RationalWiki's 2020 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2021.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $1680Goal: $3500

RationalWiki:Chicken coop

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Not to be confused with the moderator noticeboard.

Archives for this talk page: Archive list (new)

HCM Level 3

Strike forces launch.

The chicken coop is for the avoidance, containment and resolution of cases of Headless Chicken Mode (HCM). Despite the name, this tends to be serious business.

This page can be used for reporting cases of administrative abuse (abuse of sysop or moderator abilities such as blocking, page deletion, or user rights management), general abuse (such as trolling, wandalism, and personal attacks), and conflicts which cannot be solved through normal talk page discussion (such as long-standing edit wars or article content disputes). Please be specific and include links to any relevant discussions, page edits or logs.

All editors are welcome to comment on the cases raised here, and to try to reach a consensus on any action to be taken. If no consensus can be reached, and the HCM seems to be escalating, moderators are expected to take some action. However, any serious or permanent solution, such as removal of rights or lengthy ban, requires a community vote here according to the guidelines laid out in our Community Standards.

Please try to resolve conflicts directly through discussion on other editor's talk pages before reporting them. It's better to just talk to someone rather than try to drag their name through the mud.

If the issue is not conflict resolution, but concerns RationalWiki policies, suggested changes to how things work around here, or similar matters of principle, please post on the Community Standards talk page instead.

When presenting a case here, be sure to include whom you are accusing, what exactly you are accusing them of, some hard evidence, and a brief explanation. Since the sole purpose of the Coop is to resolve these disputes, don't post unrelated or more generalized complaints here — if you do, your posts will be moved off the page. Any vote started within 48 hours of filing will be deleted and you will be blocked.

Use {{CoopNotice}} to inform the user in question, so that they have a chance to discuss their actions here.

As a final note, if you think this page is a good tactic to apply in gaming the mob into doing your bidding, you may be shocked to see your post archived quite swiftly.

Ban Smith[edit]

I propose to formally ban the user known as "Smith" for the offenses of:

  1. Doxing me and at least 3 other members of this site on various talk pages here and creating at least 2 libellous attack pages on editors here.
  2. Doxing members of this site on Kiwi Farms and Reddit and elsewhere.
  3. Attempting to bulk delete pages here in connection with a lawsuit and causing disruption in the process along with arguably shifting the legal responsibility for those pages onto the site users who voted to keep them.
  4. Deliberately introducing defamatory material to multiple pages as part of a dispute with some crank.
  5. Using this site to carry out a flame war with Mikemikev and Abd for several years including impersonating both on several occasions.
  6. Vandalism and trolling with "throwaway" accounts to disrupt site processes on numerous occasions.

I'm not going to specify any evidence because the most relevant evidence is suppressed and everyone with suppression access is well aware of the situation already. Just remember voting starts in 48 hours and requires a 2/3 majority. — Z 11:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

so we are being asked to vote to ban a user few of us actually know who they are with no evidence provided? another coop another farce. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes exactly that. — Z 12:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
It's honestly difficult to get the details clear, since a lot was suppressed. That said, this discussion remains as well as the AfD Ze has linked. It appears to be tied to the Mikemikev/Abd ul-Rahman Lomax drama, the former of whom got banned from RW for... what should frankly be obvious reasons (just read his page lol). I'll be frank, I won't vote in the Smith stuff since I don't know this particular drama shitstorm surrounding those two, but as far as I'm concerned, there is not exactly a great loss to the wiki should they remain gone? -Also just to quickly clarify, this coop isn't about nobs lol-. Sirius (dog star) 12:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Not banning him would kinda send the message that doxing is ok here so my vote is settled already. — Z 12:29, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Smith's only real activity here was and is meant to further internet grudges and escalate drama. It's caused problems on more than one occasion. Not an editor we need to keep around. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 13:21, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Funny comment considering I've added the most articles of any editor to RationalWiki. Most the people criticising me instead don't add constructive content but use this wiki as a chat-room such as Saloon bar (a place I've virtually never visited).Flight (talk) 13:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I've never doxed, impersonated or defamed anyone, notice as well no evidence is ever presented for these wild allegations. Ze has engaged in a gaslighting campaign against me for some time and nothing they post about me is accurate. They link to the preliminary judgement Kirkegaard v Smith [2019] EWHC 3393 (QB) but that has nothing to do with RationalWiki. I was never sued for comments I made on this wiki so claims I have posted libel on this wiki are blatantly false. And I won the lawsuit - Kirkegaard discontinued in May and has to pay my legal fees as the losing party. The preliminary judgement concerned fact versus opinion and ruled my comments were "expressions of opinion and are defamatory" however the judge pointed out "For the avoidance of doubt, I am not deciding the question of serious harm under s 1 of the Defamation Act 2013." (the preliminary was to determine whether my comments were fact or opinion not the question of serious harm and I won it on the basis I was arguing my comments were opinions while Kirkegaard incorrectly said they were facts and he was criticised by the judge for taking my comments out of context). Had it gone to full trial or summary judgement (I filed for) a judge would have decided if my comments were either honest opinion (my legal defence) or defamation based on the serious harm question. Kirkegaard discontinued the lawsuit shortly before the judge was going to decide this knowing he/she would almost certainly have ruled my opinions were honestly held rather than defamation. So did I defame him? No. It' s highly misleading to say I did since my comments were upheld as honest opinion which provides a legal defence to defamation (other than truth) and he discontinued the lawsuit knowing the judge in the summary judgement would have ruled my comments did not cause him serious harm. Of course, I don't expect Ze (formerly EK) or Dysk (aka D) to acknowledge this and both of them have spent the past year character assassinating me on Reddit and various wiki-related forums over this lawsuit. Flight (talk) 13:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

