Information icon.svg

Voting for the RationalMedia Foundation 2021 board of trustees election is underway!

Difference between revisions of "RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation"

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Can't everyone just calm down???)
(Can't everyone just calm down???)
Line 211: Line 211:
 
:::I shouldn't have even asked about it. Now it's becoming a clusterfuck. [[User:Ace McWicked|Ace]][[User Talk:Ace McWicked|<sup>://about blank</sup>]] 04:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 
:::I shouldn't have even asked about it. Now it's becoming a clusterfuck. [[User:Ace McWicked|Ace]][[User Talk:Ace McWicked|<sup>://about blank</sup>]] 04:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 
::::You did the right thing, Ace, but I think we should collapse the whole thing right now, ot at least this new topic. [[User:GeeJayK|GeeJayK]] ([[User talk:GeeJayK|talk]]) 04:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 
::::You did the right thing, Ace, but I think we should collapse the whole thing right now, ot at least this new topic. [[User:GeeJayK|GeeJayK]] ([[User talk:GeeJayK|talk]]) 04:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 +
:::::GC has this belief that there's a Certain Way you have to make arguments, and seeing anyone deviating from that Certain Way results in him losing control, and he has little ability to regain his composure.  During this time he will write vicious screeds, make threats, or engage in blockwars including removal of rights.  Not sure what to do with him, because when he hasn't lost his cool he's actually quite useful to the wiki. {{User:CorruptUser/sig}} 04:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:40, 25 March 2021

Not to be confused with the Chicken coop.
Information icon.svg Moderator noticeboard
Welcome, BoN
Use this talk page to contact the mods and report behavioral problems and violations of non-standard sanctions.
The RationalWiki moderators are:

BongolianCircularReasoningRockford the RoeSumma AtheologicaTechpriestSpud

Archives for this page
Moderator.jpg

Suppressing page histories

This is a semi-public notice to all techs and moderators, as well as some sysops (I opened it here in ATIM for good measure, this does not belong in the coop as I am not seeking punishment, merely notice to inform for now).

Suppressing page histories is an action that sysops, moderators and techs can take. It is used to remove potentially libelous content from the wiki, as well as sharing of personal information. It places a hoop on viewing the contents of certain revisions, either to only fellow sysops or to moderators and techs alone. These actions are logged in the deletion log for suppression to sysops, and in the suppression log for suppresion to mods and techs. For simplicities sake, I'll call suppresion revdelling from now on.

Please review the rules and regulations within regards to suppression of page histories (also known as revdelling). The following are not considered adequate reasons to revdel:

  • Removal of your IP because you posted while logged out.
  • Removal of a troll spamming the n-word in our pages.
  • Offensive comments in the saloon.

Revdelling is adequate in the case of:

  • Revisions that cause legal problems for the site in a general sense (libel and slander, but also a recent case of loli porn on someone's userpage).
  • Revisions that doxx individuals or contain references to doxxing material.

Not in any other situation is revdelling considered appropriate. Making this a thread after having to deal with another recent case of someone revdelling edits over personal reasons. If you want to test the feature, that's fine/if you fuck up on the button when deleting pages that's not a big deal either, but there's been a semi-consistent problem of this kinda crud in the past few months. Revdel is extremely powerful and we shouldn't strive to wield it like our friends on conservapedia do it to clean up our histories in that sense. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 22:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

