User talk:Plutocow/Archive2

Tech
You have been demoted to tech. Feel free to let your newfound ABSOLUTE POWER course through your veins. Once the high wears off, read our tech guide here:. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 17:45, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You forgot to link the guide. Vee (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That's the funny part, there's no guide for the tech role. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah. OK, joke's on me then. Vee (talk) 17:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Suppression
FYI, there's no need to add yourself to the bot user group when doing suppression. Suppression has its own log separate from the delete log, which already doesn't show up in recent changes. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 12:56, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Yo
I don't appreciate being accused of whitewashing an article when at least 70% of it is my own writing. "Innocent" being used 8 times in one section to redundantly modify the term "civilian" is bad writing. Bolding random sentences in a quote is bad writing. Thazzit, bro. 23:05, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Larson's dead
I don't really see the point of promoting an account that will never be used again. Is it for the example? Vee (talk) 00:45, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It looks bad if we have a known pedo as a sysop, and I can't believe no one noticed this beforehand. Plus, a dead account with sysop powers could be a security risk, and while it's unlikely it's preferable to shut it down. Plutocow (talk) 00:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey, I'm new here, didn't even know the account existed until recently. Either way, that's a good point. Vee (talk) 00:57, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * …Who gave him sysop rights in the first place?!? --Luigifan18 (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Is there anything in particular that led you to believe Nathan Larson was behind User:Landmartian? I agree with you, he probably was, and even if he wasn’t the articles should go. Just wondering. Christopher (talk) 19:33, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * User:David Gerard said so, and apparently a few others had suspicions. Plus, looking at their edits, it's pretty obvious, and Landmartian at least should have been banned for CP apologia. Plutocow (talk) 19:42, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Lost old account, can I get autoconfirmed?
Hey! My last account (user:swamp fox) is a little gone (password forgotten). Could I get user autoconfirmed or equivalent user permissions to the old one? Thanks. SwampFox (talk) 04:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I can give you autopatrolled, but keep in mind that that's not the same thing as autoconfirmed; you'll have to wait for that to be automatically added to your account. Plutocow (talk) 04:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Right, all good. It's mainly so I could edit the saloon bar but I can wait a few days. Thanks for sorting the matter out. SwampFox (talk) 05:58, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Wow, you are a moron
Quit huffing that copium. I'm not a troll and you know I'm not a troll. Also, I never said anything about having sex with dogs. The fuck is wrong with you? --Kasunex (talk) 18:47, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, saying that having sex with your slave is okay because some people don't beat their dogs totally doesn't draw attention to the comparison. You don't see the obvious holes in your argument there? Also, hate to tu quoque but you are a hypocrite as you troll collapsed comments opposing you. Plutocow (talk) 18:49, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This is the guy who's accusing us of blackwashing Thomas Jefferson, right? Did I miss something? I clearly did, considering that it's somehow escalated to verbal abuse. --Luigifan18 (talk) 01:56, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Boy, uh, that BoN is really pissed at you.
I’ve been away for several hours, and came back to see the block log full of IP blocks and reverted edits with someone whining about being censored. Anyone care to fill me in on what I've missed? --Luigifan18 (talk) 01:54, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's some moron who tried whitewashing the Thomas Jefferson page then threw a hissy fit when people didn't like his apologia of rape. Sooner or later he'll get bored. Plutocow (talk) 01:56, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Stallman wasn't fired from the FSF
It was a resignation. Saying he was fired from the FSF sounds is legally actionable defamation 2600:4040:403C:F300:2D1D:52FB:9C8F:5E1C (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The entire edit was whitewashy so I reverted it. Also, I would be careful about making legal threats. Plutocow (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

How do I sign up to become a tech again?
