RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive81

ikanreed
To the moderators:, , , , ,

In the Saloon Bar ikanreed has accused me by saying that I wrote on RW that I think that sexually harassing black women is good. Of course, that's completely false, I never said such thing or something that would imply that.

I think that people can have disagreements, but making up lies in order to paint the other person as a supported of sexually harassment is unacceptable in any decent community. Are this kind of personal attacks tolerated here?

Below the accusation. Thinker(unlicensed) 20:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

"And besides, we're getting lectured by a very very white someone who has said on these very forums that he thinks white people sexually harassing black women is good(or maybe never happens; he was vague on why he thinks it's not a problem). I don't really forget the incredibly stupid, unthinking bigotry I've been exposed to by this fuck easily.  Either way, it's hard not to recapitulate that UT should shut the fuck up." ikanreed 17:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I reiterate my proposed solution that we should just ban you and be done with your constant trolling. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * UT isn't trolling. He has a legitimate point in that you just call people racist and don't have any proof. UT is a sysop now and you can't just accuse him of racism. Commie Lib (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's a valid deduction. You gave him sysop after months of him doing nothing but trolling, therefor not racist.  Definitely no holes in that line of reasoning.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * He is racist for pointing out not all black people are dems? That calling Republicans African Americans brainwashed is demeaning in ever sense of the word? Commie Lib (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's definitely the reason I gave. And not at all completely and totally wrong.  Is this your sock or something?  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:42, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope sorry but this is another person. Commie Lib (talk) 20:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think this is coop-worthy. Can we close this case? Bongolian (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Can we just have these two not interact with each other? Commie Lib (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Easier said than done. How do you plan to enforce that in the context of a relatively small community? RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And not just enforcement, the only reason this is an issue is because they shit-stir then cry about 100% appropriate response. Can anyone point us to the edits they've made that are positive contributions to this site?  A single goddamn one?  Anyone?  It's literally just bullshit and crying about being called on bullshit.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "I don't think this is coop-worthy." Maybe the CC is not the right place, but can the problem be settle? How can one user accuse another of being a supporter of sexual harassment of black women without consequences?
 * "Can we just have these two not interact with each other?"
 * I would avoid discussions with ikanreed (in the thread where the accusation was made I was not talking with him) but he cannot join a thread and made up lies to accuse me of racism, supporting sexual harassment, or what else. That's a kind of harassment. Thinker(unlicensed) 20:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that would be fair. Just don't be antagonistic towards each other. Commie Lib (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd tell ikanreed again, that the personal attacks aren't encouraged and he should focus on the arguments and etc. being racist rather than the person making the arguments. On ikanreed's defense, UnlicensedThinker, you're also not good at reading either, as my previous interaction with you has been negative and frustrating (I remember this moola over a crossout where I tried being as clear and direct and explaining everything and I believe you still don't understand the argument and continue resorting to old points). I don't think English language difficulties excuse you at constantly not "getting" arguments, which is what led to ikanreed's losing his last bit of patience. Again, to ikanreed, I think there are better ways of approaching people who argue in bad faith or are overall frustrating to deal with; that way, you don't waste time getting chicken cooped and having to constantly defend your, uh, strong language. 21:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

ikanreed, there's an argument to be made that you had/have a right to unilaterally remove UnlicensedThinker's Sysop rights because that user has only been a Sysop for 4 days and 1) has not been productive 2) was given Sysop rights under dubious circumstances (User talk:UnlicensedThinker). Bongolian (talk) 21:12, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * But again, RobSmith is a sysop... 21:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * For better or worse, RobSmith meets the established Sysop rule, so it's not really comparable. Bongolian (talk) 21:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Can one moderator deal with the false accusation made by ikanreed? Can he accuse me of being a supported of sexual harassment of black women? Because it seems that everybody here is ignoring the problem. ikanreed has made a very clear statement, which is provably false, with the purpose of painting me as a sexual harasser. This goes beyond any kind of disagreement. Thinker(unlicensed) 21:23, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait what are the dubious circumstances. I thought that a sysop can make any other user a sysop too? I don't want to sound confrontational I just haven't read that. Commie Lib (talk) 21:40, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Just for the sake of ending this faster, can you show the rest of us what UT said that makes you think he supports sexually harassing black women? 21:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This is the comment by Unlicensed Thinker that set ikanreed off. Particularly the first line. ikanreed can explain the rest. I don't think the supporting of sexual harassment or racism is really founded. 21:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