That is reasonable. In principle, there could be other situations where revdelling would be warranted, e.g. incitement to violence. Bongolian (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
What on earth would revdeleting so-called "incitement to violence" actually accomplish? Do we have a problem with extremists congregating here and plotting violent acts together? And are they searching page histories for edits that might inspire them to commit violent deeds? This just seems like such an irrelevant thing to say.-Hastur! (talk) 07:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
I would file this under "things that could cause legal problems". Things like links to the christchurch shooter video which the NZ authorities made illegal doing so. It's incitement to violence but also would incur legal problems on our end. That said, that one does carry a higher standard than "durr someone said kill all [minority here]". (Basically only if an active legal threat exists.) Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 14:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Regular deletion or even just reversion seems adequate in that situation. Christopher (talk) 22:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah. I don't like Conservapedia-style burning the evidence either. Spud (talk) 07:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Also I do not like the cat moderator image here. We could do so much better. Something more violent I think. Anyway - since we are chatting I thought I would raise it. AceSimple Maze 00:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
How violent do you want to go? Commons has quite a few historical gore images I could slot in. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 00:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
I mean, we are fucking moderators. Brutal, efficient and without mercy. A cat is a poor representation. You've seen my "art"...perhaps I could build something. I have enough materials at home to create something truly spectacular... AceSimple Maze 02:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Each moderator could choose their own image to represent themselves, and they could be put on random rotation. Bongolian (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Great idea, Bongo! I could choose something involving Big Brother or the Illuminati eye thing... --Goatspeed. Stalk meCircularREmail2.gifasoningSteal my ideas 06:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Excellent idea. I will begin creating something truly horrific as my avatar - I have some weird bones I found on the beach and the head of a mannequin. I also have loads of nails and lots of severely compromised blood running through my veins. AceSimple Maze 03:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
I'd like this as my avatar, please. Of course, there's absolutely nothing nasty about it. Well, I don't think so. Spud (talk) 07:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Today I realized that the britishes refer to English muffins as just "muffins." But what do they call custard?-Hastur! (talk) 07:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Cheeekynandos. Spud (talk) 12:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Why exactly is removing an IP of a logged out user not an adequate reason for suppression? JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 12:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Because it should only be used for hiding potentially libelous stuff and doxxing. Revealing your IP address is not doxxing. It should not be used just for covering up fuck ups. Spud (talk) 12:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Using sysop-level RevDel on accidental IP reveals should be sufficient (and I'm very much in favour of allowing RevDel used in that way)
As for personal avatars, I think the cat suits me quite well. Or maybe a sloth or something. I think I have a reputation for being lazy and slow moving (which is not unearned). --RWRW (talk) 14:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. I've been DDoS'd and partially doxxed before because of my IP address getting leaked. I don't want a repeat of it and I don't wish that for any other sysops. PoorlyDrawnRockford.jpeg Rockford the Roe boop my snootpraise Oscar Wilde 18:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
The cat thing is dumb because as stated previously we moderators are cruel and merciless - should be a picture of Conan or the big floating head from Zardoz. AceSimple Maze 22:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
How about YHVH from SMT (the golden floating head). Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 23:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Well, here's a nice sloth picture for RWRW. Mind you, I unironically do love me some Zardoz. Spud (talk) 06:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
So... should I have not revdelled all of GR's spam posts on the SB about his girlfriend Oxy allegedly harassing minors? Does that count as libelous or not? I hope my doing that didn't set any bad precedents while I was just out because of school... --Goatspeed. Stalk meCircularREmail2.gifasoningSteal my ideas 06:50, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
It's not really what users say about other users that's the problem as far as potentially libelous is concerned. It's unlikely that a user who's been here for a while would try to sue us because of something a user who hadn't been here as long said. That kind of nastiness should just be undone, not burned. Spud (talk) 07:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Looks like Spud found a rarely seen 'RWRW face reveal'. --RWRW (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Can a mod tell Ace to knock it off once and for all (possibly coop to strip mod powers for overt transphbic remarks)

This discussion was moved to RationalWiki:Chicken coop.

If we keep this thread active it’ll increase the chances of this spiralling out of control. Christopher (talk) 19:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

USHistoryAnalyzer’s complaints

This discussion was moved here from RW:COOP.

Plutocow

@Plutocow has exhibited extreme partisan intolerance and a deceitful contempt for facts they merely doesn't like. Take a look at this ridiculous rollback: after I added information addressing Phyllis Schlafly's record on race-related issues to dispute the claim that she's a racist, Plutocow ignorantly says: "This is still whitewashing and irrelevant to her being a racist." If you observe the page history, even Flandres clearly knew that my entry was valid and thus didn't outright revert it.

Plutocow also initially attempted to remove my perfectly valid entry on Jimmy Carter's 1970 racist campaign, as seen here. Why? Because I cited one source he merely didn't like. He said here: "If you can only find the info on sources that are known to be not entirely factual, then maybe that info isn't as good as you think it is." I then replied: "So tell me, what part of that specific article isn't factual? Furthermore, my editing is fine, thanks." He then doubled down without even providing a specific response: "Yeah, requiring our sources to be factual is totally partisan intolerance."