I want to sign up for two reasons. One, so that I can actually know whether or not an edit filter-prevented edit is a false positive or a filthy spambot and I can know what to do with accounts that trip the edit filter on their own user page once or twice — as is, I have to either put them in the vandal bin or impose a limited block because the possibility of a false positive is high enough that an immediate banhammering seems unfair. Two, because I want to join in on renaming users so that I can free up good usernames that were taken by shitty ban evaders (like, say, School Bus — that sounds like a decent username) or clean up really terrible usernames. --Luigifan18 (talk) 03:59, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You are on incredibly thin ice regarding your sysop rights, so people are very unlikely to vote for giving you tech rights. Furthermore, since you don't seem to understand how spambots work I doubt you have the technical know-how for the job. For now, keep in mind that nobody is asking you to deal with spambots — if you want to perma the obvious ones who attempt to create obvious spam pages, that's totally fine but for cases that you are unsure of, let the techs handle it — the last time a spambot slipped past the filter was months ago. And please try to demonstrate maturity with your use of sysop rights so that people would be more willing to let you have more rights. And also, have patience — I was here for more than a year before I had tech rights and that is with years of prior experience with MediaWiki. You have to build good faith with the community if you really want tech rights. Plutocow (talk) 04:07, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think you have any chances at tech. People in this role can access almost everything in the MediaWiki interface, and unlike regular sysop tools, we can perform actions outside of the reach of almost everyone on the website (editing the MediaWiki: namespace, home to interface messages, gadgets, and the sitewide- and groupwide- CSS and JS, only editable by techs), as well as actions outside of the public eye, such as suppression, which can only be seen by other techs and by the 6 moderators, and private edit filters, which can only be seen by other techs. Not only do you need some technical knowledge, as Plutocow said above, you also need to be trusted enough to operate where other people can't see you, which I think, given your ATIM case, you aren't. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 21:10, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I wish I could thank you for blocks.
You do a great job of keeping the spambots under control. --Luigifan18 (talk) 20:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

0-second blocks
I recently noticed that you briefly blocked me for issuing a few 0-second blocks to accounts with no activity (including in the edit filter), so let me explain myself. I did that because the accounts in question had no activity whatsoever. Why would someone set up an account on a website and then proceed to do absolutely nothing with it for an extended period of time — not even setting up their userpage, patching up a few grammar errors on a low-activity page, or dropping in to the Saloon Bar to say hi? It seems slightly suspicious to me… like it's an attempt to deceive the mods and sysops. My suspicion is that at least some of these inactive accounts may have been set up by a troll, wandal, or spammer — possibly one who's been (permanently) blocked a few times already and is trying to dodge another banhammering. Maybe they think that having a long gap of time between the creation of their account and the start of their [disruptive] activity will confuse the sysops and/or mods by virtue of their account creation not showing up at the top of the recent changes and/or global RationalWiki logs. Maybe they don't understand how user rights work here and they think that they can get autoconfirmed, eligible, and/or autopatrolled (and thus fly under the [metaphorical] radar) by just having their account survive for several days without being blocked or banned. Or maybe they're completely innocent and they just lost their train of thought and/or had something else to do after creating their RationalWiki account. That last possibility is definitely the most likely, and maybe I'm just a little paranoid and trigger-happy, but seeing an account get created and then do absolutely nothing (not even anything that doesn't show up in their contributions list because the page got deleted and/or the edit filter disallowed it) for several hours or days makes me just a little bit uneasy. Thus, when I put a 0-second block on an account that's done literally nothing, that's me sending a message to the other sysops — that message being "hey, this account is just loitering, and because of that, I think that there's a small-yet-not-small-enough-to-[completely]-ignore probability that this account was created in bad faith, so let's keep an eye on them". --Luigifan18 (talk) 17:38, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What? There's a lot wrong here:
 * They may very well be in the process of editing something. By blocking them like this you can scare away any potential editor
 * They can't deceive any sysop because 1) spambots are almost always catched by our almost-perfect filter 57 and 2) vandals make themselves know soon after signing up.
