RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive19

Proposal for new rangeblock
It has recently come to my attention that a user who is switching Ips rapidly has been vandalizing this website Morris-style. Since their Ip consistenly begins with a comparatively long string (2601:644:301:dd70) a range block on that range will likely do minimal harm to innocent users. 17:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No objection from me - the IP is a pain in the arse. Scream!! (talk) 17:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok. I'll wait for more to comment; then this can be brought to a vote. 17:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That's Morris, feel free to snip this current Morris infestation in the bud. — Oxyaena Harass  18:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As long as it’s temporary. 19:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess he has some spare time from the lockdown. No objections here. --RWRW (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * So. That range is owned by comcast for residential customers in the US.  I think it would be prudent to assume that it's got some possibility of false positives. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:20, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comcast owns many IPV6 addresses in the 2601: space from what I see. This won't completely block him of course, but cutting off access from his default cable modem configuration will slow things down. Soundwave106 (talk) 19:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We haven't had any yet. In any case, it seems worth the risk., could you do it? 19:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Do a week-long one. Hopefully that'll minimize the chances of inconveniencing those caught in it. 19:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * How about a month? A week will not dissuade the evil one. 19:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * A month's a bit long imo. 20:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * A week is too short. Perhaps two weeks? 20:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Two weeks probably is fine. If it happens, another two weeks. 20:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to do a rangeblock. Since EK doesn't seem to be here, could someone else please do it? 20:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I thought the last vote on range blocking squeaked through on grounds of serious harassment. Can anyone point me to anything other than daft vandalism here? Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 20:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's the same guy, hence ban evasion/extension of harassment. It will get more serious. 21:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Block the fucker. Two weeks is sufficient. Cosmikdebris (talk) 22:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It should be possible to write a script to autoblock the current infestation based on the nature of the edits. I can work one up if necessary (as an ex-programmer), but it's not something I've done much of on RW. Bongolian (talk) 07:09, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , or anyone else with permissions, can check the filter I've just added. Bongolian (talk) 07:46, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * all 3 of the hits to your filter so far have been false positives, I think it needs some adjustment. Also imma block that range. EK (talk) 09:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok blocked the Morris range again log EK (talk) 09:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Something something censorship
This just happened to me from the same user on my first day of making edits - specifically, I was blocked under the false accusation of being a "right wing operator" (I'm not even right wing) for removing a factually inaccurate and un-cited statement on a single page. It looks like the block was removed or expired early, which is the only reason I'm able to talk here now. Also, I'm trying to figure out how to sig/timestamp.


 * --Cosmikdebris (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The edit is white-washing and also removing a source. Also you have a penchant for substituting "factual" as mutually exclusive to "ideological". If you want to make a case for your pages, using mere vague, loaded labels as a crutch for your arguments isn't going anywhere, as with the discussion above. We get these complaints all the time. It's not a case for moderation yet except the ban time is too strenuous and time should've been taken to respond to your comment on the talk page rather than a revert. 00:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * a.) I don't have a penchant for anything as it was literally my first edit and I got blocked for it, and b.) I neither whitewashed nor removed a source. The quote is a misrepresentation of the article, which is itself a misrepresentation of the associated individuals. I'm also facing open censorship on the talk page for posting a normal comment. It's increasingly clear that some users have been given too much power here. https://danielmiessler.com/blog/a-visual-breakdown-of-intellectual-dark-web-idw-political-positions/ Einlanzer (talk) 00:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Abuse of Sysop Powers
Hi. Since the day I have joined to RationalWiki, a sysop named User:DuceMoosolini has abused their Sysop powers several times. At first, they have reverted my edit to Communism groundlessly. Then, they have taken off my new rank, Autopatrolled, which was given by another sysop and for many times, publicly discriminated me for whitewashing communism. They also recently threatened me to use penalties and blocked me for several hours only because of fixing their bias towards "Communism" in many places, probably as a warning towards me to not fix their ultra biased centrist views.They never made any based arguments about any of their actions tho. I personally don't see any difference at their tone, actions and way of thinking from those palls of Conservapedia, as they are groundless anti-communists and admirers of US army, and reverting every edits that aren't in favor of their wooden political attitude and biased views. I demand the subject to be investigated and justice to be taken. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 20:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok 20:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * [[File:Mario Huh.png]] ....