Oh, and he unjustly blocked me at least once [1]. RationalWiki editors, do you really believe that this toxic user is worth keeping around?

UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Summa Atheologica

@Summa Atheologica has proven himself to be a bigot who will act as an apologist for racism. He reverted my entry on Biden's racism without explanation and edit-warred. RationalWiki editors, ask yourself: should this site coddle and keep editors who defend racism and bigotry of any sort? If any of you aren't yet convinced, take a gander at my block log:

  • 00:01, 12 March 2021 Summa Atheologica (talk | contribs) blocked UShistoryanalyzer (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 3141 seconds (about 1 hour) (autoblock disabled) (Blocked for being a threat to racist bigotry. [sic])

He also reverted my edits here without explanation. At least Flandres is nice enough most of the time to explain his reasons.

UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I am not siding with you, I am siding with both of them. Your edits have so many ultra right-wing fake news as sources that someone could assume you are merely trolling. The Federalist alone is universally unwelcomed, if you can't find sources from news websites like the Guardian, NPR, Wikipedia or ABC news, then I am sorry, but you might believe in fiction. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 21:57, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Honestly this is ridiculous. Anyone who can't stay a month without attempting a chicken coop on two users just because they can't civilly use the talk page deserves to be put in the coop themselves. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 21:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
@MarioSuperstar77I'm not siding with anyone, at least for now, but if I remember correct his sources on Suma's case were CBS, NYT and The Hill. Far from perfect but not total garbage. That being said, I didn't read the links, so I don't know if the information is correct or even if it was an original synthesis, and a coop is probably too much. GeeJayK (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Your ban was not unjust. Even if you were right in that edit, you've been told way too many times to use the talk pages rather than edit warring, and if you can't follow that, you get a short ban. I even called out Summa in that instance because I felt the way they were handling it was not ideal. When nearly every single edit you make results in an edit war, maybe you need to change your approach. Also, most of your edits seem to be whitewashing racism accusations for right wing people and overemphasing racism of any Democrats, so you don't have the right to say I have "extreme partisan intolerance". Plutocow (talk) 22:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Apart from using the National Review as a source (although that's not too bad), UShistoryguy's edits seem mostly fine. I don't see the need to revert or block. I think everybody involved would be better served by the article talk pages than the mod board. That being said, I haven't taken the time to read through them, so maybe it's something that was misinterpreted. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 22:43, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Also, putting Biden in the racists category is beaaaans. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 22:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
The edit that irked me as shitty political hack material was this one. Using Lee Atwater's quotes (from his infamous "n****r"-dropping Southern Strategy interview) as a "source" to try and justify Reagan's notorious dog-whistle presidential campaign (Rationalwiki has an article on welfare queen if one fails to remember, and if we're going to dig up Jimmy Carter's less than stellar civil rights record before 1970, why not throw in Reagan calling African citizens "monkeys" when talking to Nixon in 1971?) as "not racist" is bullshit, particularly since 8 years later Lee Atwater proved that the Republican Party still was keen on using dog whistles with the Willie Horton nonsense. Some of the edits are fine though. The confrontational, arrogant attitude is a much bigger concern. This is hardly coup / mod level stuff, as you suggest, yet here we are. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Plutocow, you're the one engaging in whitewashing by point-blank reverting factual information I add. In the Phyllis Schlafly page, I did note that she opposed civil rights efforts in 1960 while also adding on that she supported some pro-civil rights Republicans. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 23:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Your sources were faulty, and unless you can find info that says Schlafly supported those Republicans because they were pro-civil rights, don't readd it. Oh, and also, you misgendered me in your complaint, please don't do it again. Plutocow (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
You might want to put your preferred gender/pronouns as a user box or something. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 23:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I concur with Plutocow regarding Schlafly and regarding general Dixiecratery. Any further discussion should be taken the respective talk pages. Bongolian (talk) 02:52, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd have to agree that somebody who has only been here for 38 days already calling for two users to be permanently banned is not a good sign at all. Plutocow and Summa Atheologica have no case to answer at this time. And at this time, there is no need to discuss this anywhere other than on the appropriate talk pages. Spud (talk) 03:59, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Plutocow is in the right here. Oxyaena Harass 07:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Nutty/Plutocow edit war on Talk:Angelo John Gage