 * Yes, you're being paranoid
 * Just letting you know, you barely returned to sysop and are already close to going back to sysoprevoke. Actions like these and the preemptive protection you issued of User:Coomsikdebris just put you that much closer to sysoprevoke. I recommend you cease this behavior immediately, lest the mob take away your mop forever. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 17:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I was of the impression 0-second blocks had zero effect as far as blocks go. Vee (talk) 18:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It can be intimidating to newcomers if they happen to see it, so blocking is better reserved for the unfunny wandals, spambots, and for dishing out mob JusticeTM. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, excuse me for taking the time to take the wind out of the sails of any potential trolls seeking to make an incredibly unfunny joke out of 's username. If I thought of that, it was only a matter of time before someone with bad intentions did. Luigifan18 (talk) 01:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * …Sorry, I didn't mean to be rude, thanks for setting me straight. Luigifan18 (talk) 01:04, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * …Sorry, I didn't mean to be rude, thanks for setting me straight. Luigifan18 (talk) 01:04, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Dud account wave
Over the past few days, a whole lot of accounts with names that fit the usual spambot mold have been made and proceeded to do absolutely nothing. I'm starting to suspect that they're waiting to all start spamming at once in an attempt to overwhelm the sysops. Get ready, there may be a storm coming… should we do something now? --Luigifan18 (talk) 02:09, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * How long will it take you to understand, spambots aren't real people, they are automated scripts made by people who want to boost the SEO rankings of their shady businesses. They cannot plan out large-scale attacks, because they aren't real people, and can only do what they are programmed to do. Besides, a large-scale attack of spambots isn't a major concern, as the filter will stop the vast majority if not all of them. Please stop worrying about spambots, the techs are already doing a good job of handling them and you shouldn't be making a big fuss over accounts that should be ignored. Plutocow (talk) 02:56, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, see, that's what I'm worried about — the spambots may not be able to plan large-scale attacks, but the people making the spambots can! --Luigifan18 (talk) 03:48, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Number one, no, spambot accounts are created and run automatically and absolutely no planning goes into it, and number two, they still can't get past the filter. And also, I can't believe I have to tell you this again but please stop fucking engaging with suspected spambots. If you are unsure if an account is a spambot just wait for a tech to deal with it since they're not getting past the filter anyway. What you're doing isn't helping the situation in any way, shape, or form and is probably making things worse since we absolutely do not want to give the spambots any SEO engagement. Plutocow (talk) 03:52, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What is this "SEO" thing anyways? --Luigifan18 (talk) 05:07, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Search engine optimization Plutocow (talk) 05:14, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah. Gotcha. As for "engaging with spambots", that's me understanding that one or two trips of the edit filter on one's own userpage could be a false positive, so I would prefer to give them an opportunity to appeal the ban, which requires allowing them to access user talk pages so that they can contact one of the site mods. (I'm currently blocked on the Team Fortress 2 wiki for "numerous repeated small edits", which I understand to some extent because it's a huge pain in the ass to review and patrol large numbers of small edits made by BoNs and fresh accounts here (as one of our block reasons states, "Use the preview button!"); however, I can't reach out to that site's mods to talk about the problem, and it's driving me nuts, so I don't want to inflict that same frustration on someone who doesn't clearly deserve it.) Three or more filtered edits or an attempt to create a clearly-useless page reduce the odds of innocence to practically zero, though, so in that case, I feel that a full ban is definitely warranted. So, basically, I'm just trying to be reasonable. --Luigifan18 (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If they "could be a false positive", leave them alone, end of story. If they are a good-faith user, being welcomed to the tune of "you're a suspected spambot, you might be blocked!" isn't exactly, well, welcoming, and plus you want to avoid giving actual spambots (which >99% of the time they are) anything resembling SEO engagement. Plutocow (talk) 19:07, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm trying to be a more responsible sysop, and I think I need some help.