You said this at the time of demotion, "I have created a monster. Don't disappoint." (User talk:UnlicensedThinker) What the fuck are you up to? Bongolian (talk) 21:45, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see that as being particularly dubious, more likely just a joke. --RWRW (talk) 21:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry the first part I thought was funny. The second part " Don't disappoint" means don't use the new tools to screw with everything. Commie Lib (talk) 21:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You found it funny now but it's kinda ironic now we have to deal with this monster coop case I feel we've been through already. 21:58, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "I don't think the supporting of sexual harassment or racism is really founded."
 * Good. Regarding the sysop thing, I don't see how it is related to this case. The ban, same thing. Actions should be taken against ikanreed, who made a serious false accusation against me. As I already said, I would gladly avoid avoid any future discussions with ikanreed, as long as he stops with the false accusations and personal attacks. Thinker(unlicensed) 22:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's probably a good thing that you were upset at being accused of racism. You should settle your disagreements on your adversary's talk page and not here. I have had many bad arguments, but I never brought them here.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:22, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't speak to Thinker's intent, but I do see massive amounts of sealioning (JAQing off is the phrase?) and avoidance of questions/moving the goalposts in some of his(?) first Saloon posts. It feels as if it's intended to rile people up (though it does show at least preemptive patterns). I haven't seen all of Thinker's recent posts, so I can't speak to any racism or bigotry.TheTallMass (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Ban Unlicensed Thinker
This was a proposition put me up to in the Discord and I want to get a feeling for the mob's thoughts here on whether we should do it, or if it's not warranted... yet. We could also explore other options like sysoprevoke too. —  Übermensch  Pierce through the wonder of amazement at the ubermensch  21:54, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That seems like a bit much, I really don't want to go in that direction. Sysoprevoke won't do anything either. 21:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Probably they do need to stop arguing with ikanreed. Otherwise the whole thing could just be explained as a heated disagreement. 22:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes

 * 1) Only really voting on the basis that I made this case above verbally.  I think UT is a persistent troll, and all it would take to change my mind is one edit from his huge history of trollish comments(and yes it's got a recurrent theme of very hateful bigotry) is actually in good faith.  All he does is spew provocative bullshit and cry of abuse when challenged.  I certainly can't abide a decision that's just "treat this guy better" ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 22:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * We don't give Sysop to trolls just because they've been here awhile and have been contributing to the Saloon (Nobs excepted). As I've said above, I think you'd be justified to remove UT's Sysop rights. Bongolian (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * FWIW, a few of UnlicensedThinker's edits to pages like Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Big Bang have been productive. RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright, that's fair. I still don't like his overall modus operandi, but that's enough to overturn my perception of "nothing but trolling".  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 04:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) I really don't think the accusations are that far off the mark. And I thought this before they even started fighting with ikanreed.  22:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) i concur. i wouldnt put it so strongly as ikanreed, but its an underlying theme or logical conclusion from the arguments made. that they 'didnt say this' or 'didnt say that' is immaterial. they didnt say it because it can be implied and everything else said does nothing to dissuade you from that reading. if i'm reading it wrong UT, well, thats what you've done in every interaction ive had with you. frustrating isnt it. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:23, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

