RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive12

Mod identifiers in signature
I think we should make identifying mods easier. Also, is it a good idea to change username color in the recent changes to indicate mods and other users below sysop? 20:19, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This used to be done. See the oldest archive of this page and Moderator. 20:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't object to it, but I prefer to try to interact with fellow-Sysops as a Sysop primarily. Bongolian (talk) 20:29, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * True, I do wish there's a way to make it just a way to identify them and not have it seem like one has more "authority" than the other. 20:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The idea of adding a link to the list of moderators to the sidebar was mentioned before? How about doing that? Spud (talk) 02:50, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's try that. 05:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with that. Bongolian (talk) 18:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Also agreed. Maybe also a link to this page? Just so they can bring up an issue to all of us? RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I added "Mod noticeboard" to the sidebar (next to technical support) linking to this page, and added a list of mods to the top of this page. 11:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot! I think that's great! Spud (talk) 13:18, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Very well done indeed. RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Mods, keep a watch on this
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Neil_deGrasse_Tyson#Rape_accusations

02:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


 * ...Grumbles about how we should have banned them earlier... 19:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Banning them for being nuisances is always the perfect solution. To the Coop we go then.--Don Juan (talk) 10:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The conflict has appeared to fizzle out but I do suppose passion hurts for these two lovers. 20:09, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Confused about appropriate etiquette here
I'm new here. I arrived at the Eric Turkheimer‎‎ page, which at the time seemed quite outrageous.

In reaction to my initial edit, Matty the Damned placed an unwelcome message on my talk page.

I ignored it, achieved consensus on the Eric Turkheimer page, and my original edits, more or less went into effect.

I think there is something dangerous going on here, typified by the Eric Turkheimer page before I edited, such that prominent scientists are being slandered as pseudo scientists based on their viewpoints (or worse, inaccurately supposed viewpoints). This is particularly true of individuals involved in Behavior Genetics.

After the Eric Turkheimer page was resolved, Ariel31459 changed my unwelcome to a welcome message. GrammarCommie is now editwaring on my own talk page with Ariel and myself over whether I should be welcome or unwelcome here. He has blocked me from editing my own talk page (even as he has engaged me in discussion on it).

I think this is inappropriate.

I'd like to know if I am welcome here. I believe in the scientific method. I believe that people who ignore scientific evidence (such as those who deny evolution, and those who call global warming a hoax) should be mocked. I thought that this is the site to do this on. If so, I think I belong here. But if the goal of this site is to push left wing ideologies, and attack prominent scientists who appear to take the scientific method seriously, then I'm obviously in the wrong place. I'll quickly make my exit.

I think that calling most of the prominent scientists in a particular field "pseudoscientists" because they have results that you don't agree with is harmful to both science and to this site. To call a well published scientist a pseudo scientist, there should be a scientific consensus that the individual is using fallacies or anti-scientific practices in his or her work. This is especially true for living and scientifically active individuals. The way to address such people, if they are wrong, is by publishing papers, not by calling them names.