See. @Nutty Roux and @Plutocow are fighting over a page. I'm not banning them, but can a mod please intervene? An edit war on a talk page is embarrassing to say the least. GeeJayK (talk) 00:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC) Also they're fighting over a block GeeJayK (talk) 00:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

It seems pointless to continue an edit war for that long, you know you’ll only be reverted. Is it really that important whether a user who’s clearly not online is blocked or unblocked for a few seconds? Christopher (talk) 00:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I've explained why this is a Mikey sock, Nutty refuses to listen. Plutocow (talk) 00:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
You've explained that you're making an unwarranted assumption. You may or may not be right, but it's no basis for permanently banning an account. If this actually is the subject of the article, he has a right to comment. Nutty Roux (talk) 01:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
It's not an "assumption", it's a well established pattern of behavior. If you actually look at the edits of Talk:Jack Buckby, it's clearly the same person and the timing is too convenient to be a coincidence. Plutocow (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Without checkuser or an admission, you literally just described an assumption. The block policy was literally just amended to prohibit this. Nutty Roux (talk) 01:04, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
"Ban evasion: Avoiding bans imposed for other reasons. Since this wiki has no CheckUser, this requires solid evidence and not merely disruptive behavior. When in doubt, treat a suspicious user as with any other disruptive user. Usually leads to an indefinite ban for the sockpuppet account or a ban for the IP (minimum 3 days), and an extended ban for the original account." We have solid evidence, which is the similar posts between "Jack Buckby", "AngeloJohnGage", and a third account that was making the same post about Michael Coombs, and the timing between them, as the third account showed up directly after the first time Talk:Jack Buckby was locked due to repeated vandalism from the Buckby accounts, and AngeloJohnGage the second. It is well within the blocking policy to block all the sockpuppets. Plutocow (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm not saying this guy ain't Mike. But since this is right now on ATIM I think we can wait for a mod to decide what to do until blocking him for good, unless if he gives a new unmistakable evidence that he's indeed Mikey boy. GeeJayK (talk) 01:13, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
It's pretty evident that the talk page spam was by Mikey and I think Nutty Roux hasn't been paying much attention and isn't in much position to say otherwise, much less edit war (wtf? I expect someone from 2009 to know this). Regardless, I'd just tag the comment as trolling and ignore, when in doubt. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 01:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Pretty obviously Mikey drivel. Quite shocked at Nutty’s lapse in judgement here. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 01:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, Mikey trolling. If it really were the subject and he really did think something was libelous, he would not say, "entire article is libel" because we quote the subject extensively with citations, it would imply that the subject is dumb enough to think he libeled himself. Bongolian (talk) 01:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Guess we can call it a day.

GeeJayK (talk) 02:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Who gives a shit if it's MikeMikev or not? We can't be letting people willy-nilly going around moving talk page content, regardless of how sure they are of their assumptions. The removed post was quite innocuous, and the logical course of action would have been to either ignore it or rebut it.-Hastur! (talk) 05:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Considering the user in question is a fucking NeoNazi, I'm surprised you'd stoop so low as to defend him being here, but, then again, not really. Oxyaena Harass 07:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Hastur, please don't make me reiterate the fact that Mikey got permanently blocked from here from my understanding 8 years ago for vandalizing the site. Outside of that, he's a naked neonazi who can't even pretend to have decorum. If we let him exist on our site, we'd be giving a platform to his pointless dribble. Our CS has rules in place for removing talkpage comments from permanently blocked users in order to enforce those blocks. Mikemikev has a very obvious pattern (pretend to be someone else, then use that as a platform to bitch about "Marxist terrorists" or something similarly inane) that the account presented fit into perfectly here. (Then again, it... doens't quite suprise me that you of all people are taking issue with our policy to clean up pages of dribble from permanently blocked users who are block evading.) Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 10:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Ohh the pattern recognition experts! Am I understanding correctly that Oxyaena is implying Hastur is a Nazi sympathizer for taking a position about removing talk page comments she disagrees with? Nutty Roux (talk) 12:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Are you stupid or just plain trolling? That person was Michael Coombs, cut out your stubborness. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 12:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Probably both. Anyhow, Nutty, I thought you didn't even care about the wiki anymore? Oxyaena Harass 12:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
I thought it was supposed to be MikeMikeV. Such super obvious patterns. Oxyaena, are you suggesting Hastur is a Nazi sympathizer? Nutty Roux (talk) 12:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
"Mikemikev" is the first alias Michael Coombs used to harass people. Facepalm MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 12:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) See Michael Coombs. Either way, we can't be allowing new or stupid users to be playing sockpuppet patrol. A good example of why this is a bad idea would be Oxyaena banning users like Nutty Roux under the assumption that they were DMorris-Hastur! (talk) 13:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Oh I did not know that happened to him, at least it makes sense now why he is so reluctant to listen when multiple people tell him that someone is an obvious sock. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 13:04, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Do you people realize that we could have just ignored that post? Instead of letting our more idiotic users feel empowered to remove talk page material?-Hastur! (talk) 13:06, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Does anyone here remember the Keystone Cops? Is someone running for Chief?Ariel31459 (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi

I'd like to be paroled from the vandal bin, please. Thanks. Unclescrooge (talk) 20:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Not yet. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
(EC) Wherefore do you think you should be paroled. I checked your recent edits and the they seem pretty vandal like to me. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 20:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
[EC] What has he done that’s bin-worthy? I don’t see much “long-term trolling”, just an annoying right-wing agenda-poster. Christopher (talk) 20:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
See his talk page, he got vandal binned over this: Essay:War_on_hydroxychloroquine. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
I saw that, and don’t think it’s bin-worthy. Christopher (talk) 20:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I kinda assumed this was DMorris-Hastur! (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
@Christopher There are a couple of mainspace edits, all of which fall under vandalism. Though admittedly he mostly seems to be a talk page troll. Still don't see why we should give him more freedom to engage in his former hobby. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 20:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
If we thought that, we’d permaban him. Christopher (talk) 20:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Speaking as someone who's been on actual parole (as well as reading some basic criminal law related to said incident) you could just parole him with certain conditions. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
@Hastur I'm not stupid nor ignorant enough to be DMorris. Unclescrooge (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Well, you support hydroxychloroquine...
I say we give Scrooge a chance. If he fucks up, we put him on the vandal bin again. GeeJayK (talk) 23:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Nah, I say we shouldn't give him more freedom to edit-war over the transclusions of disclaimer templates on his essay (which I ended up having to undo a couple of times) or engage in his former hobby. --Goatspeed. Stalk meCircularREmail2.gifasoningSteal my ideas 00:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
You sure? Well, I think it's to easy to arrest him again if he violates the condition of his parole, see what GC said. Do I think he will do it? Absolutely. But I don't think any of us have those Minority Report powers here, so maybe we can consider the benefit of the doubt. For now. GeeJayK (talk) 00:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I support parole under these conditions:
  • No more inserting pointless trolling comments on the bar, talkpages, user talkpages, coop or anywhere else.
  • No edit warring with other editors; take it to the talkpage instead.
Do I think that this user will uphold the rules of their parole? Naw. But at least we can say we tried and I enjoy being pleasantly suprised so y'know. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 09:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
^This suggestion pleases me. Ace://about blank 21:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
This guy ain't DMorris or GR. We can give him a chance, even if he'll probably upset us latter. GeeJayK (talk) 20:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
@Unclescrooge When you’ve stopped wasting your half-hourly edit inserting more quickly reverted bullshit into random articles, you should accept these conditions. They’re your only hope of leaving the bin. Christopher (talk) 21:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Christopher, are you saying that the Associated Press is "bullshit" when Media Bias/Fact Check, a source you guys seem to view as reliable, says their factual reporting is "very high"? [2] I think you should be put in the vandal bin. Unclescrooge (talk) 21:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
If you want to argue about Ilhan Omar do it on the appropriate talk page. I’d advise agreeing to (and actually abiding by) the conditions first, it’s hard to argue with someone whilst in the vandal bin. Christopher (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
@Unclescrooge I don't think it's very clever to insult someone who said that your edits aren't bin-worthy while appling for a parole. You already have two mods on your side and a few other users, just calm down a bit and DO NOT shitpost. GeeJayK (talk) 21:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Ok, I'll refrain from further harsh criticisms then. Unclescrooge (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Recent doxing