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

You doxed me here and then a bunch of other times that I could find if you really want and then doxed other editors later and when your comments were suppressed you went to do the same thing on other sites including Kiwi Farms whose users still follow me around to harrass even now because of it. — Z 14:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Upon further consideration, I changed my mind. I hadn't quite seen the KiwiFarms shit. Let me be clear here, anyone who is on that site and thinks that posting anything to do with a member here is an A-Okay thing can honestly and directly fuck off. Smith needs as far as I am concerned no more place here. Sirius (dog star) 15:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I've never doxed Ze - they formerly used their name initials (EK) on RationalWiki which is public knowledge. They renamed their account. They were banned from Wikipedia for trolling using their real name. How is any of this doxing if they've publicly used their real name as their account name on Wikipedia and used their initials on RationalWiki? If you go down that road and define doxing as someone who posts public information then by the same definition Ze (aka EK) has doxed me by posting my name Oliver Smith all over the place.Flight (talk) 17:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
LOL. If you want to ban people who post on Kiwi Farms, then ban EK/Ze - she posts there and libelled me as a pedophile on an account. It would be pretty moronic to deny this is her since the account is an SPA dedicated to attacking me and contains the same "feminazi" name description. EK/Ze has been using Kiwi Farms to libel me for months.Flight (talk) 17:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── My account initials were never connected to any name until you decided to do that, obviously it was public knowledge after you made it public knowledge which is what you must have wanted. The Zionist Feminazi account on Kiwifarms is obviously not me, and in addition to calling you a pedophile it doxes LGM, posts personal information about Dysk, claims Bongolian is your brother, and calls various peeps here SJWs which tbf is fairly standard for all the posters on that thread. It also engages in severe transphobia against dysk which seems cringe and is ngl a lot like your own very transphobic comments about dysk you made here which is now suppressed. — Z 18:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

What personal info from me was revealed? DM may be appropriate. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 18:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
The "Zionist Feminazi" account on Kiwifarms is Ze who calls herself a feminazi here. Ze and Dysk claim to be siblings in real life. The "Zionist Feminist" account on Kiwi Farms libeled me as a pedophile and it is only Ze/Dysk that repeats the libel on that account. Ze is also involved with Mikemikev drama and note the only other thread the Feminazi account on KF posted in is Mike's. There are plenty of other evidences that account is Ze.Flight (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
On Kiwi Farms there is talk that Ze and Dysk are the same person. On his Reddit account, Dysk posted several times he is in actual fact Ze. Does anyone know what all this is about, or is it an elaborate hoax? Johns (talk) 19:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
It's a well known fact nothing I post on Reddit is true, I have no idea why people still take me seriously there. — Dysk (contribs) 21:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I disagree with a ban of Smith, I personally don't have an opinion either way. I'd say that a stern admonishment along with a 2 way interaction ban from contacting Ze (and vice-versa) should be sufficient in my opinion would be a good idea in the event that Smith is not banned. Additionally, a preemptive sysoprevoke may be in order, especially with Ze active on the site. Kiko4564 (talk) 19:33, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Kiko you are a moron, if you want to comment, make an effort to understand the situation. You want an interaction ban for someone who doxed several editors? What a joke. — Dysk (contribs) 21:28, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
EK/Ze doxxed my brother and if they didn't do that I wouldn't have even looked into their identity and found their Wikipedia account. My actions were retaliatory - Proof is here. View this edit: https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ze&diff=prev&oldid=2073294 (this is me confronting Ze over the dox of my brother before I posted links to their Wikipedia account with their name). Flight (talk) 23:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Glad to see that you admit to doxing Ze now mate, your denials were fucking tiresome. — Dysk (contribs) 10:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I've rebutted that below. I never posted private information about your sister - she signed up a public Wikipedia account with her name. In contrast, your sister doxxed my brother's name on Wikipedocracy and other websites when he's never publicly revealed his name online. You have a penchant for projection. Flight (talk) 12:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Dysk, there is no need for personal attacks. No I don't necessarily want an interaction ban. I only said that this would be an option if Smith is not banned, whether as a result of this coop, or otherwise. Kiko4564 (talk) 17:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Kiko go and do something useful, like fucking yourself with a broom. — Dysk (contribs) 10:28, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
No, I'm not going to do that. I have better things to do, thank you. Kiko4564 (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Cultivating this many sockpuppets[edit]

I don't know, man. Sockpuppetry is not explicitly against our rules. In fact having sock accounts has largely been condoned in the past. But I can't help but feel that this Oliver D. Smith business has taken it to a whole other level. It may be worth it to ban them simply because they're more trouble than they're worth. We don't need to embroil RationalWiki in a conflict spanning half the internet, just for the sake of a single user. The scale of this is... disturbing.-Hastur! (talk) 18:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't see the point in any of these debates. Smith and Ze have been involved in an online slap-fight for over a year its on Kiwi Farms, discord, Reddit etc. It's impossible to have both these people on the same website. Johns (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to support banning Smith just based on the scale of the drama they're embroiled in. All sorts of websites and sockpuppets and angry basement-dwellers plus at least one court case. It's not worth it to allow any chance of all that garbage spilling onto RW. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 19:07, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
If you look up the Wikipedia clusterfuck, EK (Ze) was indef b& as a sockpuppet of Dysk (indef b& as either a suspected troll or irredeemable PITA). I'd provide links, but I can't be arsed with accusations of doxxing. This whole thing is weird AF. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 20:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Ze was originally blocked due to a technical link between us, this was overturned (for Ze) by a Wikimedia steward, based on showing identity documents. Terms of the unblock followed the WP:CLEANSTART guidelines and the original account remains locked. However, despite this I personally remain banned from all Wikipedia projects, for trolling, and ban evasion. — Dysk (contribs) 21:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
We don't need the identity documents, obviously, but a link to the ruling would be nice-Hastur! (talk) 21:33, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
This was largely conducted in private on Wikimedia IRC, you will have to make do with the rather limited WP:AN ruling linked to my "main" Wikipedia account. — Dysk (contribs) 21:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Dysklyver Pull the other one, son. Look, you've had a good run. Let's not spoil it by going down the very silly road of my-sister-totally-started-editing-Wikipedia-a-month-before-I-got-b&-and-whilst-I-was-sockpuppeteering-like-crazy. Smell tests n' all that.