 * Look, from the fossil record you've been reverted by GrammarCommie, The Crow, and Cosmikdebris while DuceMoosolini was busy edit warring with Oxyaena yesterday (which isn't good but I think Duce went into the talk page afterward). That's just from one page, so I don't know why you bring up only Duce into this. There's a discussion right here going on. Try to get things resolved before getting a mod involved. And hold off the "you're an ultra biased centrist" and "you're just like people from Conservapedia" accusations. 20:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Aw, Oxy and I get along. What's a little edit war between friends? :) (On a more serious note, we've mostly worked things out through the talkpage). 21:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I mentioned so. 21:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * And in that specific talk section I was threatened by themselves and then got a block, that I couldn't contribute to this wiki for such hours and a nonsense log is written to my history. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 21:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * But none of those people (except The Crown) reverted my edits without a good base and discredited me with whitewashing and communist apologia (thus showing that he doesn't know anything about it), and reverting the Autopatrolled role I have gathered and making it impossible for me to regain that with all of those shit they got me involved and their false penalties which remain as a dark scar on my log history. I just want his accusations, actions and abuses of power (such as groundlessly discrediting me, giving me authoritive penalties and revoking my ranks) to be evaluated, and the justice to be taken about that user that acts like they are the owner of this wiki. Being old here doesn't necessarily make them right and more based than me, as some palls in Conservapedia are much more older than us yet very wooden regarding topics involving science, religion, history and politics. RationalWiki is found as a rational wiki against Conservapedia, which had power-abusing self-righteous authorities that deleted everything and discredited everyone that weren't in agreement with them. This user is doing the same bs. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 21:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is how he has taken away my role, and here is how he threatened me with penalties and blocked me just like the "authoritive leaders of authoritive shitty ideologies" he cites with big words in this wiki. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 21:17, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean I kind of did when I asked if you were a Tankie on the Discord, though that wasn't related to my revert on the wiki so... 21:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Your user rights log history isn't a big deal, especially the autopatrol status. That status exists only to make patrolling edits easier for our end; it doesn't actually grant you any additional powers aside from maybe not having to deal with captcha, and the only status you're granted is that you make edits consistent enough for us to not have to keep patrolling them, more of a symbolic sort of thing. It's an admission of trust, but it's not that big of a deal. Anyone can quickly give you back and forth with them at any time and no one is going to remember your past conflicts unless you, well, make a huge deal out of them. And as I said, call off the hyperbole. I believe Duce removed the autopatrolled for now because of the edit warring you've engaged in, that the status was given too soon, and he doesn't like your ideology (we're strongly anti-communist) but he can make his own case. 21:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * But what about the **facts**? I am sure you aren't as biased as him, as you wanna keep this wiki a place of based and least-biased arguments against Conservapedia, which is as biased and wooden as Duce regarding Communism, who probably didn't even read the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 21:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "I believe Duce removed the autopatrolled for now because of the edit warring you've engaged in, that the status was given too soon, and he doesn't like your ideology (we're strongly anti-communist) but he can make his own case." That is indeed why I removed autopatrol. People remove autopatrolled all the time. I didn't realize it was so fucking controversial. 21:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, and I am strongly anti-capitalist and anti-your-beloved-"our-army". If you wanna play the McCarthy, challenge me with good based arguments then! Because I will keep challenging you with based arguments against your beloved army and economic system as long as I am at this Wiki. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 21:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Well that was kind of overly melodramatic. 21:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You are annoying the piss out of me. Your condescension and your obsession with pinging and insulting me are absolutely not helping your case. 21:52, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comrade-yutyo, your edits were not based in fact. Open source software is not communist for the reason that the release is completely voluntary; the creators could have copyrighted it. By your logic, simple charity is communism. Those who reverted you were correct in doing so. 21:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * dude, have I said such a thing?? Bruh. Open source is a market strategy overall. The thing you mean is Free Software, of which I haven't called Communism. Even copyleft can't be qualified as such, as in Telecommunist Manifesto it is heavily cited to using copyright for the protection of software freedoms or so on. I really don't know where you got that false claim tho, as it doesn't make sense at all even by itself as a claim that lacks the basic information. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 22:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You put that stuff in "Examples of successful communism" and saying "Marxism/Leninism" is somehow not real communism, as seenhere 22:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Marxism/Leninism is the name of keynesian socialist planned economy that had the goal of Communism, which is not socialism nor an authoritive system but the name of the society without class, currency and property. You guys really need to know the importance of difference between the tool and the product. For example, many wars actually have the promise of peace, yet they aren't peace at all. You can't hate a thing you don't even know the definition of. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 22:46, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keynes was basically a neoliberal who abhorred Marxist-Leninism and whose policies formed the core of the New Deal, which basically saved American capitalism. Lenin would have hated him. Ideas and policies aimed at reachering Marx's ideal final state are considered communist by all sane people. 23:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Any sane people, that read stuff before talking about it, knows that Communism isn't the name of socialist planned economy but a classless, stateless society. Even states like USSR admitted they are socialist but not Communist yet. It is a very basic info that doesn't even need a discussion that long and only a little edit to be solved, yet you guys are so anti communist that you just act the same way anti-communists of the past like McCarthy and the current ones act like. I literally see no difference between the Communism page of here and of the specific wiki in the terms of being biased, as well as that specific sysop being freakingly intolerant and biased towards the topic. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 23:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * if you don't want to be annoyed, don't annoy people like this guy did before and provide base to your revokes and penalties.--Comrade-yutyo (talk) 22:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * So I'm just going to jump in to point out that A), Duce is not like Andy. Their behavior patterns do not match and that you're using a false comparison. B), Duce did provide a reason. It actually seems pretty decent from where I sit. Now, you're disputing the reason, but acting like no reason was given is kind of misleading and wrong... 22:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * if he doesn't, why he threatens users that don't share the same views with himself and his bias? --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 23:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Because you’re being uncooperative, condescending, and you won’t leave me the fuck alone with all the pinging and the constantly bringing me up. We shouldn’t even have a problem anymore since Oxy and I are collaborating on the communism article. So leave me the hell alone or I’m going to ask the coop for a vandal bin or a longer block for you. I’ve had enough of your crap. Leave. Me. The. Fuck. Alone. 00:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Duce. 03:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * For the final time, stop with the hyperbolic accusations, the comparisons between Duce and any component of Conservapedia. 23:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is a nice Communist Wiki, with practically nothing in it. There's a lot of work to do. Why not get started? Ariel31459 (talk) 03:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It uses Fandom tho, and that discrimination isn't rational at all. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 14:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * All hail! Bongolian (talk) 03:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You've been here for 4 days and look how much needless drama you've caused already. Your experience here is obviously not going to be a pleasant one for you. And you're not going to endear yourself to any other users here either. It can all only end badly. I suggest you sod off now before things get worse for you and everyone else. Spud (talk) 03:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't understand that how that wiki is found as a place that defends facts, but has the same ossified hierarchy like Conservapedia. I am just a regular user that wanna contribute to a rational source of information and now trying to defend my rights as a such, yet get warned by mods for that. I am not the one that had started that drama from the first place, as Duce firstly discredited me with false claims and threatened me with groundless penalties. I think that is a great example of how every community is biased and irrational at some point, even if they are found to be truthful as the cause. I can't care for people's opinions if they don't care about the facts and act severe towards facts. I am not the one that pulls off someone's rank and discredit them for some sort of "whitewashing" lie from the first place. I don't have a reason to cry for a wiki, as I was just at search of a rational wiki and thought that I found it. If I get banned, I would form a wiki as how Peter Lipson did after being banned at Conservapedia, and write about you guys just the way how you do to that wiki. If you aren't the truthful wiki you say to be, then people would criticize as long as internet exist. You can ban me, and then cause to a new wiki to be opened. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Why don't you just cut out the middle man? Instead of waiting till you get banned, leave now and create your own wiki on which you go on about how terrible we all are. You'll save everyone a lot of trouble. Spud (talk) 14:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I will use my user right of editing and providing facts as long as I can do edits in this wiki. I haven't vandalized anything but contributed to this wiki. If you ban me, you prove you being "irrational". If you don't, then the wiki is rational and I can keep doing my contributions. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 14:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yutyo, the amount of users here who are siding with you can be counted on one hand. Since this site is a mobocracy that runs on consensus it means that you stand very little chance at making your desired changes to articles. All you are accomplishing here is stirring up drama(your hyperbolic "this is just like conservapedia" what-passes-for-a debate style is not helping), so why is it worth the bother? Is whatever feeling of righteousness you get from this really worth slogging through an army of users who are firmly opposed to you when your desired changes will not happen in the end? Why not go to a more welcoming place, or start your own site where you will be able to attract a prosperous community of like minded people? Essentially, what are your ventures on the site accomplishing and in the end is the net gain worth it?-Flandres (talk) 14:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Rationality and Political Corretness are two issues I care as most. I am not gonna stop providing facts and references as long as I am at that Wiki. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 14:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * But you aren't accomplishing anything here. Standing up for your principles is great but you should still learn when to pick your battles.Flandres (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I am just trying to defend my rights as a user, and make my point clear. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 14:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As we all know the U.S. constitution clearly states that any webizen may add whatever inane stupid edit to a topic they have a kindergarteners understanding of without being called out for the fool they are. Since the U.S. constitution applies to the whole world I simply have to agree that Comrade-yutyo has all of the rights that he claims he does. Who are we to dare infringe on his right to make a stupid comparison between a complex political ideology and a fairly unrelated volunteer internet project? If we don't let them practice their concept of what is "rational" we may have the supreme court knocking on our door and forcing us to accept whatever stupid edits they want or risk being considered "irrational". I thought rationalwiki was rational after all. Shabi  DOO  16:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

"If I get banned, I would form a wiki as how Peter Lipson did after being banned at Conservapedia, and write about you guys just the way how you do to that wiki.": It's been done already to RationalWiki. The Lomaxian rantings are actually rather sad. Bongolian (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yutyo, Abd does seem rather lonely. You ought to join him. I welcome your criticism. 18:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * DM me on discord if you want an invite to talk to Abd, or Bigs, or any other previous creators of new wikis that were going to be more "Rational". EK (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "I am just trying to defend my rights as a user, and make my point clear."