"Oxypoot"

Y'all seriously think those troll accounts are me? WTF? Oxyaena Harass 18:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I think it's a sarcastic jab on a follower. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 18:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
My apologies. PoorlyDrawnRockford.jpeg Rockford the Roe boop my snootpraise Oscar Wilde 19:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Bro, it's not GR either. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 19:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

block war

@Helena Bonham Carter, @GrammarCommie, @Nutty Roux, @LeftyGreenMario and @UninspiringNickname. whats going on with this bumb block war? Ace://about blank 03:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ace McWicked long and not-too-interesting story. I don't believe in blocks too much (maybe I'm wrong, I dunno), so I just unblocked folks. UninspiringNickname (talk) 03:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't even care anymore. I've cut myself who the fuck nknows how many times to keep my anger in check because my head is that fucked up, and the best anyone has is to give me the script about calling a hotline. I fucking don't have it in me to care anymore. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
I was hoping to deal with suicidal ideation and self-harm today, thank you!-Hastur! (talk) 03:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie If you're not telling the truth - that's not nice at all. If you are, that's even worse, please don't. I'm not in the US so I can't be of much use helping you find resources, but please just stop until someone can get you help. This is NOT worth it. Please UninspiringNickname (talk) 03:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Hastur, this is serious. Stay out unless you avoid that twee attitude. And UninspiringNickname, I understand you want to give GC advice and I agree, but keep GC blocked for one hour as well as others that are not handling this situation well at all (HBC is a prime offender, but Hastur needs to stay off too if he can't help it), it's to deal with a mental health crisis that's affecting the rest of the community. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 03:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
You should just take a walk somewhere, I know from experience that that can help take your mind off things. The reason I blocked you multiple times GC is that staying on this wiki isn't helping with your mental health and you are in a state where you aren't thinking rationally. It's best to stay away from things that are clearly causing you mental harm. Plutocow (talk) 03:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Same reason I blocked for an hour. The wiki is not a healthy place to be in atm. I might take a step out too. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 03:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Can we just go and sleep it off? I don't think GC or HBC are going to break the wiki in the meantime, and they will probably feel better without the blocks (I think). UninspiringNickname (talk)\
The blocks won't last long. The blocks in the end are an inconvenient roadblock and it gives someone who might have impulse problems second thoughts before trying to unblock. I've blocked myself for three days following intense drama regarding GodlessRaven, logged myself off, and it helped get my mind off. It's up to them in the end, but some encouragement doesn't hurt, especially when the expiration isn't long or they can unblock. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 04:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
So what's problem? No one has actually said what the issue is here. Got any links or something? Ace://about blank 04:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
See here for some context. Plutocow (talk) 04:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) There was a coop of you. UninspiringNickname tried to discuss with me about another discussion regarding the relationship of asexual people and the LGBT+ community. Discussion got heated between both of us, but GC came in and eventually melted down and had a crisis. There was also another discussion on Saloon Bar involving same users. He said to have self-harmed after that stress. See the collapse in UninspiringNickname's talk page. See this thread, collapse section again. Blocking was done to prevent more harm being done. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 04:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Alright let me read these links. But everyone just chill (Oh the hypocrisyP. Ace://about blank 04:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

EVERYONE REMAIN CALM! CorUser (brawl) 04:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Can't everyone just calm down???

It's not like it's the end of the world... yet. Unclescrooge (talk) 04:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Things seem to have mostly calmed down already. But I'll just say, for future reference, that telling people to calm down isn't likely to make them calm down. Plutocow (talk) 04:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Oh, I see what you mean. Unclescrooge (talk) 04:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
I shouldn't have even asked about it. Now it's becoming a clusterfuck. Ace://about blank 04:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
You did the right thing, Ace, but I think we should collapse the whole thing right now, ot at least this new topic. GeeJayK (talk) 04:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
GC has this belief that there's a Certain Way you have to make arguments, and seeing anyone deviating from that Certain Way results in him losing control, and he has little ability to regain his composure. During this time he will write vicious screeds, make threats, or engage in blockwars including removal of rights. Not sure what to do with him, because when he hasn't lost his cool he's actually quite useful to the wiki. CorUser (brawl) 04:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)