No

 * 1) Am I missing something here? He gets (unjustly) called things and we respond by banning him? --RWRW (talk) 21:58, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * entirely justified. Don't defending bigots because they're right wing.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 22:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) No because he literally did nothing wrong. Commie Lib (talk) 21:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Being annoying isn't grounds for ban. 22:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It is if it's recurrent trolling. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 22:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's my inexperience with sea lions, but what do we normally do with those? 23:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * We put up with them and then go back to another coop a month later, five or six times? I don't know.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 04:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) I am waiting to see what was offensive.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Nothing this user has done is bad enough to justify a ban, in my view. 22:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) I would support demopping, but not sysoprevoke or banning at this time. Bongolian (talk) 23:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) I wholeheartedly agree with Bongolian. Spud (talk) 06:44, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) Fellow just needs to learn to walk away from ikanreed's arguing, Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 18:27, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 6) Doesn't deserve a ban or demopping. IMO he and ikanreed should just calm down and stay away from each other for some time. -- Goatspeed. 21:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 7) Christ, not this fucking rubbish again. What's with the stiffie some of youse have for banning people? -- MtD Bogan   22:54, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Goat

 * 1) There are options other than banning him, like the vandal bin you know. Oxyaena (talk) 23:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) they are a troll. this undeniable at this point. ive always assumed good faith with this character. always. and everytime its been a mistake to do so. dont knwo what the correct course is. i dont want to deal with him but he wont fuck off with constant sea lioning. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) I believe Ikanreed. I went over UT's edits. He definitely was being very nitpicky with the recent event on the Saloon, and I don't know if he is a "worthwhile editor." But...but I can't ban him. What has he done that is worse than any of the other right-wingers we have here? There are no good solutions to this. RoninMacbeth (talk) 02:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * My idea is just to say a sucky argument sucks, why it sucks, and don't respond if he acts daft. 02:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * the problem there is it leaves a shitty argument unaddressed. on a site like this, where argument of one sort or another is kind of the point. as many of this has occurred under topics that i have a particular interest in,or at least feel able to contribute, i am not want to ignore what i can see is bullshit. whats so frustrating is they start the thread alot of the time, and the opening argument is dogshit to begin with. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand that from third parties, we might come off as "wow, overly dismissive much?" But would banning accomplish the same thing but worse? I don't think there's an easy way to deal with those that hide their intellectual dishonesty with calls for civility. They haven't broken rules really and there's the risk of going too far and stifling genuine comments. 19:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * if i thought it was credible possibility, i wouldnt have plumped for banning. that said, what do we do? as i've said, ive assumed good faith repeatedly and its thrown back in my face. we end with conversation such down when we get bogged with anything but the topic, obscured behind idiotic pedantry. is not disruptive behaviour reason enough for a ban? is disruptive behaviour so narrowly defined? AMassiveGay (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Isn't it too early to have a vote?
I thought there was a waiting period for a matter to be discussed before going to a vote. Conspirate (talk) 06:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There is. I completely forgot about it when I started the vote.--RWRW (talk) 12:19, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Will the false accusation be discussed?
The main question is still unanswered: "making up lies in order to paint the other person as a supported of sexually harassment is unacceptable in any decent community. Are this kind of personal attacks tolerated here?" Thinker(unlicensed) 08:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Basically yes, we rejected the idea of having a policy against that sort of thing. 12:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I read the thread you linked but it was about insults. Here I'm not talking about insult, but about making up lies about what someone said in order to destroy his reputation. For the nth times: ikanreed wrote that I said on RW that I support sexual harassment of black women. That's not just an insult, that's a libel, like calling someone a pedophile, a rapist, a thief, etc. without proofs. Thinker(unlicensed) 14:27, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh ye, we have a policy on libel. See RationalWiki:Legal FAQ. 14:44, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * But that would be wiki-libel, not real libel. UT only exists as a persona on this wiki.Ariel31459 (talk) 14:49, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Which is why it fits better into the concept of insults. 14:52, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

If you really are offended by ikr's insults you could try to get him to explain his reasons. I examined this and it seems a bit right-wing. The more conservaphobic users are going to take a dim view of such remarks. If you don't get it, try to ask the complainants. If you do get it, what the hell is your problem?Ariel31459 (talk) 15:02, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