I invite you to resign from the board of trustees, hand back both your tech bits, and decide whether you'll use your Dysk or Ze account for voting in future. Graceful exits on gentle off ramps ftw. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 01:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

1. RationalWiki has no rule against sockpuppetry it is a moot argument, nevertheless I will point out that nothing you wrote is true.
2. I've been sockpuppeting on Wikipedia since around 2006. Although my socks are assigned to various SPI cases, the oldest one blocked as "Dysk" is this November 2006 account. Ze did not get blocked until 2018 (12 years later) and that was a quickly resolved mishap I caused quite accidentally.
3. I never stopped Sockpuppeting on Wikipedia and still edit articles there on a regular basis, occasionally I get banned this doesn't concern me. I haven't been banned for nearly 2 months.
4. I don't intend to quit the board without having pushed certain changes outlined in my candidacy statement, this isn't negotiable.
5. It's probable that I will lose Tech over the IP-Data visibility issue. Not because I did anything wrong, but because of what I said about it.
6. This is very much off-topic to this Coop case, if you have further questions take it to my DMs or Email.
Thanks. — Dysk (contribs) 11:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. I hadn't dug any further than A____r K_____a, but my main concern now is your use of the Dysk and Ze accounts to sustain a "doxxing" drama that doesn't impact your RL identity at all. I get that you might be having tons of fun fucking with people on the internet, but bollocks to you indulging that shit here. You have an off ramp. Take it, please. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 18:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Dysklyver is banned from other wikis for sockpuppetry. Conservapedia on his blocked account says "inconclusive but convincing checkuser evidence of sockpuppetry". And since he admits to socking on Wikipedia, was blocked for doing it on Conservapedia - it's almost certain he does it on RationalWiki. But as he says it's not against the rules here - however he's someone who has attacked me across the internet for owning "hundreds of accounts". Likely projection since I don't that many (my estimate is 35-40, but that's over a 8 year period), perhaps he does though. And note he's publicly discussing his Wikipedia accounts he shares on an IP with his sister here, but made a dubious claim I doxxed his sister when I merely posted her Wikipedia account. (facepalm)Flight (talk) 12:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
On that note Smith, the user account that you are using, User:Flight is a sockpuppet of a banned user. Is there any reason why this account should not be blocked? If there isn't then why even bother with a vote? Why not just proceed to blocking Smith? We can then review the block afterwards, if deemed appropriate. We have enough drama on this wiki without Smith, by allowing Smith to return we are only allowing more drama to take place here. Not good, and not rational either. Kiko4564 (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Feel free to link where Smith was banned mate. — Dysk (contribs) 10:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@Flight I'm proud to be banned from Conservapedia for trolling, and I really love what you wrote there as OliverS (Oliver D. Smith) when I was blocked there by DMorris.

You should be very careful when dealing with users of RationalWiki. You were wrong in exposing yourself to them, but you were right in blocking that account. Dyskylver/Arthur Kerensa is a sock-puppet of Bongolian (a RationalWiki moderator), and also a notorious sock-puppeteer. He is also almost certainly the operator behind the "John66" account on RationalWiki. I can't prove any of these claims right now as so few edits have been done, but I will eventually be proved right. Dyskylver will pretend to be normal for a while like he did on his Wikipedia accounts, but sooner or later will reveal himself when he posts in support of anarchism. He is an active British Antifa and identifies as anarcho-communist. It is clear that all the accounts posting on the RationalWiki coop are accounts are operated by the same person to create the illusion of support. I also notice someone has created another sock with a name similar to the others to cause disruption here. Most likely the same individual behind this entire shit show. He is a dangerous ideologue, don't trust what he tells you. OliverS talk 20:08, 23 March 2019 (EDT)

Of course there is no evidence that I'm not a sockpuppet of @Bongolian and there is no evidence @Johns (John66) isn't my account. I can personally vouch for the accuracy of Conservapedia, and of course you would never lie about me on a Trusworthy™ site, would you? — Dysk (contribs) 10:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC) ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Smith has admitted to using User:Tobias previously, which was already indefinitely blocked when started editing using User:Flight. I have subsequently indefinitely blocked Smith, as he has agreed on his talk page to LANCB, and also to me blocking his account indefinitely to enforce this decision i.e. prevent him from ever coming back to RationalWiki. He does, however have the right to appeal this block, and to further participate in this coop via his talk page. But as I suspect that it is unlikely he will want to appeal his block anytime soon, I think that this part of the coop can be archived, and that the proposed vote on a ban of User:Flight need not take place as he is currently indefinitely blocked, so won't be coming back unless we agree to lift the block. Which I doubt any sysop (including myself) will be happy to do without a coop vote. Which is fair enough in my opinion. Kiko4564 (talk) 19:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Ban Abd[edit]

I can't remember exactly what this guy did but allegedly trolling and doxing were involved. I think he created a blog to attack various editors after that and the validity of what he wrote there is disputed. Like Smith he was unilaterally banned by a sysop on the basis of doxing without a coop vote, so in the interests of fairness we will confirm this ban too at the same time. Remember that the vote starts in 48 hours and requires a 2/3 majority to pass. — Z 12:19, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I oppose having a vote to reinstate Abd because he has not petitioned for reinstatement of rights. It's a needless drama to rehash all of his bullshit (or anyone else's who hasn't petitioned). He appears to be a death's door according to D, and partly-confirmed by his own website. Bongolian (talk) 19:48, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Smith is no longer on this website. Can you close this Abd thing? He doxed and harassed editors here. Just re-ban his account and be done with this pointless drama. Its time to move on. Johns (talk) 19:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
The point of this coop is to clean things up and give a proper process to a few out-of-regular-process blocks that were enacted. Suggesting keeping this shit open so it can cleanly close with an obvious vote. Sirius (dog star) 19:59, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Disscussion[edit]

