RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive31

Why is this user in sysoprevoke?
User:Helena Bonham Carter is in sysoprevoke. Please correct me if I am wrong, but this doesn't appear to have been subject to any kind of vote. The only relevant discussions I'm aware of would be here and here. Clearly there was no vote besides one for a 3-day suspension long ago. I'd recommend simply removing them from sysoprevoke and putting this matter behind us.--Hastur! (talk) 21:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Second. I asked LGM about this and she was evasive, and I was unable to find any evidence of a vote either. I see no reason for sysoprevoke to continue unless we decide to hold a confirmation vote. 21:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It appears LGM did this of their own accord. I have reversed it and taken the user out of sysop-revoke. AceModerator 21:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What was the reason given? I've never seen her say something that would warrant sysoprevoke. Shabi  DOO  21:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't see any valid reason so have reverted accordingly. AceModerator 22:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems it was to enforce a 3 week block, if you check Special:Block on her. Guess nobody cared to lift it once it was over. That said, I don't think her behavior besides just being overtly agressive in attacks (which probably should be taken a look at cuz it's a running problem with her, and if I can recommend anything, it would be related to that) would warrant a sysoprevoke beyond the enforcement of site blocks. Just my two cents. 22:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No. It was LGM moderating in a fit of pique: a weird empty gesture against a sock account she knew had never held sysop rights. I can't really begrudge her the FU, though. I'd made it pretty clear I didn't rate her as a mod. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 23:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

A petition for moderation
[https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Bestiality#My_implementation_of_the_talk-page_consensus_on_the_nonsensical_consent_argument_was_reverted_with_the_edsum_.22this_is_stupid.22. I have been accused of bad faith on this thread because I will not take the burden of proof from the claimant]. Would a Mod intervene to talk some sense into the other person? 17:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Is this really necessary? 17:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have already engaged with on the Veganism page, so another moderator stepping in might be a good idea in this case. Bongolian (talk) 17:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I dislike being accused of dishonesty. 17:28, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hold on, where's the bad faith? I didn't claim that you know that your position is undefendable - I simply said that that's what your comment suggested. When I present an argument, demand a counter-argument, and get a "I don't need to provide counterarguments" in return, that's the impression that I get. Please engage in civil discussion instead of accusing others of bad faith. Przciąszczłóśćiek (talk) 17:36, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You accused me of dishonesty when I told you that the burden of proof for YOUR CLAIM was on you. I do not appreciate being accused of dishonesty when I make it a point of never lying. 17:41, 29 October 2020
 * Nope, I did not accuse you of dishonesty at all. Please don't make baseless accusations against me. I don't like being baselessly accused. Przciąszczłóśćiek (talk) 18:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "This is about as close as it gets to an admission that your entire position is a load of bollocks and that even you realise that it's undefendable." "But when I ask you for a defence of your position that meat eating is more morally acceptable than bestiality, this is the type of bullshit that you come up with." Don't lie. 18:12, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Whoops, what's that? Did you just accuse me of lying? Wasn't the entire reason that you even opened this thread that you didn't like being baselessly accused of dishonesty? Your behaviour is confusing. To reiterate, "this is as close as it gets to" is very different from "it is". What I meant by this is that your comment did everything to imply that you already realise that your position is undefendable ─ even if you haven't actually realised that yet. Przciąszczłóśćiek (talk) 19:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how this is an issue that requires mod intervention. AceModerator 18:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * True, that! Scream!! (talk) 19:28, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The post I quoted doesn't leave much good faith, and basically says "You know you're wrong but won't admit it". Your insistence on doubling down on this says to me that you are indeed lying, and intend to deflect. Please note how I demonstrated that you were engaging in bad faith, rather than asserting so. Please also note how long it took before I assumed deception rather than ignorance. Finally, please note thatt you have a habit of falling back on accusations of deception when you get into a heated argument, as your previous discussion Summa Apologetica demonstrates, wherein you made three accusations to his one. 19:58, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it does NOT say that. Come on, man. Can you at least read the comment that you are replying to? I have already explained something like 3 times what I actually meant (and, honestly, I struggle to see how anyone would interpret that differently), but it seems like I'll have to explain it again. I'll give you an easier-to-grasp example to make my point clearer. Take the union of all natural numbers and the number -1. I claim that 0 (or 1 using an alternative definition) is as close as you can get to -1 out of the numbers in the set. Am I saying that 0 (or 1) equals to -1? No. Similarly, I was not necessarily implying that you were being dishonest. Instead, what I was implying is that your argument was so weak that it sounded very much like simply giving up ─ even if it wasn't.
 * The rest of your comment just makes more false statements about me. First, I do not have a habit of accusations of deception. I have only made two such accusations (which is one more than you), which were both a direct response to 3 consecutive accusations of dishonesty on Atheologica's part. I have admitted I didn't act wisely and said I wouldn't do this again. Secondly, Summa Atheologica has made not 1 but 4 independent ungrounded accusations of dishonesty against me, 2 of which were used to justify blocking me ("More edit warring and lying", "...is intellectual dishonesty, "You also are misrepresenting your own argument", "Nice try at deceit"). Please check your info before making unflattering statements about others. Thanks. Przciąszczłóśćiek (talk) 20:57, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Yeah, Przciąszczłóśćiek desire to get Summa Atheologica promoted in the coop is not a good sign when Przciąszczłóśćiek has never been given rights. Bongolian (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I also don't remember Summa Atheologica having problems with anyone else like this either. 19:09, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Przciąszczłóśćiek, even if you are in the right, by this point after typing out tons of text over multiple pages arguing with users and crying how unjust your treatment was...it would probably be a good idea to just let this go and move on. It might be the case that you shouldn't have been reverted, if that is the case (I don't know I cannot be bothered to invest more time into such a small issue), then I apologise on behalf of the entire website. Sorry. Now, PLEASE  stop arguing with Grammar-Commie and creating a coop and filling up all the recent changes with more drama about you being reverted. If you stick around and make some more useful edits and become a known user, I'm sure you'll get along with everyone and will be unlikely to be so quickly reverted and soon find this was just a silly misunderstanding. Shabi DOO  00:50, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * My coop case was about me being blocked ─ not reverted. This case was also filed by GC ─ not me. If my blocking was just a misunderstanding, I am a happy man, and hopefully I won't have reason to create any more drama. However, I was worried it was a pattern rather than a one-off occasion. I think I'm allowed to raise that concern, even if it means that I contaminate the "recent changes" page. That said, I have already settled on conceding the benefit of the doubt, so you can rest easy over the recent changes. Przciąszczłóśćiek (talk) 13:53, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Red Squirrel
An accusation has been made by a BoN that User:Red Squirrel is Michael Coombs (User talk:GrammarCommie). It seems plausible to me. Would anyone else care to assess this? Bongolian (talk) 18:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Given his last three edits, I am nearly certain of it. 19:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know who this Red Squirrel is. AceModerator 19:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure yet. Keep under observation to see if they end up going apeshit like Mikey always does. 20:11, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * He's certainly from that small bubble that folks like Smith also inhabit. None of those people have lasted here for long before being found out and then being banned for being horrible peopl, so I'd haphazard a guess that even if they're not Mikev, they're probably less than welcome anyway. 20:50, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If Smith (the BoN) claims it's Mikemikev, chances are high that it is. Smith has been wrong 10%< of the time on this. Judge Dredd (talk) 11:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

