is wrong. Anyone doing that outside the view of the mob is abusing the system. Cosmikdebris (talk)
 * Perhaps would know the answer to this question about the use of checkuser alternatives? Bongolian (talk) 05:10, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Many years ago when I ran Teflpedia I found it wasn't difficult to figure out who was who just by watching people log in and out. You could even see where what site they arrived from. But that was a long time ago and I cant remember the details at all. (So don't ask)  But if someone has full technical access to the back end stuff then - well, they have full access. Of course wiki software changes and things may be different now.
 * But at the time I remember thinking "Wow, if this were RW I easily identify people using multiple accounts."Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:37, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Knock it off, I didn't admit to shit, stop lying. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  11:39, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

How many times do we have to tell you, ignoring doesn't work for everyone? — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  11:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Technical comment
This wiki does not have checkuser and there is no way to access checkuser data by any means on this wiki. However, certain actions that users make on this wiki leave their IP address recorded in the logs which users with high level user rights can access. No one has to my knowledge ever used this functionality on this wiki since it is not particularly useful. Further information is available to the technical staff who can see the apache logs but that isn't relevant here. EK (talk) 12:39, 30 November 2019 (UTC)


 * This is the case - we don't have checkuser, because there's been consistently strong community opposition even to installing it, because everyone understands that the trouble with having certain tools is that then you'll use them.


 * Hypothetically, someone with a shell login on the server could grovel through the logs and answer the questions similarly, but I can state bluntly that it would take some remarkable cause for me to even start on such a tedious action - if I'm going to spend hours on deep-dive research, it's gonna be digging through dumb crypto shit so I can write for money about the results. (I just spent five hours on such nonsense yesterday for Wikipedia bureaucracy and I regret it wholeheartedly.)


 * Anyway - no, Oxy hasn't been using checkuser, because we don't have it - David Gerard (talk) 20:51, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You can shut your trap now. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  21:25, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing things up, David Gerard! I did mention in my talk page that no one can use CheckUser because CheckUser isn't installed but it seemed like that comment was overlooked. 23:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I knew checkuser itself wasn't used but have always felt there is another method which has been exploited. AceModerator 23:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I haven't exploited any method, fuck off. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  23:31, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not all about you, sweetheart. You know you can carry on with your life without following me around the wiki right? Get a hobby. AceModerator 23:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Ace, can you just put this to rest. I know that RW has been over this issue of Checkuser (and alleged workarounds) before in detail since my time here. David has confirmed that it's been hashed over before my time here as well, so you should have been aware of this already. Bongolian (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I am absolutely fine with giving it a rest. AceModerator 23:58, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Drama is never good, and you, Oxy, are guilty of propagating it here. You were expressing claims of abuse from trolls and then diverged into rumors of people here whose advanced access let them have a "checkuser" function here. That is a controversial subject, and you should have known that it would get lots of attention. You don't need to make your point here by stirring up shit here that's been debated a thousand times. It does no one any good, and it certainly doesn't help any gripe you have about Ace's personality. As Ace said, give it a fuckin' rest. Cosmikdebris (talk) 04:25, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * For my part - I apologise for my part in any drama over the last few weeks but all this started with me identifying Oxy as someone using the vandal bin inappropriately. Since then she has pulling me into debate after debate. I should do what I do with trolls...ignore her. AceModerator 04:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)