Please let me know where and to what degree I am out of line. Thanks. Jsolinsky (talk) 03:13, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Standard protocol for edit wars is to lock the page in question. Further It is a BIG fucking No-no to edit other users' comments, just because you dislike them. You did the latter, and the former, and I am well within my rights to tell you off for doing so. 03:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You were edit warring on my own talk page over Ariel31459's decision to change my message from unwelcome to welcome. YOU edited Ariel31459's comment on MY talk page. Jsolinsky (talk) 03:25, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * More relevantly, you seem to consistently revert anything you don't like without contributing anything substantive to the conversation here. It looks to me like you are abusing this site for your own purposes. I am eager to hear from the rest of the community whether they agree with your behavior. If they do, I'll spend my time elsewhere. Jsolinsky (talk) 03:25, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Is it standard protocol for one of the participants in an edit war to change the page to the version he likes and then lock it himself without getting somebody impartial? Because that seems like a pretty clear abuse of power to me. Jsolinsky (talk) 03:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't care for User:Jsolinsky but a bloke is entitled to his talkpage. On that basis I've unprotected User talk:Jsolinsky. -- MtD Bogan   03:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * And Ariel was wrong to do what he did. You were both in the wrong, and I reverted the edits in question. If I began changing the content of your comments to suddenly be flowery praise of me, would that be the right thing to do? I think not. And I hold you to those same fucking standards and expect to be held to such in turn. 03:36, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * He didn't change a comment. He changed the Welcome message from the unwelcome template to the welcome template. As I've said, if I am unwelcome, I will just leave. If I'm staying then the unwelcome message goes. I admit I probably wouldn't have felt strongly about this had Ariel31459 not made the change and you editwarred to change it back. But here we are. I'm inclined to just delete the (un)welcome message/comment altogether, but I'll wait some time to either hear back from MtD or get feedback from another user. Jsolinsky (talk) 04:23, 16 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for unblocking me MtD. Out of curiosity, is calling me a "bellend" and a "cunt" a standard RationalWiki expression of endearment? Or am I special? Maybe the Behavior Genetics folks are getting off lightly when they are called pseudoscientists on RationalWiki Jsolinsky (talk) 04:23, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You weren't blocked you mendacious shit, your talkpage was protected. Two different things. Brother you are within a poofteenth of an inch of tasting the blunt end of the banhammer so you might want to make yourself scarce for the forseeable future. -- MtD Bogan   04:31, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you read beyond the word unwelcome? And since you apparently read MtD's talkpage, did you read my own thoughts on the matter? Because that's what I take away from those messages, not a "with us or against us" attitude but a unfortunate impression. Perhaps that initial impression was genuine, and you should leave. Perhaps everyone got off to the wrong foot, as it were, in which case staying around might be the right call. I have no shagging clue, and refuse to make those decisions for anyone other than myself. Decide what you will, expand your horizons, or don't, any way you slice it it's your call. 04:35, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * For clarity, I'm really not asking GrammarCommie or MtD whether I should stay here. You have been as unambiguous as you intended to be. I'm inquiring as to the preference of the broader community. Taking RW policy at face value, what I'm doing here is advancing its mission.

And I'm sure the broader community thanks you for your service. -- MtD Bogan   04:53, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Firstly, was very, very wrong to have changed the template on 's talk page from Unwelcome to Welcome. That most definitely does count as editing another user's comments and that is a huge no-no. If Ariel thought that a user who had initially been given an unwelcome deserved a welcome, he should have left the Unwelcome template at the top of the page and added his own message with the Welcome template at the top of it in a new section on the page. That's happened before. Furthermore, on RationalWiki, a user's talk page is not his or her castle. It belongs to the entire community, not just the user. Messages should never be removed unless they are obviously vile trolling (you'll recognize it when you see it). Personally, I prefer to have all comments left on my talk page, up to and including death threats. Under the circumstances, however, I think the best thing is to allow Jsolinsky's talk page to remain without either a Welcome or an Unwelcome message so that we can move on. And whether or not Jsolinsky will prove to be a valuable contributor very much remains to be seen. Spud (talk) 05:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * All principles which I have upheld. My only objection was User:Jsolinsky have his talk page protected so he couldn't edit it. A well meaning but entirely unproductive action. -- MtD Bogan   05:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I probably would have done the same thing if I had been in GrammarCmmie's position. It looks like the protection was originally for 24 hours, right? Maybe a more symbolic protection time, say 30 minutes, would have been better to get across the message that you do not edit war and your talk page doesn't truly belong to you. Anyway, can we now agree that this storm in a teacup is over? Spud (talk) 05:27, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Totes. My position all along. Coop the cunt or leave him alone. -- MtD Bogan   05:30, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There are still two issues:
 * 1. There is still the question of what to do about all the Behavior Geneticists that are labeled pseudoscientists. Is there an existing community consensus document or discussion on when it is appropriate to call a prominent scientist a pseudoscientist? If not, is there a place where such discussions happen, other than individual pages? Jsolinsky (talk) 13:30, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 2. GrammarCommie objects to me going to a page. Leaving a comment in talk about a change I plan to make. And then making that change after a few days if I receive no comment. I don't see anything here that suggests that there is something wrong with this. If somebody disagrees with my edit, then I expect them to at least leave a comment in Talk about why they reverted me. And I expect the comment to have something to do with the actual content of the page and my edit. But GrammarCommie has been reverting me because he says I made the changes without consensus and not leaving any substantive reason for the reversion in talk. I'm not sure how to resolve this. See, for example, the Noah Carl page, and specifically the talk section around "More dishonesty from Carl" Jsolinsky (talk) 13:30, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It was 9 hours if I recall correctly. You removed a large chunk of sourced content after a mere statement of disagreement. Imagine if we let people do that to all our articles, it would be a bloody fucking madness.  13:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This issue apparently hasn't died down, so I brought the Coop section I made, and then subsequently deleted, about it earlier back up. That would seem to be a more fitting place than this page. Ɖøn Ĵuan (talk) 13:49, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Time stamp of the talk page comment in my Noah Carl example: 17:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC) Time stamp of the page change: 18:02, 15 December 2018‎ Sure looks like three days to me. Jsolinsky (talk) 14:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * GrammarCommie reverted reverted with this comment in the edit log and nothing in talk: "Per your single comment in talk. It's easy to have a consensus of one." Jsolinsky (talk) 14:25, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , on this wiki, do not take no response to mean no opposition. And do not remove large sections of sourced text. Now, I suggest that you take that discussion back to the Noah Carl talk page. I was going to say there isn't any need for a Coop case yet. Mind you, if things carry on like this... Spud (talk) 14:34, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This is considered to be a large section of sourced text? https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Noah_Carl&type=revision&diff=2022419&oldid=2019445 Jsolinsky (talk) 14:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. Spud (talk) 14:43, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