WIGOs
It's probably worth it to hash out a discussion on this. Back in my day if you didn't like a WIGO you just downvoted it, leaving unpopular WIGOs looking rather embarrassing for whoever posted it. It was also frowned upon to edit somebody else's WIGO in such a fashion that it changed the original intent. Now it seems that some of us look at the WIGOs with a strange fanaticism, insisting on purity standards that, AFAIK, are not readily available (if they exist). So I'm bringing this up here to see if we want to have some informal ruling on the matter. Or we can have a bunch of votes to draft an official WIGO policy. I am, personally, of the opinion that WIGOs should not be removed unless they are obscene in some manner.--Hastur! (talk) 02:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that WIGOs, just like all other pages, can have spam issues. I wouldn't care about obvious trolls making shit WIGOs every now and then, but tens of shitty ones used to sink every older WIGO under a sea of excrement. I think some measures of control should be allowed in such situations. 02:42, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I've explained to LT that, in the future, consolidating their WIGOs would be better--Hastur! (talk) 02:50, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hopefully he'll take to your advice. But he's a troll, so I doubt it. That said, if he does, I won't interfere with the occasional lame WIGO. Just vote it down. 02:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Karasawa Takahiro
This is a single issue editor who harasses and threatens anyone who refers to Sakhalin/Karafuto, Kuril Islands and other contested territory between Russia and Japan as Russian territory. He has threatened to put them on his enemies list  or made more general attacks against their character. ,categorically refered to Russophiles (including people who just like Russian things) as "Traitors" and has used racist slurs in edit summaries. Oh, and personal attacks in edit summaries of him deleting talk page comments he didn't agree with just hours ago. He's not very regular user appearing only sporadically. But whenever he does he goes to the same antics of attacking people for bullshit Japanese nationalist reasons. Hell, I don't know why he attacked FluffyDolphin in the first link I provided in the first place. I didn't find anything that Dolphin had done to offend him so. Is it possible that this person Karasawa Takahiro is just a completely toxic individual? I'm requesting for some sanction to be made to make clear that his anti Russian racism and harassment of other editors is not ok. 01:24, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * is not autopatrolled. The relevant pages could be just be protected for a month. The coop seems unnecessary. You probably should have raised this issue on the RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation page instead. Bongolian (talk) 02:11, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The pages related to his pet issues could be protected, but should his abuse and threats against other editors be tolerated? As demonstrated by the threat "I will recognize you as an enemy" at ThyFluffyDolphins talk page, he seems to be making this attacks against truly random people. Sure, they could be reverted, but I feel people have been sanctioned for less. Hell, GR was almost banned for creating an enemies list, and Karasawa Takahiro is threatening people with just that. 02:21, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Why is this a Coop case? We're not even close to HCM. Why not just give this person a one-week block (if not an outright ban) or something? -- Goatspeed. 02:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems like it's more like a threat of creating an enemies list. GR had an actual enemies list. We can wait till some other editors weigh in on this I guess. Bongolian (talk) 02:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The reason I'm asking for consensus, because he's somewhat established editor...even if he's not Autopatrolled. I've made some blocks in the past that have been deemed excessive by mods or other sysops. I'd rather not do that unilaterally to an established editor, who has even made some acceptable edits (at least Indonesia has him as the current edit). And he's been around for over a year. Also, he seems like a good faith editor with the exception of his fanaticism Russian/Japanese territorial disputes. He has received short blocks for his behavior before (some from me), but I feel like a message needs to be sent. And I'd rather not do it unilaterally in his case. 03:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiosity, who is this "GR"? Do they have anything to do with the recent D/Abd/Smith drama? -- Goatspeed. 02:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Lmao I deeply envy your ignorance of the GR fiasco. 05:48, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * (EC)"If you disagree with my claim, I will recognize you as an enemy" against User:ThyFluffyDolphin and User:BluePink. Both were made within the last week. His racist slur against User:Hastur is from August (in the edit summary...is Hastur even Russian actually?). And he used that same slur two days later (also in edit summary). And the personal attacks in the edit summary of this talk page deletion
 * I mean his grasp of English doesn't seem very good and maybe he doesn't understand the implications of the "I will recognize you as an enemy", but the repeated use of the word "Ruskie" and saying things like "Fuck you Russophiles" or "Russophillia is traitor" (again, edit summary) is pretty vile. 02:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments
I would propose a lengthy block or topic ban. 01:51, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Since the user in question isn't even auto patrolled, I recommend moving this whole discussion over to the moderator notice board. I don't think this rises to the level of a coop case. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 02:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I've just copied this over from the coop. -- Goatspeed. 03:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Looking over this person's edit history, especially "If you disagree with my claim, I will recognize you as an enemy and will never cooperate with your editing." I'd be in favor of dropkicking a ban on him for a couple of weeks being an uncooperative asshole. But before any action is done, I think everyone would like to hear what has to say. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 04:21, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. Bongolian (talk) 05:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Although I agree that Karasawa Takahiro is, to say the least, a somewhat problematic editor, we can't criticize him for using the word "Ruskie" while we still have a category on this wiki called Ruskies. And I have a userbox on my user page proudly declaring I'm a Limey. Spud (talk) 05:39, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ”Ruskie” is hardly a slur. People need to stop calling everything a slur. However Karasawa’s apparently deep and sincere hatred of a specific nationality is gross and shouldn’t be permitted on the wiki. 05:51, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with . I was too afraid of you folks thinking badly of me if I pointed out that "Ruskie" isn't necessarily a slur to say anything (since some, though I won't name names, had already tried to suggest Atheologica would, if elected a moderator, somehow be ineffective at spotting sexist trolls just because he used the "heterosexual male" userbox on his userpage). Now I feel much safer expressing my more nuanced views on here. Anyway, the point is, yes, this Takahiro did use it in a way similar to how an anti-black racist would use the epithet "n*gg*r", and yes, they did personally spread their racist, nationalistic drama to people's talk pages. -- Goatspeed. 07:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Summa Atheologica was criticized for having a second picture of a naked woman on his user page that was much larger and more prominently placed. He has now removed it. Spud (talk) 08:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see. -- Goatspeed. 18:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Individual is mostly harmless. Revert their edits, short escalating blocks if they edit war.  Bear in mind that I'm the guy who repeatedly took them out of autopatrol.  Referring to "ruskie" as a racist slur is a little embarrassing imo--Hastur! (talk)  07:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Topic ban Karasawa from editing about topics pertaining to Russian and Japanese territory. He's been at this shit for several months and seems incapable of conversing about it in a manner that doesn't involve insults or reverts. He seems competent otherwise, so I don't think a block is in order unless he breaks his topic ban. 10:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's put me calling "Ruskie" a racist slur under English being a second language. I don't always fully know how strong each and every ethnic slur is, and I hear the Finnish slur for Russians (which in modern usage is really ugly) often enough that I get on my toes easily, even as I have no Russian blood that I know of.
 * Though when it comes to Spuds point about "I'm a Limey" userbox, I'd argue it's somewhat different for a person to call themselves or a fellow Brit that or for a non British person to do that to a Brit. You know, only a ginger can call another ginger ginger kind of thing (using Tim Minchin song as a means to avoid having to write the n-word).