 * Your rights end at my sweaty, rational Italian palms. 18:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Your rights end at my sweaty, rational Italian palms. 18:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Computer went kaput
I'll probably have a minimal presence on RW till Wednesday or so.Bongolian (talk) 03:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I know the feeling! Spud (talk) 12:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Got my computer back from repair. I'm back at full capacity now. Bongolian (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Mod intervention requested
I'm requesting a Mod to lock this archived AfD to prevent further edit warring. 15:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Since I was the one who decided that, after 10 days, it was time to declare it a keeper, it can't be me. That would just look like more edit warring. It has to be someone a bit more neutral. Spud (talk)
 * Knock it off, there was no consensus to delete. On a procedural point, mod locking wouldn't do anything since Oxy is a tech and techs can edit mod-locked pages. --RWRW (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, fine. I'll stop edit warring. — Oxyaena Harass  16:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Oxy. Just to note: it was previously decided that Techs who are not Mods would refrain from actions that are specifically allocated to Mods even though they have the technical ability to do so. Bongolian (talk) 17:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ^That was my understanding of the matter. AceModerator 00:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yup, this is true. 00:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it should be a simple matter to archive the AfD at this point, but I will leave it up to since she participated in the AfD but did not vote in it. Bongolian (talk) 17:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The reason I edit warred is because I was gonna vote but forgot all about it, so I'd like it to be kept up for at least a few more days. — Oxyaena Harass  17:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's reasonable, but it would be nice to see a better rationale for deletion than has thus far been presented. Also, you'd need at 2 more votes + your own to delete it at this point, and there was no interest in further votes/debate after the April 25 AfD, so perhaps that's unlikely. Bongolian (talk) 17:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I would've archived it soon since the proposal wasn't gaining any traction. We should continue discussion in the talk page, then take the next appropriate action from the discussion. 20:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

This section is a lie
This sentence is false. — Oxyaena Harass  22:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * [[File:MagrittePipe.jpg]]
 * —Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * At least that's an innocuous paradox unlike the previous one that you put forth, Oxy. Bongolian (talk) 02:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What exactly was the warrant, provocation, and/or reasoning behind that statement?-Flandres (talk) 02:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It was Oxy's "Talk:Joe Biden" followed by Joe Biden. Bongolian (talk) 03:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Then why is it here, instead of being on the saloon or on Biden's talk page, or on her own talk page for that matter? Why did you feel the need to interject on an extremely sensitive subject in a unrelated thread started, from what I can tell, as a joke?-Flandres (talk) 03:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Because Oxy has a pattern for posting irrelevant material to irrelevant forums for irrelevant reasons and is on a slow but steady course towards being promoted. Cosmikdebris (talk) 03:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Where does that justify the part where Bongolian posts irrelevant stuff? If he really wants to have this discussion it should be in a more topical place.-Flandres (talk) 03:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

So a moderator needs justification to respond — to an irrelevant post by someone else? That's something I haven't heard before. I responded appropriately, since both are paradoxes. Bongolian (talk) 03:53, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oxy's irrelevant post does not risk a flame war, does it?-Flandres (talk) 03:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Definitely not, it only deserves to be put in the archives and forgotten quickly. Cosmikdebris (talk) 04:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Good, then do that. Just don't do something everyone knows will cause her to escalate tensions in the process. These Flame wars should be contained on the pages they bring into dispute so they do not cause needless drama across the site.-Flandres (talk) 04:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * —Cosmikdebris (talk) 04:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

So the reason for this dickishness is? — Oxyaena Harass  11:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I still have no idea why you started this topic here. Cosmikdebris (talk) 14:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The mod noticeboard is not the right place to shitpost. 15:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Funny, because I've shitposted here before and no one had a problem with it. So, why do you now, ? — Oxyaena  Harass  17:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That wasn't me who raised that issue. If you're going to put irrelevancies here, I don't see why I can't reply to them however. As the others have said, let's just put this section to rest. In future, try to keep your posts missional and relevant to the page. Bongolian (talk) 17:36, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

One more thing, don't be passive-aggressive and imply I`m gonna inevitably get promoted. — Oxyaena Harass  17:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Just because you claim you've shitposted here before, that doesn't make it acceptable behavior. I was truly baffled at your original post because I could not figure out what the hell it had to do with the moderator's message board. I didn't automatically assume it was a "shit post." Holy fucking shit, not everyone's out to get you! You seem to be purposely initiating drama where there's no justification for doing so. Cosmikdebris (talk) 18:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think people should stop posting irrelevancies on the mod noticeboard. The mod noticeboard should only be for attracting the attention of the mods. 18:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I keep coming here to see if there's an actual problem being brought up in all things in moderation and I just see this thread. @_@ 18:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)