It has occurred to me that the welcome message could be added in addition to the unwelcome message. So, we regard the unwelcome emblem to be no more than an individual opinion? I wasn't aware. Fine. I recommend discontinuing the practice. It has already been established that there is a dwindling interest in making edits to this wiki. I would rather see users arguing over bad edits, than a continued decline in the number of edits.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No, the Unwelcome template shouldn't really be just one editor's opinion. It should only be put on the talk pages of new users who are clearly going against the community standards. However, we all make mistakes. It is possible that someone could have been too harsh in putting the Unwelcome template on the page of a new user who's maybe been a bit of a pain but hasn't done anything seriously wrong. And we can but hope that new users might change their ways after getting that message. In those cases, it would be possible to give the Welcome message to someone who's already received the Unwelcome message before. Spud (talk) 04:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

The way I see things: This site has defamatory attacks against numerous well published scientists and their papers that support results that do not conform with the views of the left. (e.g. Richard Haier, Linda Gottfredson, basically all of behavior genetics, etc.). If those attacks were supported with specific dissections of fallacious arguments, it could still represent a positive contribution. But overwhelmingly the logic seems to be: "This person's research could be used to support results I disagree with", and worse: "This person has worked with somebody whose research could be used to support results I disagree with". Such fallacious arguments are anti-scientific, and undermine the good work this site has done on matters like evolution and climate change. If it is OK for RationalWiki to disregard an entire branch of science because of its implications, why can't a creationist do the same. I think the answer is clear: Rational inquiry requires that research and evidence always trump belief. It is never OK to disregard an entire branch of science. This is true even if the branch in question is ultimately proved wrong, as so many past branches have been.

Much of the argumentation seems to be: "These people are crypto racists, therefore nothing they say matters". But most of these individuals have explicitly declaimed racist and supremacist behaviors, and indeed have long records of behavior which make no sense if they actually held racist views. The study of intelligence, and its heritability or lack thereof is an obviously interesting topic. It hardly requires any racial animus to seek to study it. Even if they were racists (and surely some are), ad hominem is not a valid basis for declaring peer reviewed research to be invalid. The scientific method must prevail even when one side of an argument is represented by somebody truly reprehensible.