 * That said, Takahiro definitely has a hostility towards Russia and Russians that goes beyond criticism of the Putin administration and straight into a russophobe territory. He's also been told to quit it (I seem to remember at least LGM telling him off). Like Cosmikdebris, I'd like to hear Takahiro comment on this though, just to make sure he pays enough attention to be aware of whatever disciplinary measure gets passed here and that he should improve his behavior. Hell, there can be weeks between his edits anyway, so medium block might not mean anything. And if he's not aware of a topic ban, he's unlikely to recognize it. 12:07, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think Ruskie is only a slur if you make it a slur, just as with Canuck, Limey or even Yank. If you say I have some canuck/yankee/ruskie/kipper friends I don't think its a big deal. If you say "Those fucking yanks who live in Paris are the most obnoxious foreigners ever" then, its safe to say it's a slur. Though I think, if in any doubt...better not to use them no? Shabi  DOO  14:58, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The user in question definitely uses it as a slur, and is chauvinistic to an obscene degree. 15:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Context matters a lot as to whether or not a word is a slur. Bongolian (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Anyway, let's go back to addressing the elephant in the room: what should we do about Takahiro? I say we hold a vote. -- Goatspeed. 18:56, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * they are hardly active enough to be considered disruptive, and the 'enemy list' is little more than them saying 'well you cant be my friend then'. not sure this requires any action at all. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay, since this doesn't seem to be going anywhere and he doesn't seem to wish to comment on the case, would it be acceptable to me to give gradually increasing blocks to for a maximum of pi months for these sorts of violations against common decency? For "Excessively offensive comments" for instance. "Serious Harrasment" is a reason for a ban, but I guess I don't know how serious his random threats are. The longest blocks he's been given so far have been for 9 hours (once by Duce and once by me). I don't think long blocks or a ban can be done for an established, if extremely infrequent, user without mob approval though. 19:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC) That's fine with me. Generally, as a sysop you can block non-sysops up to pi days with just cause. If there's intransigence (refusal to talk civilly or to reform), you could probably go up to 3 weeks without anyone caring much. Bongolian (talk) 20:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Message to mods re: Rob/Nobs
I am getting kind tired of Rob's constant bitching and lying so have taken away his sysop bits and blocked him for a week so he can bitch and moan on CP instead of here. This election result has him tripling down on his bullshit and I am fucking tired of his utter bullshit. Let him get his disappointment elsewhere instead of here. If anyone thinks I was heavy handed or wrong feel free to revert my actions. I will not kick up a fight about it. AceModerator 03:14, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I am tired of ken's sock poopets farting all over the wiki, so I've placed an "Allow only autoconfirmed users" protection on Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP? until after the inauguration. One would think that he has a platform for his kookfarts on that other wiki, but he seems obsessed with this place. Perhaps he is lonely in his echo chamber. More likely, he is a raving loony. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 03:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with your action Cosmik. I'm tired of these two - they never change and it becomes exceedingly boring. Rob is just a liar and I don't think Ken actually has anyone else to talk to which would usually make me feel sorry for a person but Ken is a dishonest shit too so he gets no sympathy from me. AceModerator 03:26, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Knowing Ken, he'll probably make more socks here but bitch about the election results in the Saloon Bar or Trump-related talkpages. He should be charging rent for all of us living in his head. Rockford the Roe (talk) 03:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I have a problem with this. Perma blocking Rob is one of our favorite pastimes. I did so just an hour ago. The sane people here are unlikely to unblock him, thinking that he can unblock himself, and sysoprevoke can only be removed by a mod or tech. So any random permablock might end up as an actual ban if no reasonable mod or tech notices it. I think Nobs is a fucking cunt, but bans must be sanctioned by the mob. So this is very problematic. 03:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I will remember to re-add his sysop bits. You're opinion is noted but I will just hold out for a bit longer to get a bit more feedback. I am not unreasonable and happy to back down if I can hear from some more people . I am just really tired of his disruption and a cooldown during this contentious election is for the sanity of the herd. AceModerator 04:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll do you one better in fact. I'll unlock him now but put forward the proposal we give him a cool down. Better? AceModerator 04:14, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * All the CP trolls (Nobs, Ken, LT, etc.) can eat shit on a stick as far as I'm concerned. LT and Ken are particularly irksome since they've hung our heads on the wall in effigy. Bongolian (talk) 05:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ew. These people should be ashamed of themselves. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 05:29, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Trumpazoids are uniformly without shame. Bongolian (talk) 05:32, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * LT is banned, and they try to come back here I will ban it again on sight. I've never done anything to them to justify their posting such shite elsewhere. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 05:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I will support you on that. Bongolian (talk) 05:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * And with Rob? We seem to be keeping him on due to historical legacy. But if LT and Ken are gone for their disruptive presence why do we keep Rob? AceModerator 05:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Rob's latest coop resulted in a non-decision per mob note, so we are more or less committed being a goat and tolerating him for the time being. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 06:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Curiously, Ace opposed the outright ban on Nobs in that coop when there was something that he could have been banned for. Bongolian (talk) 06:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I am aware of this but my mind has shifted tact after 4 fucking years of Trumpian nonsense from Rob I am now at my limit to the amount of bullshit I can take from him which will only get worse from now on in. People’s minds can be changed and mine has changed. AceModerator 06:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, Ace. As I stated in that coop, I support any non-trivial block of Nobs. The cumulative trolling/waste-of-time/intellectual dishonesty is tiresome. Bongolian (talk) 06:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Amazing that nobsie gets even worse somehow. You could write a behavioral paper on him. 07:07, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I also like that it took about a month since I drew attention to the essay on the Bar for people to really respond to it. 07:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I've written about it 3 times (including 1 time here), and blocked LT 3 times since then because of that. It's highly reprehensible behavior, verging on illegality (incitement of violence). Because it was done outside of RW, it would seem to fall outside RW's punishment reasons. I didn't want to unilaterally ban the motherfucker without getting at least some support first. Bongolian (talk) 07:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not particularly opposed to a short, 1 week block of Nobs. Anything longer can only be done through coop vote. As for LT, I'm just offended my head wasn't mounted with the rest. --RWRW (talk) 10:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That effigy thing is gross. I was aware of it, but thought Ken was the only contributor to it and he's already banned. Since LT seems to have done his part, I endorse and will enforce a ban.
 * Nobs is an open question. If he has said or done something equally hideous I'd support a kickban. 10:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ken wrote the original. LT added a bunch of people to it (incl. me). Personally I was a bit amused to be regarded as that threatening, but that's besides the point, because this is basically having written a hitlist of editors you don't like (recall GR and why that shit was bad). I wouldn't call it acceptable conduct and it speaks a lot to how low CP currently has sunk to keep that page up. I know an appeal to morality for CP editors is uh.... tenuous at best, but from what I can find at least they used to pretend to not do that type of shit. You won't see a lot of sympathy here from me to not block the guy permanently.
 * As for nobs... well, I wouldn't object to permablocking him either, but I would at least urge that to be put through a proper vote with proper evidence, since nobs is at least a talkpage ghoul who has been here for long enough to get sysop. 11:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Nobs nuked the essay on CP apparently. That does give me slight favor to nobs and can make me raise a small objection against permaing him. 11:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You'll hear no complaints from me about banning LT. Good riddance to the fucking little troll shit. I've deleted his Draft:Susan Collins page because there was no way anyone else was ever going to make it into a missional article.
 * You'll hear no complaints from me about protecting the WIGO CP talk page either.
 * It's not true that Rob's last Coop case ended in indecision. It ended in the majority decision to ban him for a month. It was agreed that his sysop tools could be temporarily taken away from him so he couldn't unblock himself. That ban came to an end on 3 November. More Coop cases and longer bans for him in the future are not out of the question. We arem't just going to put up with him as part of the furniture or as one of RationalWiki's beloved traditions any longer. Spud (talk) 11:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The essay was restored by Ken, which apparently shows that Ken > Nobs in CP World. Bongolian (talk) 18:44, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