I just saw a user named "Christian are useless" in the user creation log. Given the extreme similarity of usernames, I think this is the "Christians are dumb" user who you blocked the other day making another account. However, they haven't actually done anything yet as of my typing this message. Since my sysop tools are at risk due to my history of overreacting or jumping the gun, and I'm trying to be more responsible with them so that I can continue being a sysop (and more importantly, continue being useful to RationalWiki), I'm really not comfortable with tackling this without firm evidence of actual misbehavior. Could you please take a closer look? (On a similar note, I just issued a partial block to a user who tripped the Blackhat SEO filter exactly once on their own userpage; they could be a spambot, but one filtered edit that isn't a blatant attempt at junk page creation isn't enough evidence for me to issue a total block. Could you please review that block as well?) --Luigifan18 (talk) 18:48, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether or not it's ban evasion, the username was inflamatory enough that it shouldn't be allowed. Also, you were told multiple times to stop messing with accounts that have only one hit on the filter. Plutocow (talk) 18:55, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * All right, I'll do that. You're better at handling spambots than me, anyways. --Luigifan18 (talk) 19:20, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

VeryLazyPizza
Heh. I had a hunch that VeryLazyPizza was just LazyPizza messing with the Ted Cruz page again, but I didn't want to take firm action until I was absolutely certain. I just checked the Ted Cruz article fossil record, and yep, there's a pattern. I went ahead and protected the article for six days. --Luigifan18 (talk) 01:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Why are the trolls after You
I have seen many troll accounts trying to copy your user name I even Blocked One named plutohorse. Why are they after you specifically Why not LeftyGreenMario,Bongolian or anyone else --Edward the eight (talk) 16:31, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Probably because I have blocked a lot of them and I thus have directly caught their ire. Plus, "celestial body + domesticated animal" isn't a pattern that's hard to imitate, and being autistic and nonbinary makes me an easier target in their eyes. Plutocow (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think they've gone through all eight planets by now (at least with a "cow" suffix). --Luigifan18 (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Depends on the definition of "planet" one is using. The IAU definition is the astronomical definition of a planet, not the geophysical one. There's still hubbub being made over the definition. Vee (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

WAIT until an edit is made please
Yes the username is weird, but the account made no edits. Wait first, it's not like lasting damage occurs if they do end up making a disruptive edit. 21:35, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you think that someone should be allowed to have a username that is a euphemism for cunt? Plutocow (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No, and it seems clearer with the slang once you shared it. Should've made clearer on the block summary, thought you blocked because, without context, looked like a trollish username. 21:39, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Castillo
Don't whitewash him. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 15:30, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Who? --Luigifan18 (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If you look at the edit back and forth on Pink Tide you’ll have your context Luigi. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:43, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

You are mentioned in the coop, don't worry it's nothing bad though
King Bowser K. Rool (talk) 22:20, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Blocking account reasons
Noticed the logs recently. Don't attach a name. Just block their accounts and cite the normal reasons ("ban evasion", "harassment", "generic vandalism", "troll", etc). If you insist on insults, be more generic instead. 07:53, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a long-term ban evader User:Gorilla lover/User:Kamen rider saber. All of their accounts should be perma'd on sight with TPA revoked, since it's not like they even pretend to be good faith accounts. Plutocow (talk) 08:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm fully aware. However, we are giving the troll undue notoriety in these block logs, which is why I recommend referring in generic terms. Besides, their edits alone are obvious in their attempts at disruption to long-term ban, so notification on who is ban evading isn't necessary, unlike blocks on suspected Ken socks or Oliver D Smith socks, which are, in contrast, sometimes more subtle and don't immediately break our Community Standards. 08:17, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

What specifically was wrong with the edits
Or was it like a reflex Bob-smith (talk) 22:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Your edits to that page, as well as your seeming vendetta against RW, are heavily reminiscent of a certain (relatively) recently banned user. I don't have enough evidence to indict (yet), but I have my eye on you. Plutocow (talk) 23:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's entirely possible that individual edited dozens of pages since he was banned and you only care about that page becase you are a bigot Bob-smith (talk) 23:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Virgin shaming is the realm of low-status bullies and bigots. Bob-smith (talk) 23:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * agreed 2600:4040:403C:F300:9254:9EBC:7A0A:9106 (talk) 23:03, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * (EC)Is it really a coincidence that we have two people with an extreme vendetta against RW and an obsession with whitewashing that page? Choose your words carefully, for I am this close to taking you to ATIM. Plutocow (talk) 23:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * So you can ban bob-smith again or? It was obvious neil was writing for months as it was all on the same types of pages.  .wiki has sent him legal notices to stop editing incel wiki and he hasn't stopped so good luck 2600:4040:403C:F300:9254:9EBC:7A0A:9106 (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll take it to ATIM to be sure, but yeah that's what I want to do. Plutocow (talk) 23:07, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Well no laws are being broken because ya'll didn't /64 ban any of his non-proxy clearnet IPs for months of his accepted writing 2600:4040:403C:F300:9254:9EBC:7A0A:9106 (talk) 23:10, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Why are you doing this?