You know what? No. No, he didn't lie about you. He presented two different hypotheses about what you were saying (one of which, granted, was probably assuming too much malice on Ikanreed's part), the latter of which was perfectly in line with what you said. You then proceeded to get nitpicky, by saying that the exact circumstances in which the scenario happened don't exist. That's bullshit pedantry, and when Ikanreed talks about intellectual dishonesty and bad-faith arguments, that is what he means. RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This is why UT should be demopped for wasting our time so soon after becoming a Sysop. UT should make some substantial constructive edits in mainspace before pulling shit like this. Based on what I've seen so far, UT has no self-motivation to make constructive mainspace edits. Bongolian (talk) 19:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the pedantry is kinda this sea creature's schtick. Again, you should've seen my argument with him in Jordan Peterson talk page. Frustrating for me, called him daft. He responded with such shock a mod called him daft and said English isn't his first language, I tried accomodating him and explaining my argument and reread my comments over and over to maximize clarity, still responded the same pedantic way. Pain in the Super Boots, I'm saying. I don't think we deal with these slimy clapping animals by banning but just take short note of the intellectual dishonesty present and leave, and tell potential new users about the unpleasant debating nature sea lions bring with them. 19:30, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * it just occurred to me what the problem is. ikanreed didnt say 'alleged' AMassiveGay (talk) 19:37, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * UnlicensedThinker didn't say it either so we can dismiss his accusations on technicalities! All according to our pursuit for accuracy. 19:45, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "If you really are offended by ikr's insults you could try to get him to explain his reasons."
 * I did. He refused to admit that he lied and he gave no explanations.
 * "You know what? No. No, he didn't lie about you."
 * He said that I "said on these very forums that (I) thinks white people sexually harassing black women is good". That's a lie. He did not present a "hypothesis", he said clearly that I have written a thing that I never wrote. If I would say that I believe that you think that raping women is a good idea, that would be presenting a hypothesis. If I would say that you wrote in RW that you think that raping women is a good idea, that would be a lie. Thinker(unlicensed) 19:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Congratulations you have managed to get everyone pissed. Please go to a main space and do something useful. Ariel31459 (talk) 20:02, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Emphasis on useful. Don't go around hatchet jobbing a few words because you don't understand how words work. 20:09, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Half-true. Here's the full quote:
 * "And besides, we're getting lectured by a very very white someone who has said on these very forums that he thinks white people sexually harassing black women is good(or maybe never happens; he was vague on why he thinks it's not a problem). I don't really forget the incredibly stupid, unthinking bigotry I've been exposed to by this fuck easily.  Either way, it's hard not to recapitulate that UT should shut the fuck up." (emphasis added)
 * Hence why I said he made two hypotheses concerning your statement, and why I acknowledged that the former was perhaps reading too much malice. Stop lying about what is so easily observable. RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:33, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * @UT - in your first foray here, you posted a thread on world aids day and prep. the arguments you were making would lead to a homophobic position, and were already in use in some quarters. your response is everything previously discussed.
 * in another thread you posted, the subject, a teacher was fired for deliberate and repeatedly misgendering a student. much of argument you presented mirrored transphobic talking points elsewhere, just short of openly transphobic.
 * a cancelled march for the rights of women, due to an issue of the target audience being invisible within the ,marchers, was the subject of another of your threads. you were incredulous that the lack of representation for the ethnic group the march was intended to help was an issue and they should stop whining and be thankful whitey were doing anything.
 * i dont recall exactly the thread about the gillette? advert. i know it involved scoffing at representations of toxic masculinity and from what i see in one of the links, has ut disregarding the depictions in the advert, symbolic rather than specific exact examples, because ut was unable to see that they were symbolic and not specific exact examples. some of ikanreeds evidence is here.
 * the 'alleged' thread is still in the saloon bar. we have UT starting and then derailing a thread with idiotic quibbling. ignoring whether or not you characterise the person in the story as a nazi, or whther or not its right to punch a nazi. could be seen as tacit support for said nazi.
 * and finally there is the thread still in the saloon bar, where a broad claim is made that characterises that criticism from the left is false, in the vein of trump, and far too many arseholes in power, ie. fake news, lies, misinformation. supported only by a video that doesnt really support the claim made.
 * there were other cases as well, of varying degrees, and taken individually you can excuse as unfortunate. as misunderstandings. but as a whole, a pattern emerges. all cases involve pushing a similar line, that can be seen as downplaying rights for one 'side' - the left, and over emphasising the supposedly unwarranted and heinous attacks on the right.
 * its easy to see how one might accuse you of racism or prejudice when the topics involved concern them, and your argument is to ignore or disregard it, or give undue weight and draw conclusions from the flimsiest of evidence, depending if it makes conservatives look good or not.
 * whether it was your intent or not, you saying the bigoted, racist things that bigoted racists have done are not, but its the racists that are really the oppressed ones. it doesnt look good.
 * if this is wrong, if this is a leap, or it overstates something, well, your behaviour throughout has trampled any good will that i had, and i'm inclined to the worst, and your defence, we have seen it before AMassiveGay (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "Hence why I said he made two hypotheses concerning your statement"
 * Writing an accusation as a fact and then putting "(or maybe [slightly less serious accusation]...)" does change a thing. Again, if I would say that I believe that you think that raping women is a good idea or that it never happens, that would be presenting two hypotheses. If I would say that you wrote in RW that you think that raping women is a good idea (or maybe never happens), that would be a lie. Thinker(unlicensed) 22:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course it would be a lie. Because I wrote nothing to suggest either of those things. You, on the other hand, did. RoninMacbeth (talk) 22:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, that less serious accusation was meant to present doubt on the first one. Look, for what it's worth, I'm not in favor of banning you, and I'll have a word with Ikanreed about not putting in more spurious accusations. Just stop pretending that's all he said. OK? RoninMacbeth (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "nothing to suggest either of those things"
 * Wrong again, because ikareen did not say that I wrote on RW things that suggest that I think white people sexually harassing black women is good. He said that I wrote on RW that I think white people sexually harassing black women is good. ikanreed's claim was written as a fact, and it is a lie. Don't try to put a suggest that never was there to change the situation. Thinker(unlicensed) 23:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