MrYellow / JudgeDredd
The user MrYellow was blocked with no discussion by JudgeDredd (aka Dysklyver/D). Problematically JudgeDredd has blocked many other accounts as "Ban evasion: Aeschylus/Smith" with no evidence (so based on unsubstantiated allegations) and in some cases has blocked accounts that are almost certainly known to not be "Aeschylus/Smith" such as Debunking spiritualism and numerous other accounts. This seems to be a total abuse of blocking. JudgeDredd recently lost his tech rights after leaking IP data to Emil Kirkegaard who he communicates with on Reddit, Discord (and probably also email). I noticed the only other person claiming MrYellow is Smith (excluding a troll sock of someone that was blocked) is Kirkegaard on social media (without any evidence of course and uncritically copying JudgeDredd). So there is a pattern here with these two. Note as well that JudgeDredd has made another unsubstantiated allegation that User:Johns is Smith and that dubious claim is only found repeated by Kirkegaard on social media. Instinct (talk) 14:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That isn't why Dysk lost their tech rights. 14:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? There was discussion (with quotes of Dysklyver admitting he was leaking IP data to Kirkegaard on Reddit) here: RationalWiki:Chicken_coop/Archive110. After (or around the same time) of that discussion when it was shown Dysklyver gives IP data to Kirkegaard, his tech rights were removed from his account. Instinct (talk) 14:29, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * On another note, MrYellow created the Nathan Larson article - clearly critical of pedophiles and the page was created to warn other's about Larson's depravity and document the investigations by journalists and FBI into his child abuse forum Rapey. Now how does this make any sense if Smith is MrYellow according to Judge Dredd/Dysklyver? Dysklyver is the same individual who has spent the past year cyberstalking Smith libelling him as a pedophile and child abuser across the internet. So how does this make any sense? Instinct (talk) 14:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Accusation were made, which were not substantiated. Also, Smith, quit with the third person nonsense, I can tell it's you. 15:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If they weren't substantiated why were JudgeDredd's tech rights removed? The evidence for leaking IP data is overwhelming and includes quotes from JudgeDredd/Dysklyver admitting they were doing this, for example, here is quote from in the same Reddit thread, where JudgeDredd was responding to Kirkegaard: "I can see the IP addresses Smith used on RationalWiki due to the fact I'm a tech there. Every single IP on a Smith account that I checked going back to 2016 or so was a VPN and I can clearly see the IP addresses Smith used on his accounts don't match his public IP address he used separately without an account. Furthermore, Smith has been recently editing RationalWiki using different IP addresses." In the same thread an anonymous user also asks to see this IP data and Dysklyver tells them to message in private. There's now more evidence of Kirkegaard/Dysklyver communicating because they're repeating the same unsubstantiated allegations about MrYellow and are the only two people making them on the entire internet.Instinct (talk) 15:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's see... Distrust after nuking the Coop and admitting to using an improvised checkuser, the latter of which is something most of the editors here dislike. So.... No, you randomly showing and spouting off conspiracies, which you never really substantiate (I.e. shit that would make it into evidence in a court of law, which I'm pretty sure you don't actually understand.) isn't really it. Also, seriously, stop it. We can tell when it's you Smith. 16:43, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I was the real User:MrYellow. I'm not Smith. User:Instinct is almost certainly (but not definitely) Smith complaining about the incorrect block (even if he's a banned user it seems justified he pointed out a mistake). Instinct is correct no evidence was presented I am Smith. I've spoken to Smith by email: the sysop who blocked MrYellow (Dysklyver), has has made multiple errors with blocking accounts under his name on this wiki. It seems strange my account was blocked with no discussion. The problem as I see it is Smith created a lot of articles on this wiki, but he got banned (although he disputes this) and now anyone who makes a large amount of edits to his article creations is unfairly blocked as him. I made significant edits to the Nathan Cofnas page Smith originally wrote. Emil Kirkegaard picked up on this and incorrectly claimed I'm Smith on 29 October 2020. Dysklyver repeated Kirkegaard's unfounded allegation and blocked my account as Smith not longer afterwards.64.227.44.90 (talk) 20:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Petition to remove probation
Given how there haven't been any major incidents involving me since I was given probation, and how I have faithfully adhered to the terms of the probation, I'd like to request that it be removed early. — Oxyaena Harass  13:41, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So you haven't insulted anybody, LANCBed, made inappropriate reversions or given user rights to people who really shouldn't have them?--Hastur! (talk) 13:53, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * In what way was LANCBing part of the original thing? Also I only made one inappropriate reversion, and it was a mistake. As for the user rights, I don't think I have, no. The three months are almost over anyways. Cut me some slack. — Oxyaena Harass  14:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The terms of my probation, as put there by RWRW, are three stipulations. I have avoided tripping all three. — Oxyaena Harass  14:17, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, we give Nobs sysop rights, and you occupy a similar niche. With that said he's always been quite careful with his rights and has demonstrated consistent emotional maturity over the years--Hastur! (talk)  14:19, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comparing me to Nobs oof. Also how is Nobs emotionally mature? He's a fucking fascist, that doesn't scream "MATURE" to me. — Oxyaena Harass  14:30, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Can someone remind me what exactly the three terms of probation were? I remember she wasn't to be abusive and there was something about not making any non short blocks. Also there was the topic ban for "far-left" related articles. I'd really expect Oxy to continue to be civil in her interactions with other users indefinitely, but the other two terms could be lifted with advise to not abuse the returned returned privileges. Bongolian (talk) 05:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Here you go. — Oxyaena Harass  15:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, I misremembered part of it. Apparently the topic ban was result of separate vote and doesn't seem to be finite. Additionally you were not supposed to "use the Vandal Bin on users with more than 30 edits". I still think the de-escalation rule should be indefinite, and you should continue to be civil on talk pages (at least unless someone is actively trying to provoke you), but the other two terms could be lifted on 9th of December. Let the parole run its full length though. 15:21, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Totally forgot there was a probation. Oxy has been fine. Lift restrictions. 17:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