Two mods ask you to stop changing blocks of previously blocked users and you start changing blocks from a year ago. Why? GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 18:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Number one, when did this happen, number two, those were socks of banned users, number three, it's just routine maintainance of the vandal bin so it only shows users that are actually, well, binned. What's your problem? Plutocow (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Number one Me and LGM sent you messages via blocks. You even unblocked yourself when she blocked you. Number two, we believe these are socks of banned users, that's why we used the vandal bin. Number three, you're giving them attention when you block older accounts that they don't even use anymore, so there's no need to block them just to make them think that what they did a year ago still matters (it doesn't). Number four, do you see anyone else regularly changing blocks? I honestly don't. I'm not going to dispute this anymore, but I'm politely asking you, don't change blocks unless you have a good reason for it. I'm sure you understand that other users are just as capable as you to judge whether a block was enough or not. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 18:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Blocking socks of banned users isn't a matter of preference, it's a matter of policy. If you think this is a serious issue, take it to ATIM, but blocks on a sysop account that can easily be undone aren't exactly a binding ruling. Plutocow (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * But I didn't say you're breaking any rule, I'm saying that you shouldn't block older accounts and give trolls attention. Anyway, this was just an advice. You're free to follow it or not. Again, I'm not going to dispute your decision. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 18:58, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * To be clear, in some cases it's better to err on the side of caution when it comes to potential socks. In most cases the socking user usually can't contain themselves when needled even slightly or tends to fall in patterns of editing the same pages. That being said, wantonly going on a blocking spree of potential socks is no better than that time where Oxy spend several months blocking random accounts until people reminded her that she wasn't an elected mod to begin with and even if she were, that's not within her capabilities. We don't have CheckUser (thank god with all the privacy laws around these days), and a part of that is that we assume good faith on behalf of those editors. The vandal bin is a nice go-between for a potential sockpuppet; if they're a regular user they'll just continue on as they're doing and maybe after a bit complain and then we empty the bin. Most of the sockpuppeting users just get completely unhinged about how we're "suppressing their ability to edit RW" like its some sort of innate right everyone has. I warned you about being a zealot with tech tools back on BASEMENT but really that goes for sysop tools as well. -- Techpriest (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * In none of those cases was there any room for doubt, as there is only one troll with an obsession with cheerleaders and I'm pretty sure that Ken admitted in one of his essays that he was the one spamming the "dramagate" crap. Sometimes, ban evading accounts can get more obvious in hindsight, which seems to be the case with these now-banned accounts. Plutocow (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Can you please stop changing blocks of these accounts to indef when the ones originally imposed are good enough? 02:10, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I said stop. 19:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Ninja
You give me Ninja when I clog up recent changes (not that I'm ungrateful) but I never see you use it when you clog up recent changes. VeeMeow? 04:38, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Editing six category pages isn't exactly clogging the recent changes. Plutocow (talk) 04:40, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Whatever floats your boat. VeeMeow? 04:43, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Suppression of Special:AbuseLog/86925
Why was Special:AbuseLog/86925 suppressed? I wasn't around back then, so I don't know what happened. If it's just something that was going on back then just say so, no need to get into the specifics. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 10:45, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Potential doxing. It's usually best to be safe in these instances. Plutocow (talk) 16:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * No problem then. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Deletion of user account