I initially thought that this wiki would be biased against the inclusion of defamatory statements against living people. It is clear at this point that this is not the case. Indeed the path to removing defamatory content without being accused of violating the rules of this wiki is shockingly effort intensive. Before any edit is made, I must contact the previous editors, have a discussion and achieve consensus. In the case of many of these pages, it is clear that the previous editors have extremely strong ideological biases. This is hardly surprising. Defamatory articles come from people with strong views against the defamed. It appears to me that the effect and likely intent of the policies (as enforced) is to retain defamatory content except in the most egregious cases, and to generally be biased against removing such content. It is my suspicion that even if I were to expend the effort needed, other means would be used to preserve the status quo. It does not make sense for me to make this effort, and indeed I would question the thought process of anyone who concluded otherwise. RW may be broken, but it doesn't want to be fixed. I am very pleased to have come to this realization before I spent any meaningful effort here. Jsolinsky (talk) 02:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

A small bit of housekeeping. While I think this site is unnecessarily defamatory to Noah Carl, I would like to make it clear that I am NOT including him, when I refer to "well published scientists". His page just happened to be the place where some of this came to a head. Jsolinsky (talk) 02:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

How do I get my IP removed?
Sorry, new to Rationalwiki and Wiki in general and accidentally edited a page not logged in and had no idea what I was doing. &mdash; Unsigned, by: Flaberjake / talk / contribs
 * I don't know which page you're talking about or why you think it should be removed. Bongolian (talk) 03:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC) Looks like Cosmikdebris already fixed this. Bongolian (talk) 03:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm referring to this page, My IP is before his fix; that was before I had an account and had no idea what I was doing. Sorry and thank you!
 * Didn't have to tell us what your IP was... Either way, IP address does change. You can't get "rid" of an IP, though. 03:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I mean hide. Is that possible? Thank you. I know over on the tech support page someone had his IP hidden, and I commented there too but I haven't received a reply.
 * So there's nothing you guys can do?
 * So far as I know, there's no rule against us suppressing an IP if the user requests it. Am I right? RoninMacbeth (talk) 04:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't believe so, but if the user insists and it's feasible, then go for it. 04:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Go for it, but we've gotten to Streisand effect levels over nothing in particular. Bongolian (talk) 05:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah. It looks like somebody's making a mountain out of a molehill. But if it will make our new user happy, I don't object. Spud (talk) 05:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

New Block Reason
"Troll?" How do we define this? RoninMacbeth (talk) 08:29, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * An internet troll is someone who is just trying to elicit an emotional reaction from other internet users, either by making them angry or upset. I really don't think that making "troll" a specific blocking reason is necessary. Most of the attempts at trolling in the Saloon Bar are pretty pathetic ("Jesus is the reason for the season, you atheists") and are best handled by ignoring them. The more persistent trolls will all commit blockable offences like vandalism or harassment and will get blocked for those reasons. Spud (talk) 12:24, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a quick and easy reason to block users that post comments intended to not start discussion but to merely provoke and rouse feelings i.e. a troll. It's a quick and easy reason to use, and I don't see a problem for it. 04:08, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. OK. I was thinking about "Troll" as a reason for a long block. I get the impression that LGM was thinking about it as a reason for short block. OK. That could work. Spud (talk) 04:38, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, it depends. IMO, long-term blocks for one or two instances of trolling are disfavored. If there are 1 or 2 instances, then you should just give them a pi×1hr block and a warning on their talkpage, but if they persist afterwards, then use "troll" as a long-term block reason. -- Goatspeed. 20:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

There are different levels of trolling obviously and they require different treatments. The one-off JAQ or what have you is probably not even worth bothering with. On the other hand, an argument could be made — and I've made it — is that user:RobSmith has been trolling RationalWiki for more than a decade. Bongolian (talk) 20:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Renaming request
Hi,

For personal (and potentially also privacy) reasons, I'd like my user to be renamed to "CircularReasoning". Thanks. -- Goatspeed. 19:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Bongolian (talk) 20:14, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

My talk page
To the moderators:, , , , ,

ikanreed posted this message on my talk page: You really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really should consider not being a dumb fucker, and changing every one of your views about everything. Since I don't see any way in which such message could be interpreted if not as a provocation that would never lead to anything good, and since at RationalWiki:Community_Standards I read: "users are permitted to delete posts from their own talk pages at their discretion, being responsible for any abuse of this permission", I decided to remove such post. However, subsequently DuceMoosolini reverted my edit, restoring ikanreed's provocation.