A "Sirius" opinion
Bad puns aside, allow me for a moment to evaluate Oxy's behavior.

The terms under which Oxy was probated were described on Archive 29 of ATIM. They are as follows:


 * 1) Oxyaena cannot give a block exceeding 3.14159 days to anyone who is not a spam account.
 * 2) Oxyaena cannot use the Vandal Bin on users with more than 30 edits.
 * 3) Oxyaena has an active obligation to deescalate a confrontation with another user, with the possible exception of when another user is clearly trying to provoke her through malicious action (e.g., intentionally misgendering her). Oxyaena must contact a moderator to resolve the situation if she feels she cannot resolve the conflict diplomatically. Note: This does not extend to talking about people who are not users; calling out shitheads IRL is what we do, and Oxy is one of our loudest callers out of shitheadery.

Here are my evaluations. Probation started at the time of the closed vote, which was September 9th.


 * 1) Can be measured by reading the block log. Her record on this is in my eyes fairly straightforward. She has upheld this completely. The only longer blocks were given against Kiko, a user who I would consider a spam account, given his own admission to vandalizing under a BON, as well as many other instances of pointlessly needling other users. Not violated
 * 2) Can be measured by reading the vandal log. She hasn't vandal binned anyone. Not violated.
 * 3) Her only recent arguments are bar fights with Helena Bonham Carter, none of whom I would say reached the point of escalation beyond diplomatic reproach (although minor shade at HBC for not making that for a lack of trying, but HBC isn't at discussion here). Not violated.

Finally, her topic ban on far-left articles was applied on Archive 109. This topic ban was applied with the intent of preventing GR from POV pushing, which led to escalations between him, GC and Oxy. I would propose lifting this topic ban, based on previous good behavior on her probation. To a further extension, I am also suggesting applying this to lifting GCs topic ban, given that no further escalation on articles has occurred from his end either. I am however suggesting letting the topic ban stand on GRs end, given that GR from what I can find LANCBed during his coop vote, and unlike Oxy and GC we have no further data on if his attitude has changed (although I frankly doubt it).

In conclusion, I would reason that Oxys probation can be lifted, with a polite reminder that point number 3 was intended to suggest improvements on behavior, and that even though the terms of probation may be lifted, the behavior is still somewhat expected (just not with a looming threat of an instant sysoprevoke without a vote over it). 15:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I can agree with this Sirius proposal. 15:57, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes to ending probation ban however I'm sure if there are future slips that probation or worse will come swiftly. Shabi DOO  16:12, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, end the probation-I would be a bit less certain about the topic ban but I won't protest too much if that is what a majority of the community wants.-Flandres (talk) 16:42, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion either way on this one. Though I do believe it won’t be long until Oxy oversteps the mark again. Aside from that I am somewhat ambivalent. AceModerator 21:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, let her out of probation. GC too. But I would have hoped that you would come to understand that "calling out shitheadery" was her problem. Reckless anger is not useful to me: it doesn't make me a better person and it doesn't make the person I'm angry at any better either.It often leads to an escalation of conflict in harmless contexts. We all get angry. I haven't been angry since last Saturday. I'd like it to go on for a while.Ariel31459 (talk) 04:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much I care that much, but can someone remind us when the probation is supposed to expire and point to the coop case for this. Bongolian (talk) 05:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * December 9th, three months after the ATIIM case ended.  05:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I say wait it out. It's just another three and a half weeks. Spud (talk) 11:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree - wait it out. AceModerator 22:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I was going for let's wait until Dec 9th and let her out of her probation. And agreeing with the idea of letting coop decide about the topic ban. But she's going so far of the rails right now and back to her old toxic ways, that she's lost me. I'd support taking the mop back away from Oxy on account of violating the "de-escalation" clause. She is escalating it against everyone right now. 01:07, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Oxyaena, 25th Oct. 2020
[https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=RationalWiki:Saloon_bar&diff=prev&oldid=2237954 Fuck off you ableist pieces of shit. You know, I keep asking what human nature is, but all I get is meaningless drivel by fools pretending to speak for something they cannot even know, for an entire species of over 7 billion individuals. What is human nature? That held in common by all human societies? Well, guess what, for every so-called "rule" you can come up with about the human condition, there almost always is an exception. You're all a bunch of fucking idiots, bigots, scoundrels, the lot of you. A bunch of Dunning-Kruger jackoffs who know nothing about what you proclaim to be scientific fact. "Felons shouldn't vote" why not, haven't they already served their time? "Minors shouldn't vote" again, why not? A 16 year old is certainly capable of grasping complex societal issues "Illegal aliens shouldn't vote" why the fuck not? The notion of an "illegal alien" is an illegitimate one anyways, this country was founded by illegal aliens, so fuck off with your xenophobic bullshit.]

