RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive53

PanGalacticGargleBlaster
Removed my sysop status during an edit war on [Heaven]. The issue was brought up on the talk page and A couple people on both sides were really invested in the issue until Shabidoo doubled down and started adding prooftexting sources, which I took pretty heavily and he treated the concern with contempt. I took his contempt as "ok, he's full of himself so I'm just going to revert again". PanGalacticGargleBlaster blamed me for the whole war which is demonstrably false and desysoped me, something I admittedly do not appreciate as I was blocked multiple times and I feel it was a flex to get me to stop arguing. Even if it was for the editwarring (something I was not a part of as much as argued about on the talk page) the page could have easily been protected further.--Spoony (talk) 23:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sigh. PanGalactic's removal was entirely sensible. While you weren't entirely responsible you were rather responsible. Edit warring and then whining on the talk page while not making ONE SINGLE ARGUMENT or responding to any of our requests for counter-examples or evidence is enough of a reason. Shabi  DOO  23:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Gonna be honest you can make your point without presenting yourself as someone no one would want to associate with before doing so by just sighing at someone's presence. I made arguments you happily ignored and groaned at.--Spoony (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * (EC) We could add a heavier level of protection to the page, but that would prevent good faith edits from other regular editors. The problem here is you. Not the level of protection. Not PanGalacticGargleBlaster. You. The only person nominally supporting you was a newish account whose first edit was a seemingly sincere End Times diatribe, but even they, it turns out, didn't agree with your original objection. 'Take it to the Talk page' means discuss and leave the article alone until some consensus is reached. It does not means state your case, argue a little, then try and force your edits back on the main article even when your argument fails utterly. And now you have outright lied about the start of the fuss, because you were editing from the IP 73.42.183.211, who made the change originally, as shown by the edits around this point. GTFO. Queexchthonic murmurings 23:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ouch. I did not lie. I have more than one device. If you believe I did though I find a hard time not keeping my "whats in it for them" alarm bells from going off in my head because of the emotional content of the page in question. Shabidoo and Serene are the same person too if that's the route you want to go.--Spoony (talk) 00:19, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Your words above: "PanGalacticGargleBlaster blamed me for the whole war which is demonstrably false". It's demonstrably true, because the first bad edit was from your IP. Socks are allowed at RW, FWIW. Queexchthonic murmurings 00:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * So I made the first edit, so it's all my fault. Got it.--Spoony (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * And you continued to revert, even after multiple people told you to stop. Back2theroots may have participated as well, but that does not make your behavior acceptable. Plutocow (talk) 00:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok.--Spoony (talk) 00:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Aren't you the one who used an IP (that you accidentally outed as yourself) to engage in the edit war, and then tried posing as if you were different people? I can't believe I'm saying this, but not even Ushit sunk to the level of using socks in his edit wars. Your behavior is beyond immature and completely unbecoming of a sysop. Plutocow (talk) 00:06, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Am I the only one who uses this site on mobile too? I'm not logged in on my phone. If I was hiding the fact that was me I wouldn't have changed it. If I feel I'm being unfairly treated then get accused of further bs I don't know what to say.--Spoony (talk) 00:15, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem isn't that you used an IP, it's that you've been acting as if the IP was a different person all along (e.g. by calling out people for "bullying" a BoN, saying you didn't start the edit war when it's clear from the history that the BoN started it, the whole incident with the gnosticism page when you were using the BoN to edit war and use your regular account to unblock the BoN and unprotect the page at the same time you're using the BoN to edit, etc.) It's not a problem to use a BoN, but using it to try to claim there were more people on your side than there actually were and to deflect blame from starting the edit war is completely inappropriate. It's rich you're calling out other people for "lying" when you have been very dishonest yourself. Plutocow (talk) 00:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * How dare I make an edit then other people start to argue over it. Gnosticism is a can of worms that led to nothing and I stopped caring about it after someone actually took a look at the page. I unblocked the BoN (me) because people tend to treat them like they always have bad faith (understandably sometimes) and frankly do not feel bad about that. Anything else? Or not only do I not regain my sysop status I had for nearly a decade because I'm completely untrustworthy and have to see myself out of the site permanently in the eyes of the mob?--Spoony (talk) 00:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You were repeatedly adding the same edit after being told to stop multiple times, without even doing basic things like providing a citation on the talk page. Wikis are a collaborative project and if you can't work with other people there is no reason to be here. If you really want your sysop back, I'd recommend engaging in some self-reflection instead of doubling down on the same behavior that at least a half dozen other sysops have repeatedly called you out on. Plutocow (talk) 00:37, 11 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Spoony: While I admit it was a bit aggressive for other sysops to promote you, I hope you will agree now that you should have been beefing on the talk page. Someone will revert your promotion before too long. Be cool. Ariel31459 (talk) 04:02, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sysop reinstated. Parties involved; please assume I've slapped you with a wet trout. Next time try people's talkpages before jumping to rights abuse and just asking a mod to lock the page to mods only for a bit. Spoony, next time please try to discuss in good faith on the talkpage and try to reach a consensus before adding disputed content back in the page. -- Techpriest (talk) 09:36, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Notice about a recent troll