Hi, were you aware of the community standards on deleting pages when you deleted that person's account (RationalWiki:Community Standards)? I was aware of the person's potential desire to hide personal information and gave them the option of hiding personal information and renaming the account, but indicated to them that account deletion was not normal procedure. Bongolian (talk) 07:37, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that I deleted the account? I just renamed them as requested. Plutocow (talk) 14:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry about that. I see now that person deleted his own account. Bongolian (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Barack Obama
Please participate in the Talk page. Umaru16 (talk) 05:00, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Is there any reason to oppose my editing? I am not trying to attack Japan, I am talking about the human rights of sexual slavery victims. There are even survivors. If Trump had made such a misogynistic agreement, not Obama, you wouldn't have canceled my editing. Umaru16 (talk) 12:10, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Question
Should I revert sumka to a draft and rework it rather than delete it? Rational Dude (talk) 22:14, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You can if you want. Just try to find some better sources and focus it more on their actions, historical influence, and views rather than speculation of how they might influence hypothetical future fascist movements. Also, if you can't find enough content for the article to stand on its own, merging with Davud Monshizadeh is always an option. Plutocow (talk) 22:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright, I will. I’m not obsessed with Zoroastrian fascism, I was just trying to raise awareness on the possible threat it’ll pose since fascism shouldn’t be underestimated.


 * I’ll move it back to a draft and try my best to find better sources, although such sources are easily found as there isn’t much immediate public info on groups that haven’t been well studied. But still, I’d rather keep it as a separate article rather than merge it since there’s enough info about it to justify it having its own page. Rational Dude (talk) 22:52, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Fascist
I left some questions on talk pages for supposed fascists like Alex Jones and Viktor Orban, and while they do fit some of the definitions, would they count as para-fascists? For example, do Orbán and Jones have any paramilitary groups that they control in some way? I’m not defending them, I’m just somewhat asking if there can be reasons left in the articles as some people have been some people labeled as fascists and para fascists without proper explanation in the articles. I feel if an explanation was added as to how they’re fascists, it would make much more sense than just adding it. It’ll help us avoid confusion for first time visitors like when I first came here. Rational Dude (talk) 19:26, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Orban has been moving Hungary in an authoritarian direction and Jones supported the Capitol riot, so neither is a huge stretch. Regardless, fascism is not something that has ever been well defined (the best definition I can come up with that describes all groups commonly defined as fascist is ultranationalist right-wing authoritiarianism aimed at purifying the state, but that's not too far off from standard conservatism). Plutocow (talk) 23:47, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That, and both of them are far rightists. But we should offer more explanations to prove our case. Rational Dude (talk) 00:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Excellent job with the new imperialism navbar, but…
can you make a navbar and icon for genocide? I think the topic is worth a navbar, and we have enough pages. 05:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It would be hard to make a genocide navbar that fits in with the rest of our navbars, since it's a much darker subject than any of the others (I mean, you can at least make fun of Nazis). Regardless, I might try when I have time (I actually finished the imperialism icon a long time ago, but that was when this wiki wouldn't allow us to upload new images and I forgot to upload it until a few days ago) Plutocow (talk) 23:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I’m not sure how to go about it either. 18:27, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Pardon
I wanted to explain myself if that's alright, it seems that you might've gotten the wrong idea. Rational Dude (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It’s about what you perceive as my obsession with Zoroastrian fascism. You seem to think that I hate Zoroastrians even though I’m a Zoroastrian myself. Rational Dude (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Privacy Concerns
How do I raise an issue with the mods around here? —Chbarts (talk) 02:20, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * ATIM would be a good start Plutocow (talk) 02:33, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

So
Am I in trouble or anything? I saw that you blocked me for no reason and accused me of abusing my power. I didn't, and I'd like to explain why.