As usual, you're missing the point. When I said that "I wrote nothing to suggest either of those things," it was to clarify that I have written nothing that suggests either interpretation of my beliefs. You, on the other hand, wrote something that is pretty reasonable evidence that you at least believe in the latter interpretation Ikanreed suggested. Can you at least acknowledge that? That maybe what you said might lead people to believe your beliefs line up with Ikanreed's second interpretation? And again, he put forward TWO. SEPARATE. INTERPRETATIONS, based off of a legitimately shitty thing that you wrote. Again, I don't want to ban you. But you need to at least goddamn understand that Ikanreed was right to say that you hold at least one shitty belief. If you acknowledge that, I will try to get Ikanreed to stop lobbing accusations like the first. OK? RoninMacbeth (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * RoninMacbeth's offer is the most generous you can expect. Don't waste any more time at this errand.Ariel31459 (talk) 00:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Bongolian (talk) 00:47, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "You, on the other hand, wrote something that is pretty reasonable evidence that you at least believe in the latter interpretation Ikanreed suggested."
 * I wrote, in a sarcastic way, that a tv show with a white man grabbing the bottom of a black housekeeper and making fun of her in front of a laughing audience is not a real thing. That's pretty reasonable evidence of nothing.
 * "But you need to at least goddamn understand that Ikanreed was right to say that you hold at least one shitty belief."
 * No, I'm not gonna say that, because I criticized a tv commercial, ikanreed was right to say that I wrote on RW that sexual harassment is a good thing or never happens. Thinker(unlicensed) 09:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So, what, it was just "sarcasm?" If it was, why didn't you say so from the start? I probably would have given you the benefit of the doubt. First, you tried saying that Ikanreed just said the first thing, which was untrue. Now that you've been called out on stretching the truth on that, you say you were just being sarcastic? Don't get me wrong, I am terrible at telling sarcasm even when face-to-face with someone. But absolutely nothing about that comment indicated sarcasm. RoninMacbeth (talk) 09:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)