Seems like a wise idea, poking through history, it seems his community also was responsible for raiding RW or something? Anyway, that blog of his was in the abuse filter at some point if I'm not mistaken. Unlike Smith, I do think I can be confident in saying that blocking Abd is a good idea. Sirius (dog star) 12:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I mean in terms of damage Smith did more than Abd but yes both should be banned and this is more about procedure since both have been treated as banned for a long time and had hundreds of accounts blocked for ban evasion. — Z 12:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Abd Lomax is a threat to RationalWiki user's privacy and was rightly banned. He threatened to sue David Gerard and RationalWiki, he posted this on his website coldfusioncommunity in 2018 (if you want I can link to this). He later dropped this idea and filed a lawsuit against Wikipedia for banning him. His lawsuit against Wikipedia was dismissed with prejudice, but Abd claimed in this lawsuit that RationalWiki had 'defamed' him. On Abd's coldfusioncommunity website there are 50 negative articles dedicated to 'researching' RationalWiki editors such as Smith and their alleged sock-puppets.
Lomax also doxed some RationalWiki staff on his website and some of that information is still live. Fuzzycatpotato has been doxed on Abd Lomax's website his real name and house address has been exposed. Ze is a close friend of Abd Lomax, indeed Lomax wrote on Reddit a few months ago he considers ZE like a "daughter". Ze also has a discord "The Treehouse" and she invited Abd to join it, and made him a mod there. D/Ze have been in an online slapfight with Smith for a year spilling over multiple websites. We need someone totally uninvolved with this Abd or Smith drama to solve these matters. Johns (talk) 18:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I've only interacted with Abd once, but he did post briefly about me on his site (he did not doxx me) which brought it to my notice. He does seem to post a lot about RW stuff on his webpage. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 19:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Yeah well your like me anonymous so Abd can't get you but he tries to get hold of editors real life names, then he publishes it on his website. Does fuzzy know Abd has published his personal details? Johns (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I would vote Aye to a ban of Abd, but I've not been on here long enough. Kiko4564 (talk) 19:31, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Abd was banned on Some random Smith a suckpuppet using my surname and then editing Emil Kirkegaard's article when he knew I was involved at the time in a lawsuit with Kirkegaard. So I suspect this was an impersonation. Abd is a malicious troll and David Gerard blocked the Smith account recognising it was Abd. Abd falsely claims (without any evidence) I impersonate people on his blog - it's psychological projection and he's describing his own sick behaviour.Flight (talk) 22:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I could say the same about you. Funny how you have no self awareness, when you post obviously hypocritical statements. — Dysk (contribs) 22:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
The difference is I've never impersonated anyone while Abd Lomax demonstrably has or at least he has used my surname on his sockpuppets. Who am I meant to have impersonated? And why has no mod blocked me for an impersonation? They only seem to exist in your imagination. Flight (talk) 22:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
D has admitted to being a friend of Lomax. Ze is also a close friend of Abd. We need neutral users on here if any discussion is to go forward. Abd has personally harassed me over email so I am against him fully. I admit I hate this evil ol man! So I am not neutral. I suggest we all stop debating this topic and wait for the voting. Johns (talk) 23:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Abd is a great guy, that said, I don't oppose his ban on the grounds of doxing. Same with Smith, but Smith is actually a cunt. — Dysk (contribs) 11:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I understand that you have a personal relationship with Abd, and I have no problem with that. Abd however is a lunatic (pseudoscience promotion), a pest (repeated ban evasions), and a danger (doxing). He is not 'great'. Bongolian (talk) 18:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
That's all water under the bridge now, Abd needs banning in my opinion. Smith, however needs summary banning without a vote in my opinion. He is the sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked user by his own admission. Why are we even wasting our valuable time feeding this troll? Troll Kiko4564 (talk) 22:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Invalid vote: started prematurely[edit]

As noted at the top of the page, since this vote did not start 48 hours after the beginning of the coop, it is therefore invalid. Bongolian (talk) 18:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

This shit is so tiresome already, and we have to sit through another fucking day of this? Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 01:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Derp[edit]

  • I would settle for blocking my account on a voluntary basis i.e. post this user has decided to quit. Would I show up again? No. Because this time there was actually a Coop discussion rather than the irregular procedure of banning me via discord with no consensus or discussion. I returned to this wiki to add articles because there was no proper ban, rather, it was two problematic admins (Ze and Dysk) who banned me based on dubious allegations of doxing (I've rebutted these allegations above). There is also a repeated false allegation I libelled Ze or Dysk; yet last time I looked they're the people viciously smearing me on multiple websites as a child abuser and pedophile among many other outrageous claims. Flight (talk) 18:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Smith calling the RationalWiki mods and sysops "mentally ill SJWs"
Smith you said after you wrote banned as User:Tobias that you would never return while calling the mods and sysops here "mentally ill SJWs" and saying a highly transphobic homophobic, and ableist Kiwi Farms thread was true (See the image). Why are you back. — Z 18:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree, I think that Ze asks a fair question. That said I will add that I'm not in favour of anything other than a simple 2 way interaction ban on both Ze and Smith. Additionally, I think that Ze should be admonished for misuse of sysop. Everyone makes mistakes, but mistakes like that should never be repeated again. Kiko4564 (talk) 19:29, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
There's no transphobia, homophobia, and ableism in any of my comments on KF or anywhere else (not that I actually care). Furthermore it's pretty stupid to use that as a guilt by association fallacy when we both know you (Ze) are the "Zionist Feminazi" account I was responding to in that thread who was libelling me as a pedophile. To anyone who wants to actually check that full thread to get the context rather than believe Ze's quote-mines - notice my comment in the screenshot is only responding to "Zionist Feminazi" after I was provoked. And note how the "Zionist Feminazi" account identically matches Ze's posts and writing style, for example take the following comment they posted on Kiwi Farms:

May 18, 2019 Zionist Feminazi

maybe the doxing has something to do with how her name wasnt linked to her rationalwiki account and the harassment has something to do with how u went onto her talk page and discord to post threats and weird shit about the things u would do unless she redacted a wikipediocracy post to not mention ur insane brother who spends his time spamming reddit?