Stable AF, yo. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 17:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There was a lot of bigotry in that argument that I was outraged no one had taken issue with. Also that's one incident. Context is important, please stop trying to stir the pot. — Oxyaena Harass  18:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * FFS, man. You weren't bravely decrying bigotry; you were just being an asshole. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 18:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

HBC, your response to Oxy in the coop was both inflammatory and uncivil (RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive373): If the RW user base is comprised of such irredeemable scum, you should probably fuck off back to Twitter and try your best to survive on the pitiful amount of attention and ass pats you get from your fellow gimps and loons. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 19:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC) I don't see how that gives you a right to complain about Oxy's behavior. If you were truly concerned about Oxy's comment, you would have brought to the attention of a moderator(s) at the time that it happened, rather than fanning the flames back then, or bringing it up now when you're seeking to punish Oxy. Bongolian (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm at a loss to explain the willingness of you (and others) to indulge and enable the lies and rotten behaviour of an obviously unstable crank.


 * Oxyaena: My probation should be ended early because I have followed its terms to the letter and my behaviour has been beyond reproach!


 * A bunch of people: Totally accurate! Let's do this!


 * HBC: lolwut?


 * Bongolian: Irrelevant! You were uncivil, too! I'm going to block you for an hour! Wheeeeeeee!


 * Slow clap, son. Top notch moderating. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 22:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * HBC no offense, but this is kinda what I mean with "not for a lack of trying". That chain kinda perfectly sums up what I'm talking about. To put it in the way you seem to favor doing this:
 * Oxyaena:
 * HBC: 
 * Conflict:
 * The person who escalated these conflicts is consistently you, not Oxy. Her posting a loaded statement doesn't always result in a conflict escalating (ref. recent Communism talkpage), however whenever it's in a discussion with you, it always inevitably ends up happening because you can't seem to resist making personal attacks. Look, I'd encourage you to drop this for the sake of not getting the mob to consider possibly placing sanctions on your behavior (I won't raise such suggestions) when it comes to being civil in discussions. might make for some nice reading.  11:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No offence, but this is exactly what I mean by "indulge and enable". You went out on a ~500 word limb for Totally accurate! Let's do this!, and having been called on it, your instinctive reaction is to performatively finger wag, rather than acknowledge that your analysis was significantly lacking. What conclusion re. her rotten behaviour do you think Oxyaena is most likely to draw from that? Bonus wtf? points for being able to generalise a batshit tirade like this as nothing more troubling than a "loaded statement". Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 00:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Uh yeah, it's literally just an emotionally loaded statement. If I look at the substance, all she basically is saying is "y'all kinda suck". If you can at least look past the fact where she calls the wiki filled with bigots (which isn't breaking term 3, and as it got discussed by anyone who isn't you or CoryUsar, she was wrong on that), most of her statement was quick dissertations of content seemingly obtained by glancing over the thread. Her third probation guideline isn't "don't be an asshole", it means "don't make it so bad that we have to bring out the big guns to deal with it" (big guns being ATIM/Coop/similar ilk). The problem with your current assertions is that the escalation of the discussion in this case was done by you and Cory. It's easy to make it seem like your way because you're just linking the diff of her initial statement, but if we look at the complete discussion, we get a markedly different picture. It seems that most of the userbase had the maturity to say something to the extent of "Oxy, please don't insult the entire website over a bar discussion", and only you and Cory took it to the point of personal attacks on her. 08:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

First rule of holes, man. You've made it abundantly clear that you're far more interested in policing people's reactions to Oxy's behaviour, than in policing Oxy's behaviour itself. Once again - and this is not rhetorical - what conclusion re. her rotten behaviour do you think she is most likely to draw from that? Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 22:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, having reviewed some of Oxy’s comments, maybe the person who randomly insults the entire website frequently and scorns the entire project doesn’t deserve special tools intended to aid participation in that project. 01:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, really weird how Oxyaena is so desperate to be a sysop on a site she regularly derides--Hastur! (talk) 05:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Since the topic ban had no expiration, I'm disinclined to support lifting it without another coop vote. Bongolian (talk) 05:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with my sensible colleague Bongolian about that. Spud (talk) 11:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hastur literally compared me to Nobs, and I regularly get shit talked on this wiki and its related projects, and you wonder why I bad mouth it? I was also the one who proposed the topic ban in the first place. No one acknowledges that. — Oxyaena Harass  14:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I will also follow the lead of my comrades Spud and Bongolian. Wise they are. AceModerator 19:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with. It is my recommendation to lift her topic ban, but it was a community applied sanction, so it should be up to the community to lift it. May I request a mod to bootstrap a voting process for lifting the topic bans of Oxy and GC?

Also, I suspect that you two might not fully grasp the situation. Oxy has had her mop back for the past 2 months and a few days, under a probationary basis (the terms of which were lifted from an earlier suggestion where she shot herself in the foot in getting a probation by flipping out the moment Ace criticized her in the general abrasive way Ace does). The request is here to see if her probation can be lifted early based on good behavior. From my perspective she has upheld her part of the probation in the past few months rather decently (specifically when we examine the reasons that she initially lost sysop in the first place and how she has behaved after getting it back), so I'm fine with lifting it early. That said, I can also see the argument for letting the probation expire normally if the mob deems it fit. If it has to come to it, we can make a vote out of it of course, along with everything else discussed here. 19:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I just want to clarify something here about my "abrasiveness". If I am criticizing someone or something then look at the actual argument I make rather than my tone. I'm not abrasive - I'm just fucking honest. AceModerator 00:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Feeling a bit left out on the pings, man. You might find it hard to believe, but there's this naive little optimist buried deep inside me that's hoping for something along the lines of ''Fuck, yeah... it makes her more likely to keep acting like this... Fuck! I should totally stop doing that! Sorry, man.''

He's a sweet child and full of naturally good cheer. Don't be the cunt who disappoints him, eh? Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 03:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to believe ya, don't worry. I like to assume good faith! I just didn't ping you because the response didn't quite pertain to you. Also I do agree that you're honest but... well, brute force delivery of the truth often tends to be rather incendiary for some individuals. It's easier to deliver something harsh with chocolate and flowers than to do it by throwing it at someone with a brick, I'm sure you'll agree with that. That of course doesn't preclude the fact that we should all at least have some resistence when someone throws morsel at you, to keep stretching this analogy to the insane region, which is why Oxy's lashing out at you caused her to fail her attempt at getting a probation. Moving on to that, I was not pleased with getting a ping this morning to resolve a complete nothingburger conflict. I get that Oxy wants to not escalate, and this technically doesn't break her probation, but I am withdrawing my opinion that she should be let off early. It should expire normally.
 * The topic ban I still want a vote on because it wasn't just her and it was purely applied to prevent another now gone editor from POV-pushing badly written content into articles. Keeping that element up is silly to me. I'll start a vote on that in ~6 hours or so if nobody beats me to the punch I guess (seems my request for making it a vote was ignored/missed). 14:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Sirius. You don't have to choose between either being a direct abrasive "honest" dick or tip toeing around on egg shells. There is an enormous spectrum of conflict resolution approaches in between. I'm not saying I am the prime example of using the right tone with dickish or difficult people but then I'm not running for election here. I, and I'm sure several other users, will vote for candidates who have shown, or can show even the slightest willingness to compromise on the tone they use with trouble makers or sticky problems. Shabi  DOO  18:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I am as god made me. No more, no less. Though he did make me a staggering husk of a person whose life is an omnishambles. But I wouldn't have it any other way. AceModerator 20:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Coop voting rules
I've started a discussion on modifying the voting rules for coop cases (RationalWiki talk:Community Standards) Bongolian (talk) 20:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Can a mod indefinitely lock all these articles and article talk pages for autopatrolled users?
Michael Coombs has been spamming/trolling/vandalising the following pages and keeps returning to edit them:


 * Anatoly Karlin and Talk:Anatoly Karlin
 * Talk:Spiteful mutant hypothesis
 * Sean Last and Talk:Sean Last
 * Nathan Larson and Talk:Nathan Larson

Shouldn't these be indefinitely locked so only autopatrolled users can comment? Otherwise he's going to keep returning on them... When sysops start blocking and tagging his accounts (that are blatantly him) Coombs has a history of trying to blame them on an imaginary impersonator despite the fact he creates fake accounts impersonating other users himself and is so infamous for doing this - he has been banned across the internet on many websites for online identity theft. I doubt the user is the real Sean Last but Coombs. Note if you search "Michael Coombs impersonator" in the search tool on RationalWiki you find a history of impersonations involving Coombs going back 2+ years. 134.122.108.192 (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Mikey and drive-by BoN in a tree! K-I-S-S-I-N-G! -- Goatspeed. 18:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I changed the protection period to 2 weeks for the Karlin talk page due to shorter protection periods not working. Generally, we like to have the ability for non-autoconfirmed users to comment on talk pages. So, unless the vandalism of talk pages becomes extraordinary, I don't think that there would be consensus for longer-period protections. Bongolian (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

LANCB
Moved to Community standards AMassiveGay (talk) 22:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Complaint about my article
My article (Bo Winegard) is full of half-truths, mendacities, and out-of-context quotes. At first, I just ignored it. However, it has intruded upon my professional life, so I feel it necessary to respond.

To the best of my knowledge, I do not promote “pseudoscience.” I am certain that I am wrong about a number of things. But I am open to evidence. And I would never willingly promote something that I knew was false. I have made no attempt to “surround” myself with “white nationalists”. Most of my friends are liberal to progressive.

My page then claims: “Winegard supports “ethno-traditionalism”, which is more or less white nationalism repackaged and relabelled, so he can simultaneouslydefend white nationalists, while denying accusations of racism. Clever guy.” This is mendacious because “ethno-traditionalism” is absolutely not “white nationalism” relabeled. And I support cultural nationalism anyway, which is, I think, a more appropriate term for the kind of vision I have about the virtues of national identity. Also, I have never defended white nationalism qua white nationalism — in fact, I have argued against it on a number of occasions.

The page continues: “Winegard believes that race is a biological reality, white people have superior IQs predominantly because of genes and that skull shapes and measurements can determine human races by continental ancestry.”

I do believe that race, properly understood, is a “biological reality.” However, I am open to the term human populations. All experts agree that humans vary because of cultural and genetic adaptations. The only debate is about how best to classify that variation. I think race works reasonably well, but is, unfortunately, a divisive term.

I also think that persistent IQ differences between human populations likely have a genetic component (as do many experts on the topic). However, I don’t think that “white people have superior IQs.” In fact, it’s much more complicated than that. Ashkenazi Jewish people score highest on IQ tests, followed by Northeast Asians. I have never written (and notice that the page does not quote me here) that “white people have superior IQs.” That is a clumsy way to address a complicated issue.

The page then claims that “Winegard spends most of his time on Twitter talking about race and the alleged evils of liberalism.” This is false. I haven’t done a content analysis of my tweets, but I am very confident that less than 5% of them are about race. And I respect liberalism a great deal. I do, however, worry about radical progressivism. And I do worry about liberal bias in the social sciences.

The claim that I identify as a member of the “alt-center” is amusing. I think I wrote that once as a joke. Apparently the person (or people) who wrote my RationalWiki page took it seriously. I have no idea what the “alt-center” even is. I am a pragmatic centrist, somewhat socially conservative but economically progressive. But, my views change with evidence, so I hate to classify my political opinions.Bo Winegard (talk) 18:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Good luck buddy, nobody here around cares about what is true or not, as long as it fits a certain agenda. 18:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * GR, shut up. Twodots (talk) 19:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Generally, the best place to raise issues with your own page is on its talk page. The page had been protected due to excess vandalism, so I have changed it to allow you to comment. There is little doubt that the concept of race is outdated since the time that population geneticist Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza co-authored the groundbreaking and monumental book The History and Geography of Human Genes in 1994, which showed that the human population is clinal and not possible to divide into discrete 'races'. Since you seem to be promoting the idea of 'race' or euphemized onto 'population', then you are indeed promoting pseudoscience. Your term 'ethno-traditionalism' sounds an awful like that other euphemmism used by a so-called "western chauvinist fraternity", but you welcome to try to differentiate them somehow. Feel free to make general or specific criticisms on the talk page. If you can give us a valid reason why something on the page is evidentially false, we would be happy to correct it. Bongolian (talk) 20:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I doubt is the real Bo Winegard but Michael Coombs. I noticed what the account wrote is not new but a copy and paste from his website. Coombs has also been blocked impersonating other users here today, including Sean Last and is currently creating sockpuppets with "Radlett" in title - the home town of an ex-sysop who cannot be named because of a filter to prevent Coomb's mentioning him. Someone of course can easily confirm this by contacting Winegard on social media.  161.35.32.89 (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's plausible. I've given the person 24 hours to do a simple confirmation from Twitter. Bongolian (talk) 03:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

IP advertising spam?
So I stumbled upon an advertisement for a building company in Manhattan, which I promptly deleted. As per the blocking policy:


 * Spam: Adding advertising, especially media of or links to illegal and/or obscene items, into a page. Can also be adding huge chunks of unnecessary text into a page. Or maybe even adding something to many pages for no reason at all. Advertising accounts are indefinite bans, but the latter is usually vandal-binned.