It looks like we're being targeted by a well known Wikipedia LTA Supreme Genghis Khan or at least someone impersonating them. They're clearly here to artificially generate infamy and their LTA suggests that we give them zero recognition. This LTA has already harassed Me, LGM and Queex repeatedly and something has to be done about it. If I had moderation rights, I would've enacted a policy that says to block on sight and revert and hide any usernames and edits harassing other editors, but I don't have those and I need to start a vote for formality. Any comments? 18:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You don’t need to start a vote, we don’t need a special policy. Any obvious troll is going to be blocked on sight. Christopher (talk) 19:08, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Doesn't need further notice. 19:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * (EC) I know that they're obviously going to be blocked on sight, but the special policy I'm looking for is to hide accounts they create on the user creation log and for them to not be renamed. 19:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * What is the purpose of hiding their account name unless it's libelous or exceptionally offensive? Bongolian (talk) 19:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Doxxing? 19:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Revdel then. I trust your judgement to revdel any objectionable usernames in the logs. 19:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I would include doxxing under exceptionally offensive. Bongolian (talk) 19:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I do know that it's fun to rename bigots, but what I don't want is to rename a sock SGK makes. How about we only revdel when the problematic names reveal themselves to be SGK. 03:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

LGM abusing mod powers
I would like to request LGM's Mod status be revoked, on the grounds she is misusing it to control the Peterson article's categories, and furthermore refuses to leave the article in a per-dispute state, that is to say, after I removed several redundant categories. 01:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh no, a mod disagreed with an edit from a guy undoing Plutocow's edits several times, the mod made a comment in the talk page, the guy then tried to undo that mod's edit, and then the mod locked the page for 9 hours. 01:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * What with the bickering over the troll feeding. There’s already a 6 month prot on the page. TranslationForAll (talk) 01:59, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It's over Jordan Peterson. GC tried to remove the categories, citing redundancies. Plutocow didn't agree, so he undid it. GC undid that, then Plutocow undid it again, then GC undid that, and then I undid GC's edit, not agreeing with it and commenting on here, and he undid that as if that's going to work. I modlocked the page for 9 hours. Here we are. 02:06, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I was talking about the right wing watch page in which there was deleting and restoring proxy pages. TranslationForAll (talk) 02:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That is unrelated to this issue, at least in my view. 13:11, 20 March 2022 (UTC)


 * If I weren't so lazy I'd find and post a popcorn gif-Hastur! (talk) 05:30, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a tough article to try to repair GC. I see it has had 241 distinct authors. Reads like the phone book for Monkey's Eyebrow, Kentucky but not nearly as useful. Please don't blame Lefty, I'm sure she is doing the best she can under the circumstances.Ariel31459 (talk) 04:31, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * LGM hasn't done that much as of yet for a recall. Even Ace wasn't recalled in March of 2021, he was kept in by a 20-5 vote. This isn't that bad. That being said, this is one of many episodes of LGM getting power hungry. We have, indeed, have several threads on the same. Also, I don't like that LGM gives troll IPs talk pages he makes and fights to restore them and delete others (User talk:192.241.246.161 and User talk:194.39.126.87). I am re-affirming, I will not vote for him if he runs for mod next year, and anyone who doesn't like his moderator abilities should do the same so he is ousted come December 1. --Andrew5 (talk) 12:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not trying to "repair" the article. My problem here is that I tried to prune excess categories, and when that was disputed other people did not take it to the talkpage and leave the article in a pre-dispute state. As I explained in my initial post, which I can only conclude that no one here read. You abused your mod powers and are not engaging with me on the talkpage of the disputed article. This is a very clear breach of community trust.  13:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 'Pre-dispute' would be before your edits. Stop treating RW like your personal fief and cease the histrionics. Queexchthonic murmurings 13:12, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It was literally that that led to all the drama back in February with me. --Andrew5 (talk) 13:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I made edits that are similar to edits I've made in the past that have not been disputed before. The initiator of the dispute, therefore, is Plutocow and LGM. I made this point on the talkpage of the Peterson article, which I note the three of you have not engaged with at all beyond throwaway comments. Thusly, it can be seen that the initiator of the dispute is not I. 13:22, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Fucking hell, mate, get over yourself. Has it not occurred to you that perhaps people don't bother responding because they know you'll never admit to being wrong, that you'll insist on having the last word and you'll flame anyone at a moment's notice? Queexchthonic murmurings 13:27, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * --Andrew5 (talk) 13:35, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. I would also expect other users discard such nonsensical notions though. I am certain of my arguments, as I indeed expect others to be. As for "admitting to being wrong" I've done so in the past, both on this site and off. As for "flaming" see point A of this post. Now, if you want me to lie to you and say that I believe myself to incorrect when I do not, well that's something else altogether. 