To those familiar with Ze aka EK's writing style will know their usage of "ur". Not only that but it matches identical claims they make here such as the dubious claims of doxing and how her account "name wasnt linked to her rationalwiki account" (we've seen that same claim made above by Ze). Add this to the fact EK calls herself as a feminazi and elsewhere has claimed to support zionism plus that user only was posting in the RationalWiki and Mikemikev thread specifically to attack me -is rather conclusive its the same person. How many other people who support zionism and call themself a feminazi with the same writing style to Ze are there? I'm not sure how much more evidence other mods here would need. The fact they are denying this is them shows how highly deceptive they are. Flight (talk) 19:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

The Zionist Feminazi user on Kiwifarms is a former close friend of mine, I can confirm it's not Ze. — Dysk (contribs) 21:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I would vote Aye, but 1) I'm not an eligible voter and 2) I think this proposal is ill concieved and we'd be better off if we did what WMF wikis do and implement a procedure for appealing bans that does not involve sockpuppetery. The problem with this proposal is that it encourages people who are banned to evade their bans. Hence invalidating their meaning and purpose. Not good. So if I were an eligible voter, I'd vote Nay, we're better off with the status quo, which at least wouldn't create a precedent that any ban retrospectively deemed "invalid" may simply be disregarded without consequence. This isn't an Anarchy, or a battleground. Kiko4564 (talk) 19:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't even understand whey this is a vote. Abd is a certified doxer. I'm not about to give Smith the benefit of the doubt, particularly if there is confirmation that Smith is a doxer. Bongolian (talk) 20:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Either way I think that Smith has admitted to being a sockpuppet of User:Tobias who has already been indefinitely banned. So I fully agree with you, on the basis of that evidence alone, there appears to be no need for a vote. I don't see why we can't just summarily ban Smith aka Tobias aka Flight instead of bothering with a vote, which is just a waste of everyone's time. If Smith wishes to appeal the ban, and sees it as unjust, and intends to edit there are already proper channels for doing so e.g. on his talk page (if not revoked), by email (if not revoked), or by Discord. If both his talk page, and email access have been revoked, and he is banned from the Discord server, then tough shit. That's his problem, not our problem. If that's the case then we can just ban him, then Forget It, Move On. Kiko4564 (talk) 20:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
@ Kiko and Bongolian - my Tobias account was banned without the correct procedure. It was banned with no discussion or vote based on a dubious claim of doxing. I dispute the doxing claim because all I did is link to Ze (aka EK) Wikipedia account. That's all I ever did. I don't consider that doxing. Ze's dubious claim is it was doxing because she had not mentioned/linked her Wikipedia account on RationalWiki. Wikipedia accounts are public. Perhaps the reason Ze acted the way they did is because their Wikipedia account is perm banned for trolling and they're a notorious sockpuppeteer - there's dozens of accounts banned under their name. Flight (talk) 21:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Are we going to ignore you doxing Greenrd, Occam, and that you posted Ze's full name which isn't in the Wikipedia link? Get real mate, you can focus on one thing, and there are a dozen more offenses I can list. — Dysk (contribs) 21:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
You're a proven liar. Ze's full name is in the Wikipedia url I posted. A mere google search of "Greenrd" reveals his full name. How is that doxing? This stuff is public and Greenrd connects his online pseudonym to his real name on multiple sites. Same for Captain Occam who has identified himself on blogs and forums (his real name) with his pseudonym. None of this is doxxing (revealing private information), but you know that. You've made up a tun of false allegations to smear me with. Flight (talk) 21:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Remarkably Smith, what you wrote there is proven lies by the suppression logs already posted on this page... I guess you are full of shite. — Dysk (contribs) 22:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
That's your and EK's usual response when you're been exposed as outright lying. "It's the logs!" when these aren't even viewable. And lol @ doxing Greenrd when his surname is his pseudonmyn. But I guess you're going to go back to spamming Reddit with your "Oliver is a malicious doxxer" crap. Flight (talk) 22:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Thanks for your response Smith, as a result I can now be satisfied so that I am sure (i.e. beyond a reasonable doubt) that you are the sockpuppet of a banned user i.e. Smith aka Tobias. Therefore, if I were an eligible voter I would definitely voting Aye. Kiko4564 (talk) 17:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

On that note, I feel that this coop will be pointless if I just block Smith to enforce his desire to LANCB. I have asked him to confirm that he desires to LANCB, and that he is happy for me to indefinitely block him to enforce his desire. If he does confirm that, then I will just indefinitely block him, and ask for this coop to be archived without a vote. Are there any objections? Kiko4564 (talk) 08:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I object. Too many people have LANCBed before only to return. And since Smith is notorious for his sockpuppetry, we need a 2/3 mob decision on whether all his current and future incarnations can be summarily banished. CoigreachAnnoySpySilence 09:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I also object. Users shouldn't get away with no punishment just because they ragequit. Sirius (dog star) 09:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

A summary of my actions wrongly claimed to be doxxing by EK and Dysk[edit]

  • Ze's former name on RationalWiki was EK. Those are her real name initials and she has a Wikipedia account (banned) under her real name. I linked to the Wikipedia account.
  • Greenrd pseudonym is his surname. All I did was Google his name and you get his full name including surname on plenty of sites. The first link on Google has Greenrd, his surname and first name (I won't here post, but its public).
  • Captain Occam (a banned Wikipedia troll) has identified his pseudonyms (Captain Occam, Occam) with his real name on blogs and forums.