Why is it so?

I ask that ikanreed's post will be removed from my talk page. Thinker(unlicensed) 14:46, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * To be honest I've never seen the rationale in people not being allowed to remove stuff from their own talk page. --RWRW (talk) 15:02, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * In the context of this wiki, I don't think you have a case for removing that comment. Comments like that on your talk page let other users know who you are and what you've done here. I still take the view that to be a successful RationalWiki editor, you have to be pretty thick skinned. Spud (talk) 15:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, that's a harmless thing to ask for. On the other other hand, I really do want you to at least consider doing so.   ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "Comments like that on your talk page let other users know who you are and what you've done here."
 * That comment only shows that I made ikanreed so pissed that he has the urge to keep repeating "stop being a dumb fucker" to me. How is that a valuable information that all other users should know, except if the intent is creating division between the users and incentivizing personal attacks over constructive dialogues? Thinker(unlicensed) 17:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If this were a substantive comment, I might be more hesitant to say that it can be removed. As it is, I think it's reasonable to remove it. Let's hear from before proceeding. Bongolian (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * (I already removed it before I even saw this meticulously crafted whining). ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

OK. Bongolian (talk) 18:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If someone flops a gratuitous insult on your talk page, you can go to their talk page and leave a fuck-you-very-much note. Ariel31459 (talk) 18:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think I'll be less stringent about the "don't remove stuff from your own talkpage" rule so long as the comments reverted are simple insults like this one was. 18:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, good.
 * As a general rule, that's really unwise since it would probably lead to diatribes. Besides, I sincerely don't see what's the point of insulting and why some users have this irresistible necessity. Thinker(unlicensed) 18:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you think so. I suggest it as an alternative to waking up the moderators. They need their sleep.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Probably just best to revert unless there's a more substantial argument in there. 19:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, now I have to object. I have a serious and completely dissociated with "insult" point to make here.  UT needs to cut his bullshit out, and if you're gonna characterize "stop being a dumbass" as a meaningless insult, then I'm putting it the fuck back.   UT has a seriously bullshit laden disruptive streak centered on posting bigoted right wing bullshit then crying like a victim when people respond appropriately.  Don't fucking baby him.

Person A: [bigoted statement] Person B: The fuck? Person C: Now, now, let's have civility. Dear C: You came in one statement too late.
 * Don't go down this fucking route. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Not asking for civility, but it'll be better in the future to refer back to the argument where you responded to. Otherwise, I have to check UnlicensedThinker's edit history to find out what really set you off, and that can be a little annoying. 19:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. There was no context or explanation. If you, ikanreed, had explained yourself, it would have been different. Bongolian (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's fair, because you could literally(Actually literally) click on any random changeset in his history and it's one of two things: bigoted bullshit or crying about injustices delivered upon him. That's actually a serious challenge, find the counter-example.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, but let's say a year from now after those SaloonBar postings have long been archived, your talk page posting may still be there and unarchived. It makes it very hard to figure out what you were talking about without at least a link. Bongolian (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, just a request for diff links, I don't think that's unreasonable. 02:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Feeling so put upon, by these requests that I justify thinking he's kind of a consistent shithead. But fine, there's a consistent jaqqing off about ring wing bigoted talking points.  HIS ENTIRE HISTORY IS THAT.  EVERY SINGLE FUCKING DIFF.  Except the whiney ones like this one where he's like "people are so mean to me".   This is the entirety of his "work" here except one, and I mean one, question about pseudoscience in dentistry.  Can I please get my benefit of the doubt back?  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That works. I'm aware of his behavior personally. I've generally given you benefit of the doubt though, I did expect you to comply and all and I did politely ask. Can this issue be resolved now? Thanks. 19:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure what's the big issue here. People regularly insult each other. People also regularly remove or collapse unpleasant/provocative comments on talkpages. *shrugs* 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Loss of Tech status
I can see being revoked of Tech powers, but since when did I abuse my powers before today? Wait, ah, I see. You, got their side of the story without proper context. I`m going to contest all of the shit they've written about me except for the abuse of power done today:
 * That category called "c*nt" was created before, and I don't really see how recreating a joke category is an abuse of power.
 * "IP banned someone for minor reasons" You mean banning people for a few days for spamming? The last time I permabanned an IP was months ago, and I've since stopped doing it.
 * "Gave sysop to active trolls" I wasn't aware that the person in question was an active troll, he pulled a fast one on me that made me think it was a sockpuppet account of.
 * "Archived a bunch of Saloon Bar" still in use: Nope, that shit hadn't been updated in days and made the whole Bar unavigable.