13:35, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If there's a problem editor involved here, it's not LGM. Please return your toys to your pram. Queexchthonic murmurings 12:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I want to note GC removed one of my comments, which I re-inserted.] --Andrew5 (talk) 13:46, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of your comments having nothing more than disruptively spamming a template for people who you want to suck up to, something you previously got into trouble over, among other things. 13:48, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Wow. That was an accusation. I was not doing it to suck up to Queex, in fact a lot of the time we disagree. While I was on break, I saw that you used the goodpost a few times with G Man, and Vice versa. I was doing it because, although LGM didn’t handle it properly, you are falling into the hole of USHA and LGM and crying to ATIM about it. Please keep content disputes to the talk page and not to ATIM.Andrew5 mobile (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * So you were sucking up. Again. You know you can always just not get involved right? You can just stay out of an issue if you have nothing to contribute. 15:43, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Well lucky for you, it’s 59°F(15°C) in my location, and I want to snjoy the warmth since after Monday it’s gonna get a lot colder, so I’ll back out now. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Those are uncontroversial category additions. LGM is not doing anything particularly out of line. Shabi  DOO  14:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I can only conclude that you failed to read my initial post, otherwise you would understand that my complaint is with LGM's handling of the situation, not her re-adding the categories per se. 14:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I will say this: when an established editor, one that has a record of reasonable edits over a number of years, makes an innocuous change such as GC's category edits, any critic of that edit should go to the talk page. It is presumptive to simply revert without talking it over. I don't know where such authority comes from. Some people seem to think they just know better than everyone else, a sentiment that should be discouraged.UncleKrampus (talk) 16:27, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * (EC) Well, this was a funny time to come back to the wiki.
 * We've set a pretty high threshold for demodding and protecting a page for nine hours when it is subject to a dispute ain't it.-Flandres (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * My previous edit was 9 days ago, and I do monitor the wiki. What's so funny? Feeling guilty are we?UncleKrampus (talk) 16:43, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Um...what are you going on about? I wasn't really replying to you. I was just giving my opinion on GC's request. *I* was the one who came back at a funny time. I've been distracted from RW lately.
 * Also, see the EC I put in front of my post, which stands for "edit conflict." I didn't actually see your post until I wrote mine. -Flandres (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I see that now. My complements for your consideration. Thanks.UncleKrampus (talk) 16:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This shouldn't be about me. I DID go to the talk page. 17:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. Although you should have left the category removals in place and asked for a discussion. More is not always better.UncleKrampus (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Whenever an edit war breaks out we try to leave the article in question in its pre-dispute state until community consensus is achieved on the talkpage.-Flandres (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Is this an edit war or just one person reverting what should be a non-controversial addition? Shabi  DOO  21:38, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The dispute is over the removal of redundant categories, which were re-added by first Plutocow then LGM. The initial edit was mine, not theirs. 21:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * UncleKrampus: Yep, in hindsight. I apologize for my actions. 21:57, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * LGM shouldn’t have called GC a control freak in the lock explanation. 21:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. 01:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think this is all a bit overblown. LGM's page protection was what, 9 hours? So what. I don't actually think that categories are all that important, except that categories should generally have text and at least one citation on the page that confirms them. If there is unresolved disagreement on the categories, then put it to a vote on the talk page. Bongolian (talk) 02:01, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * While not a vote, I am attempting to resolve the issue on the talkpage. Given that LGM has ceded some level of fault in approach, as have I, would request that this case be closed and archived at present, barring some unforeseen change in circumstance. 02:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Good, I am glad to hear that. Bongolian (talk) 07:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Category:Socialist moonbattery
Could it be closed? It has 14-1 consensus to delete, and the reason for holding back deletion (still linked on pages) no longer applies. --Andrew5 (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. Spud (talk) 06:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)