So how did I dox any of these people? Nothing I linked or posted was private information. If EK wanted to be anonymous in cyberspace why use her real name initials on RationalWiki and sign up a Wikipedia account with full real name? Based on the above false allegations of doxing I was incorrectly banned on the user:Tobias.Flight (talk) 22:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think you or D/Ze should continue your slapfight on this website. It's been going on over a year on other platforms. You need to put an end to it and just agree to never talk to each other again. Users should stop arguing here and just wait to vote on the bans. Johns (talk) 23:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
The problem is the mods or other users aren't looking at the evidence, some are uncritically going along with D/Ze's total BS and lies. I've never doxxed those 3 listed people. Anyone impartial can see that if they read my simple rebuttal above. No information I've posted is private but public.Flight (talk) 23:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Just because Ze volunteered her real life name on one platform, doesn't justify you revealing it on another one. Revealing her name on RW is doxxing. And you continuing to point out her real world initials should be reason for immediate block for as long as it takes until we get the permaban vote concluded. CoigreachAnnoySpySilence 23:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Anyone can Google these peoples usernames and get their real life name because they are publicly attached to their accounts on other websites like Greenrd so it does not match the usual definition of "doxing" used in law because the information is public, not private. But there is a stricter definition of the term doxing on this website where you can not divulge any name from any external website even if it is public and connect it to a pseudonym. This sort of connecting the pieces research is forbidden. My advice is to close your account here and move on. Abd is not coming back here. You should not come back either. The best way to leave is by choice. The infighting on this website can be very toxic. Johns (talk) 23:28, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Four points as a rebuttal:
(1) They used their real name initials on RationalWiki.
(2) They use their first real name on RationalWiki-related discord chats.
(3) Ze claims their brother is Dysk; the latter's Wikipedia account is connected to his sisters and since Dysk has mentioned his Wikipedia identity on RationalWiki it was easy to find
(4) Finally, I don't use the weakened definition of doxing but the strong dictionary definition which contradicts what Coigreach said. Cambridge dictionary definition: "the action of finding or publishing private information about someone on the internet without their permission, especially in a way that reveals their name, address, etc." Key word: private. EK signed up her real name on Wikipedia. How is that private? It isn't - Wikipedia is a public site. What would be doxing is if someone leaked actual private information including, for example a name behind a paywall site or credit card details. Guess what? The former is what EK did to my brother on the Wikipedocracy forum which is what I confronted them about on Tobias and asked them to retract where they did this. My brother was doxxed by a troll who put his name on the internet having paid for his information behind paywall site. My brother never released his name on any public website - yet EK went around the internet doxxing him on multiple websites. I then get banned for posting Ek's name after I was confronting them about doxxing my brother. You really couldn't make it up. Had they not doxxed my brother I wouldn't have looked into their identity and found their Wikipedia account. My actions were retaliatory. Flight (talk) 23:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Ze/Abd have both been doxing your family so in retaliation you found her banned Wikipedia account name. I understand but this slap-fight has been going on too long. There is bad on all sides. Nobody is innocent here. Abd was the first to dox your family. Abd has quite an influence on Ze. I think the real issue here is him and his bad influence on some from this community. I mean it was him that started this flame war between you guys. But I am bored of this now and I going to sleep. My advice is to move on. These petty online feuds are not worth the time. I seriously think you should close your account on here. Johns (talk) 00:00, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) (1) Again, it wasn't known that those were her real life initials until you brought it up.
(2)I hold a strong belief that what happens in Discord should have no bearing here.
(3)Just because it's easy to find doesn't mean it's justifiable to reveal. Also, what Dysk reveals shouldn't make it okay to reveal extended information about his (alleged) sister.
(4)This is RationalWiki. And our more strict definition of Doxxing applies as far as the blocking policy is concerned. CoigreachAnnoySpySilence 00:01, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

It must be wonderful to have this much free time to spend hours doing pointless shittery, trolling, doxing, revenge bitching, online stalking and year long bickering all over the internet. Must be conducive to a truly content happy soul. ShabiDOO 11:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed but Troll Kiko4564 (talk) 17:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Back to reality: view my user contributions. My edit history on this wiki is adding mainspace articles - and I've added between 200 and 300 since 2012. My account Flight is only 2 weeks old, but has already made 3 lengthy articles such as spiteful mutant hypothesis. The behaviour you are describing is the total opposite of mine. I've never used this wiki for drama and I've virtually never posted in the saloon bar and with few exceptions (obviously if you exclude this coop where I protest an incorrect blocking procedure and a couple of talk pages), rarely post on non-mainspace articles. I also never joined any RationalWiki group or chat. I'm a solitary individual who never even made friends here over 8 years and only used this wiki to add constructive articles. I have no idea why people think I'm involved in shit-posting or trolling. As I said view my edit history. As far as drama, stalking or revenge bitching is concerned - Ze (aka EK) followed me on Twitter months back - I blocked them and told them to fuck off. Despite the misinformation saying otherwise, I have no interest in 'bickering all over the internet'. The only place off-this wiki I briefly mentioned my ban was on KF. My total post count there is very small and I haven't posted there for well over a year.Flight (talk) 18:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Your honesty is appreciated Smith, but the fact that you've already been convicted and sentenced, but are unlawfully at large, and clearly don't see anything wrong with your prior misconduct, are all things that strongly suggest that you need indefinite banning. This doesn't even need a vote in my opinion, a straight ban would be sufficient due process for you. Kiko4564 (talk) 21:57, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Indefinite ban for D[edit]

There is now solid evidence D has been looking up private IP data and using this data as a personal check-user. I also believe he has been sending that information to his friend Abd Lomax a hostile critic of this website who has threatened various editors here with legal action in the past. Even if he has not sent private information to Abd, he has violated users privacy.

User Flight recently revealed this comment from D on Reddit:

  • "I can see the IP addresses Smith used on RationalWiki due to the fact I'm a tech there. Every single IP on a Smith account that I checked going back to 2016 or so was a VPN and I can clearly see the IP addresses Smith used on his accounts don't match his public IP address he used separately without an account. Furthermore, Smith has been recently editing RationalWiki using different IP addresses. The link can be found here [1].
  • D admits here Abd is his friend and admits to trolling Wikipedia talk-pages.
  • Also D says he takes LSD [2]. On Reddit D says he does much of his editing when he is high.
  • D is indefinitely banned on Wikipedia and uncyclopedia. Whilst bans off this website have no involvement in RationalWiki it does paint a picture that this user is a troll which he confesses to. Here D admits to trolling. "I personally remain banned from all Wikipedia projects, for trolling, and ban evasion.
  • D has been in communication with Abd Lomax for over a year. I received emails from Abd telling me he has private IP data of RationalWiki accounts. Abd has threatened to sue RationalWiki users in the past.
  • D and Ze invited Abd to join their discord server "The Treehouse" and made him a mod there. There are many chats there about RationalWiki with Abd.
  • Abd filed a lawsuit against Wikipedia (it was thrown out with prejudice) but in that lawsuit Abd mentioned RationalWiki as 'defaming' him [3]. D has publicly posted on Reddit and Wikipediocracy that he supports Abd's lawsuit.
  • Here D admits nothing he posts is true, [4]. Is this someone we want on the board of trustees?
  • The abuse of tech rights is outright ban offense. This is violation of privacy. Totally unacceptable. On any other wiki, this would not even be a vote. You need an indefinite ban on this user right now. Apparently tech rights has now been fixed so IP/s can not be seen but it is way too late. Privacy has been violated here. Johns (talk) 21:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I fully agree, and would happily vote Aye, however I'm not an eligible voter. Kiko4564 (talk) 21:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't be in favour of banning (talking to Abd on Discord, taking LSD and being banned from other projects are not bannable offences). But I will say that comments Dysk made here are extremely damning, and a very serious breach of tech privileges. I'd support re-looking at whether Dysk should have tech rights. --RWRW (talk) 22:00, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
The ban is over the breach of tech privileges which violates privacy. The Abd link is very suspect but I have known about that for months. His behavior in regard to the IPs is absolutely unethical and outrageous. The trustees need to take action and suspend this user. I don't see how this can even be up for debate. Pinging the other trustees @GrammarCommie, @LeftyGreenMario, @FuzzyCatPotato, @Tmtoulouse, @Spud. Johns (talk)
If D isn't permanently banned, then I fully agree with RWRW on that one. Kiko4564 (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
In my opinion banning is not necessary, but tech removal is on the table. The suspicion of this sort of thing played a major role in removing tech rights from Oxy.-Flandres (talk) 22:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Yep - immediate loss of tech rights followed by vote on a ban. But who gives a shit about LSD? I've edited this site under influence of many substances. AceModerator 22:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I've donned my mod hat and removed tech rights pending discussion about said rights. I think the offense is serious enough for immediate action. AceModerator 22:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Fully agreed Ace. Kiko4564 (talk) 22:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, only the tech rights abuse is actionable. I don't care who D is friends with, nor what substances he abuses. I mostly edit when drunk. In fact I'm drunk right now. And extra wiki douchebaggery should be unpunishable 99.99% of the time
That said, the tech rights abuse is serious enough to warrant major punishment. I agree with Aces decision to unilaterally strip Dysks tech rights. The same should be done to Ze, who also admitted to the abuses. Furthermore a long block is warranted, even if permaban might be a bit too much for my liking. CoigreachAnnoySpySilence 22:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm somewhat tipsy already and it's 10:36am and I am in my office with the door closed. But yes - loss of tech rights is the least we can do for now. AceModerator 22:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Some of the evidence given is besides the point, if not particularly flattering (e.g. editing on acid). The IP issue is the crux of the matter and I think it is damning. Bongolian (talk) 22:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree Coigreach. Kiko4564 (talk) 22:45, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I can dig up another Reddit comment in the same thread (I need to go through 100+ comments though...); an anonymous user asked Dysk for a specific log/IP detail of a RationalWiki account, and Dysk's response was he would give it in private (by private I assume email or the private message feature on Reddit). The main person Dysk has been discussing and likely giving IP data to in that Reddit thread is Emil Kirkegaard who posts on Reddit as Deleetdk. There is no doubt the pseudonym Deleetdk is Kirkegaard and the Deleetdk account identifies as Emil. Deleetdk appears in the thread at least once. The allegations by Kirkegaard and Dysk I use VPNs is false. Whatever IPs Dysk was discussing and presumably leaking (if they weren't public IP edits) to Kirkegaard weren't mine but other editors, though my real IP he probably gave to Kirkegaard but I've publicly edited on it on this wiki. lol. That's how stupid their false claim I use VPNs is.Flight (talk) 23:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Can confirm that Deleetdk is openly Emil Kirkegaard - David Gerard (talk) 23:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Someone asked me for my opinion on this? Sure, whatever, have at it. Dysk doesn't show good judgement, that's not news. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 23:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, by all means proceed with disciplinary action against D.
But I'd like to make it clear at this point that it is still my considered opinion that Oliver D. Smith is a horrible person just like the vast majority of his many online enemies are horrible people too. I think his ban as Tobias was legitimate and he shouldn't be editing here using another account now. Spud (talk) 00:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Is there any evidence d and ze are different people? Several other websites say they are the same person, do they need two accounts on here? 82.132.231.117 (talk) 09:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

There is no evidence, if anyone decides to post any I will ban them. Alright? — Dysk (contribs) 10:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Dysk[edit]

Since Smith and Johns are now both openly lying about obvious facts, I'm gonna address a few points.

  • I've already pointed out that I did have access to IP addresses, that many of those belonged to Smith because he was doing most of the vandalism, and that I considered using it as a Checkuser. This much is not in dispute.
  • It has been claimed that I "looked up IPs", this is simply not true. I saw IP addresses while dealing with the edit filter, as I rewrote all the filters here in 2019, added some new ones, and generally improved the false positive rate. At the time it wasn't possible to check the filter details without seeing IP addresses. I have a near photographic memory and after a time working on the edit filter, realised there were repeat patterns in who was trashing the wiki quite by chance. After this I discussed whether a checkuser capability would be possible or desirable, it was concluded not.
  • It has been claimed that I shared information with Abd Lomax, this is untrue. If Abd did get logs from this site that wasn't from me, and didn't happen on my Discord server. My involvement with Abd, was entirety related to his lawsuit against the Wikimedia Foundation, during the course of which we became friends.
  • It has been claimed that I shared information with Emil Kirkegaard, this is untrue. The only time I spoke to Kirkegaard he called me a traitor to western civilisation and threatened to murder my family. I have not been subsequently inclined to speak to him, although I followed his lawsuit against Oliver Smith.
  • It has been claimed that I shared information with an anonymous user on Reddit, this is not true. While talking to an account claiming to be "The Real Oliver Smith" on Reddit, I discussed whether Smith had used VPNs, my opinion on the matter was informed by my memory of his IP addresses from the time I'd worked on the edit filter. This user reached out to me in private to ask what information was accessible, but they were unable to verify their identity, and the conversation ended with no information disclosed.
  • It has been claimed that I edit this wiki while high, this is accurate. I don't believe that my ability to edit is substantially affected by this fact, indeed I'm currently smoking marijuana while writing this.
  • It has been implied that I have at some point recorded IP-Data from this wiki, this is untrue. At no point did I write any IP addresses down, record, or share with others any private information.
  • It has been claimed other tech users, such as Ze, and Oxyaena, and others I will not name, have accessed IP-Data. This is partly true. All current techs that have worked on the edit filter, will certainly have seen users IP addresses. There is no evidence that any tech took note of this, except for Oxyaena saying she did on the mod noticeboard. Users such as Ze, and The Crow, were aware of the IP address visibility, but there is no indication they misused this access.