I contest your reasons for removing my Tech status on the grounds that none of the above count as flagrant abuses of power, and furthermore, the only conceivable abuse of power, today, was done under duress due to rage. I can see a temporary revocing of my rights, but not a permanent one.

I also contest that the reason Discord grew into a shitfest was solely my fault. I blew up in anger because I was being harassed, end of story. —  Ɖøn Ĵuan  Harass  20:46, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * One more thing, that filter was meant to block spam, I fucked up with the coding. —  Ɖøn Ĵuan  Harass  20:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think anything you did warrants worse than a slap on the wrist. Provided you promise to exercise better judgement in the future, I think your tech rights should be returned by, at the absolute latest, the end of the week. 20:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know anything about the discord drama or whatever that list of shit was that you posted; I'm just referring to the sysoprevoke. 20:59, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The short version is that sysoprevoke ain't a joke. That we techs have it available to assign is not really intentional, only mods (and staff under very very very very very ultra limited circumstances) are supposed to give it, and that you can is more a side effect of the umbrella powers given.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I did fuck up this one time, but usually I`m very careful not to abuse my power. I'll exercise better judgement in the future. Pure rage can blindside reason, and they tested my patience one too many times. I`m normally a very patient person, but that cyberbullying was just too much. I was being ganged up on, any person would get angry at that. What really7 pissed me off was their hypocrisy and psychological projection. Anyways, I was an idiot for doing so, and I accept the consequences, although I don't think I should permanently lose my Tech status. —  Ɖøn Ĵuan  Harass
 * I don't think you should lose it permanently, but Discord drama usually isn't applicable to wiki activity. Keep this in mind, Discord and Wiki are mostly independent entities with their own moderation and rules and such. 23:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. —  Ɖøn Ĵuan  Harass  00:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

It's hilarious comedy that I some how have the free time to fuck around with sock puppets. Could you link the discussion please? Shabi DOO  22:26, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * it was an impersonation account named 'Shaibidoo' (now renamed to User:Trolly McTrollface). --RWRW (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As they are known to say on planet Earth, haaaaahahahahahahaha. If a hole was torn in the universe and I ever actually made a sock-puppet, I would want it to be called Trolly McTrollface. Shabi  DOO  00:18, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I am against the unilateral revocation of rights above Autopatrolled. At the same time,, given sysoprevoke's new bearning in the eligibility of users to stand for mod or Board elections, sysoprevoke should also not be issued unilaterally. , what transpired between 19:56 and 20:23 to make you remove his powers? RoninMacbeth (talk) 19:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I would like to clarify that it is reasonable to unilaterally remove Sysop status from Sysops who have not established themselves (Newbies) and who are causing a problem. This is per the Sysop guide (RationalWiki:Sysop guide). Bongolian (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Don Juan (who is not the Discord admin) had a spat with several other people on Discord, and he not only banned one user on the wiki, attempted a permaban and attached to sysoprevoke. You can check the logs but nothing what that user did deserved a sysoprevoke or a permaban. Removing tech was my response for abuse of sysoprevoke; being unable to control emotions and then pushing buttons are not traits I would like to see from a tech. 19:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Collapse
To the moderators:, , , , ,

I posted on the Saloon Bar this news from Business Insider, which reveals that Nathan Phillips lied about being a Vietnam veteran.

collapsed my post, replacing it with the text: "native veteran isn't veteran enough for racist sea lion's personal taste".