If you have time, I would like to discuss this misunderstanding with you so we can sort this out. Rational Dude (talk) 13:06, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Blocks mean nothing for sysops, and while a short page protect for edit wars is IMHO fine, infinite protects are not (especially only allowing adminstrators, autoconfirm was the minimum needed to stop the edit war). That being said, I think it would've been better to use the talk page first instead of a block, and Pluto really needs to look at edit history before declaring something was done for "no reason".BobJohnson (talk) 16:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks bob. I wasn't familiar with setting amounts for page protections. Plus, the person doing the edit war seems to have anger issues and is a "my way or the high way. Rational Dude (talk) 17:07, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You perma sysop-locked four pages, only one of which had one edit that was reverted, which is not an edit war. Please get some perspective before using sysop tools. And we don't lock pages because they might be the target of vandalism or an edit war, we protect them when these become a repeated issue (and in the vast majority of cases only temporarily and autoconfirmed-locked). Plutocow (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, I made a mistake and I wasn't familiar with sysop tools. And instead of blocking me, let me know what I should learn next time to avoid something like this. Rational Dude (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Help with drafts
Sorry about the fiasco last time, I've read on the rules and I know better now. I wanted to ask for your help if on the draft for Renaud Camus. I need as much help with this article as possible. Rational Dude (talk) 22:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

You were right about one thing on the Dean Baker AfD
While I still belive that he's not relevant enough to have an article here on RW, creating new articles is more productive than deleting existing ones. I'll try to start a draft on this week (probably the single most important economist we don't have an article yet). I don't like encyclopedical articles on RW, so it will be a critical analysis on his contributions to the dismal science, not a biography. Just wanted you to know since the page is now archived. You are, of couse, free to contribute to this future draft, as well as suggesting/requesting others. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 23:53, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Signature
I'm trying to do that, but there's little alternative to using  tags, which are disabled by mediawiki. I could use LINK_HERE , but then the links will have that ugly underline. -- TheAlePower (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Number one, please respond to comments on the page they were left on rather than trying to have a discussion across multiple pages. Secondly, the whole purpose of having a signature template is to use it to replace your signature, I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish by having a signature on top of your template. It's as simple as just adding a couple links in your signature template. Plutocow (talk) 15:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

What exactly is "suspicious" about the Sino-Soviet split?
It's not debatable that the Sino-Soviet split happened and that Soviet media in that time devoted a great deal of energy compiling doomsday predictions China under "Maoist reactionaries". And clearly the Russian predictions didn't come true considering that Uyghurs are have been around for decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Also beard bans are not invented by China, Enver Hoxha literally forced all men entering the country to shave and Tajikistan police do mass forced shavings. Heck, even Imperial Russia and France have taxed beards. And frankly I don't care for the mental gymnstatics of "Tajik beard ban good, Albanian beard ban good, but China beard ban is bad" this is Rationalwiki after all.--PotterGarry (talk) 11:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What is the point of adding that sentence? Would we add to the Holocaust page "it is worth noting that Nazi Germany isn't the first country to try to exterminate its ethnic enemies"? The sentence just serves to deflect from China's policies. Plutocow (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah but we consider the Lutheran rhetoric against Jews that inspired the Nazis to be genocidal and anti-semetic. That is in sharp contrast to the policies of other Central Asian countries that China has copied which are NEVER called genocide. Nothing that China does to Uyghurs is unique to China and in fact China isn't nearly as aggressive compared to regional counterparts in Central Asia. The problem is that somehow beard bans and anti-religion and politically controlling policies are called genocide in China but the second you cross the border to Tajikistan those exact same rules China copied are not called genocide.--PotterGarry (talk) 22:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "Nothing that China does to Uyghurs is unique to China". This is blantant whataboutism. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 22:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Aaaaaand there it is folks. 22:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * So, you're a Denialist, then? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 22:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)