So I perma-blocked the creator of the ad. But, it's an IP. Was that incorrect? Should I change the block settings? (Sorry for bothering ye, but it just occurred to me now that the action may have been incorrect. It says "accounts". Do we treat IPs the same way?) If I fucked up, sorry in advance! Regards. - Rairyu75  ( Talk ) 14:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, don't perma-block IP's. IP's are not necessarily tied to single person forever. Say some troll uses a school computer to make a shit edit, and now that school computer is permanently blocked, even for students who are good faith editors.
 * I mean that's how I understand it but I'm fairly ignorant about these things. Basic rule is to not block IP's for more than 3 weeks though. 14:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Here's the full blocking policy: RationalWiki:Blocking policy. We generally don't block IP addresses for more than 3 days unless there are persistent problems. GrammarCommie already fixed that block. Bongolian (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Crowtin is harassing me on my talk page
Will the mods do something? Unlikely. 21:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I asked the BON who is obviously Gunther what he meant with "that secret poll on the support chat" where "[Raven] wanted to be a mod here". It wasn't aimed at you Raven. 21:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Go to the BON's talk page. Fuck off from my talk page unless you have experience in JSON. 21:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Why so fragile? 21:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I see. Not all harassments are created equally, huh? 21:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Correct. 21:37, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No Raven. You don't get to demand that. 21:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think we call this a case of the Streisand effect. 21:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Raven’s conduct towards Oxy is a lot closer to harassment than a single talk page comment. 21:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

You still think Crowtin is clever. Remember when you were so embarrassed by it you had to dubiously claim it was a typo?-Flandres (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Sysop rights
New users on this website are being given sysop rights too quickly. AlecGargett‎‎ is a vegan activist who has been active on RationalWiki for less than 24 hours. His agenda was to join this website and delete an article I wrote. Basically he doesn't like the idea that eggs are actually good for health. He's been given sysop rights by JudgeDredd. It is getting behind a joke. I have created a lot of articles on this website all from the mainstream science point of view not vegan (obviously). Random anti-science users with no article creations are now getting sysop rights. Off-site AlecGargett is on vegan websites to promote a vegan viewpoint. I have seen some of his posts. He seems to think eating a single egg will damage someones health. RationalWiki promotes the mainstream science viewpoint. This user is basically a fringe theorist. Some criteria needs to be introduced in regard to the sysop rights. I don't see why we should be giving rights so quickly to cranks and fringe nuts with no valid contributions to the website. In a nutshull Sysop rights and this user hasn't created a single article and displays a serious anti-science vegan POV... really? Johns (talk) 17:37, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That's outrageous. While giving him autopatrolled is debatable, sysop is beyond insane for someone whose contributions are confined to one article and it's talk page. what gives? IveBeenFrank (talk) 17:43, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I've revoked sysop from this user. There was no good reason at all to grant them. 17:58, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I was surprised he was given a mop. I suggested he draft an article that could then be reviewed by you all. I wouldn't panic yet.Ariel31459 (talk) 21:42, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I restored the user-right which I gave. For the record, per the Community Standards, it is fully within the remit of any Sysop, to grant the aforementioned right to any user, even users who have not edited at all, at their discretion. It is not within Sysop, or indeed even Mod remit, to remove Sysop rights from users, except in cases of emergency, where there is a clear case of abuse. Otherwise, you can go through the coop, to remove it in the normal manner. As for him being a vegan activist... sucks for you that I don't give a shite what people believe, and stick to the mission statement... I'm yet to hear a coherent moral argument, against veganism, in any case. I would personally science to support veganism as a general rule, the academic evidence suggests it does. Judge Dredd (talk) 11:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * With Dysk on this one. Don't fuck with people's rights unless you have a solid case. Sysop is given out freely and even though we're a bit more conservative with handing it out as a rule lately, anyone is still free to promote anyone. If he pushes fringy crap into pages, revert it. If he keeps it up, ask a mod to temp pagelock it to keep him out. If he's being a consistent PITA, drag him to the coop. Demopping shouldn't ever be done without a community vote. 11:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * And yet I see it done from time to time (not by me), when, for example, a moderator or experienced sysops thinks the demotion was rashly done. JD was within his rights to restore the mop. No harm done. Call it a test of sincerity.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

User:CastrateJimboWales
Says it all. 198.144.145.45 (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Has been blocked already. Spud (talk) 01:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

A bunch of character assassination articles on people that have no notability - can they be deleted?
There are a bunch of character assassination articles on non-notable scientists who attended the London Conference on Intelligence such as Fróði Debes, Aurelio J. Figueredo, Dimitri van der Linden and Adam Perkins. Sanitiser (talk) 17:05, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ,, , please look how poor the Fróði Debes and Aurelio J. Figueredo pages are. Sanitiser (talk) 17:17, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Dude shut the fuck up, nobody cares... the user known as Smith wrote all these pages, and dozens more. If you believe a specific page, is worthy of deletion, we have a process for that. It ain't within the Mod remit, to delete these pages. Furthermore, it was decided long ago that Smith's articles would not be mass-deleted, nor deleted purely based on the authorship of said articles. Judge Dredd (talk) 17:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * With Dredd on this one, although most are rather boring stubs. 18:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a decided issue as JD said. Bongolian (talk) 18:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Judge Dredd is no longer on the Board
Our meeting held today held a vote from three members that voted all in favor of removing from the board. Please update staff user rights. 20:02, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Not to hijack the discussion, but this has reminded me that no one gave me staff rights. 20:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Apologies. I can't do this, however, I don't have the powers for that. 20:10, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You have staff now, GC. 20:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So is there an alternate and if so whom? 20:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, was GC the alternate? If so, no worries. 20:54, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, not enough people ran for an alternate. 22:09, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ronin has also been removed from the members list . Was this due to resignation? --RWRW (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * (EC)Should there be a by election then for a replacement (for Ronin too apparently). I wouldn't be running or anything, but just to make sure everything is handled according to Community Standards and shit.
 * I'm sure the foundation can function with lesser amount of members, but it might be necessary to bring it to the standard if possible to accomodate the mob. 22:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ronin says he's willing to take his seat back if necessary. Not totally sure about circumstances, but that's what he says. RWRW can confirm since this was a Discord convo. 22:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait, so what was the deal with Ronin? Was it just by accident that an extra board member was elected? Also, what did Nutty mean by this? And did you say "all in favour"? Did Dysk vote to ban themselves? (sorry if I'm being nosy and stuff, just curious like Knight Commander and RWRW) - Rairyu75  ( Talk ) 21:06, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I can tell you this much. Dysk was not at the meeting. He was contacted about it but did not respond. FuzzyCatPotato, LeftyGreenMario and myself were there. Cosmikdebris observed and took the minutes but, as a non-Board member, didn't vote on anything. We followed the proper procedure. FuzztCatPotato put forward the motion to remove Dysk. I seconded it and LeftyGreenMario said, "Aye". I was in favour of having a by election to elect another Board member after the mod election ends on December 1. But we ultimately agreed to continue with just four Borad members for now. Spud (talk) 01:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I looked at LGM's rights a few minutes ago, and it still did not include staff. I have added it now. Bongolian (talk) 01:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)