Now:

I) In RationalWiki:Community_Standards it is written: "users should not delete or change another user's comments on a talk or discussion page, with the following exceptions:
 * 1) Obviously vile comments made for the purposes of trolling, and of a user on his/her own talk-page, as described above.
 * 2) Posts from users who have been blocked from the site, but are circumventing the block by using an alternate IP address or sockpuppet account. Deletion of such posts is mandatory, as this is considered necessary for the proper enforcement of blocks.
 * 3) Spam and copypasta posts.
 * 4) Content that makes the talk page awkward to read or navigate, such as unsigned comments (use the unsigned template), messy formatting and footnotes (which should not be used on discussion pages)."

Since I do not see how my post could be considered (1), (2), (3), or (4), I think that ikanreed violated the community standards and the moderators should take some actions, at least including the removal of the collapse template.

II) I challenge ikanreed to explain how is reporting that somebody lied about being a Vietnam veteran an act of "racism".

Thinker(unlicensed) 16:21, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I see nothing wrong with your comment, . I think it should remain and not be collapsed. Bongolian (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything wrong either, and I support uncollapsing your comment. I'll do it myself if no other mod objects. 18:22, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I also endorse uncollapsing it. --RWRW (talk) 18:50, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I endorse uncollapsing for now. At the same time, I also would like to explain his action. RoninMacbeth (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No collapse. 19:48, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No. I won't defend myself again.
 * I collapsed it because it was obviously stupid and pointless for the reasons I gave.
 * I don't want to argue here, because it's stupid and pointless rules lawyering in a peak-sea lion way. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 04:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't appreciate the rules thumping either. 19:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

nobs complaint

 * I have a similar complaint about at least three collapsed comments of mine. None violate Community Standards. They all were collaspsed just prior to the recent Coop case. nobspiss in my ear 22:00, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Nobs, you should not get a free pass for your bigoted bullshit trolling. You engaged in Holocaust denial on your talk page, here's how you engaged in Holocaust denial: Bongolian (talk) 23:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) You falsely stated that George Soros was a Nazi sympathizer, "That Soros was a Nazi collaborator is indisputable." (User talk:RobSmith).
 * 2) Soros was in fact a victim of the Nazis because he was a minor (ages 13 to 14) in hiding during the Nazi occupation of Hungary.
 * 3) You were therefore casting blame on the victim.
 * 4) Blaming the victim is in fact a form of Holocaust denial, according to three different experts on genocide.
 * You're full of shit. Read the discussion. I explicitly said, more than once, it is idiocy to say Soros was a Nazi sympathizer. WTF? nobspiss in my ear 01:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * And yet, there is this defamatory and vile edit on Conservapedia by none other than RobSmith that is still there today, "He is a naturalized American citizen, born in Hungary where he worked for the Nazis as a teenager, fingering and looting his compatriot Jews." Bongolian (talk) 02:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Why don't you include the citation? It's cited properly. nobspiss in my ear 03:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * We at RationalWiki are "PROULY FUNDIGD AN CONTROLED BY GEORG SOROS", so go fuck yourself, Nobs. For those who care to read the transcript upon which Nobs bases his delusions, it can be found here. Bongolian (talk) 05:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * And here. nobspiss in my ear 06:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Could you please split this section, separating the problem raised by nobs from mine? (Just putting something like "==Collapse nobs==" before the first comment of nobs) I have still one thing to say but I'm afraid now the discussion would get too confused (and I don't want to mix it with anything about Holocaust denial). Thanks Thinker(unlicensed) 08:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Seriously, just collapse perennial nutters and get on with your life. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)