Ace has decided in his infinite wisdom to jump the gun and remove my Tech bit, again, despite the fact the access in dispute isn't possible now. Meanwhile others such as Spud, are posting in favour of removing all Techs and appointing new ones, as if there is an unlimited supply of people that do shite here. I personally believe that this is counterproductive to the maintenance of the wiki. Furthermore, I believe that rehashing shite that was throughly discussed and resolved months ago is a waste of time. Nevertheless it's up y'all to decide what to do with your time, carry on. — Dysk (contribs) 11:29, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Ace, in his infinite wisdom, had the support of every single current moderator. Probably the first time I've seen the mod team all agree on something in quite some time. --RWRW (talk) 11:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Clearly, a shared sense of laziness considering the reasons are 90% made up by a troll, and nobody noticed they weren't true. — Dysk (contribs) 11:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't trust Oliver D. Smith as far as I can throw him. And I'll say this bluntly. I don't want him here. But obviously the fact remains that techs had access to information that they should not have had access to. I think a clean break with the past is the only way forward. Spud (talk) 12:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Then I will take my leave here, and join the increasing list of people who are more interested in spending time with those who appreciate their help, than participating in an obnoxious troll site. A site which is mainly used to dox and make fun of cranks, and has barely a dozen mainspace editors and barely twenty relevant quality pages anyone reads. — Dysk (contribs) 12:10, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
There should be an indef ban for anyone who fabricates/lies about being sent death or rape threats. Above we have Dysk claiming Kirkgaard sent them death threats about murdering their family ("and threatened to murder my family.") with no evidence. As much as I dislike Kirkegaard, and he dislikes me, this is only time I will defend him on such a baseless allegation. There is a disturbing pattern here - Ze/Dysk also lied and claimed myself, Michael Coombs and other people sent them not only death but rape threats (with no evidence of course), not only once but many times over months. Absurd. I know for a fact I never have, so they maliciously lied, and it seems they're now lying about Kirkegaard too. It is totally unacceptable to fabricate or lie about something as serious as death or rape threats being sent. Ze/Dysk have now lied about at least 4 separate individuals doing this on this wiki. Flight (talk) 13:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Aside from the issue of IPs (violating user privacy), Dysk/Ze have been fabricating death and rape threats being sent to them, see above. Someone should contact Emil Kirkegaard, who I'm sure would deny the allegation he sent Dysk death threats to murder his family. As I noted above - Dysk/Ze have a history of falsely accusing other people (at least four separate persons on this wiki) of sending them death or rape threats, including myself. Their behaviour is outrageous and disgusting. @GrammarCommie, @LeftyGreenMario, @FuzzyCatPotato, @Tmtoulouse, @Ace McWicked, @Spud Flight (talk) 14:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Kierkegaard should be emailed 82.132.231.117 (talk) 14:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

quicker option. Someone message Kierkegaard on twitter and get a public response that can be posted here 82.132.231.117 (talk) 14:43, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I blocked Kirkegaard on Twitter ages back and he blocked me. I also don't want any direct communication with him. But sure, someone else here could contact him to ask. But considering Ze/Dysk have a disturbing history of falsely accusing many other individuals of sending them death threats - I don't believe Kirkegaard sent them anything. Flight (talk) 15:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
And on and on - the carousel spins. Like Boethius and his wheel. AceModerator 20:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Fortunately Smith has now been blocked, he agreed to me indefinitely blocking his latest account in exchange for the block reason being given as an editor request, and not a ban. I happily obliged, given his genuine intention to LANCB, and the fact that the block will enforce the matter. Kiko4564 (talk) 21:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Stop trying to suck your own cock Kiko! The mob will vote whether to ban Smith or not, and if 2/3 agree to ban, the reason will be modified (and he will also be blocked from editing his own talk page). CoigreachAnnoySpySilence 21:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I find the idea of contacting Emil Kirkegaard both revolting and completely pointless. So you ask a man, "Have you ever made rape and death threats against anybody?" He's hardly going to answer "Yes", is he? His denial wouldn't be worth a damn. Spud (talk) 06:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

It has been claimed that I edit this wiki while high, this is accurate. I don't believe that my ability to edit is substantially affected by this fact, indeed I'm currently smoking marijuana while writing this. I have absolutely no problem with this aspect of it. I've been in some very weird states while editing RW. Who gives a shit. Also I find hilarious that the only person who admitted using IP's was Oxy who now says she lied meaning no one can trust her at all anymore. AceModerator 06:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

That was way back in November. The only person here who doesn't trust me is you. I never admitted to anything, as well. I only admitted to the fact that I could see the IPs and noticed a pattern. Oxyaena Harass 07:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Except for Scream who said just today they wouldn't trust you if you said water was wet. And Hastur I would imagine, and Nutty. And pretty much everyone who would vote against you being a tech again. Dude, you can't say you used IP's, then say you didn't because you lied, then have Dysk and Z pretty much drop you in it, when you knew you could see them but was very vague when I first started asking you about it. You kind of painted yourself into a corner. AceModerator 07:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Oxy, you've been burning bridges for quite a while. The fact that you were sysoprevoked is indicative of a general lack of trust. Bongolian (talk) 07:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Dude - you just fucking admitted it...again - I only admitted to the fact that I could see the IPs and noticed a pattern. So you were using IP's to check users. You're not very good at this. AceModerator 07:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Fully agreed. That permission was rightly removed, in my opinion Dysk can't be trusted as a sysop either. Kiko4564 (talk) 11:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
I didn't admit to shit, anyone who used the abuse filter had to see the IPs. All those people you mentioned haven't exactly been very fair to me either. Oxyaena Harass 14:25, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
As someone who once owned and managed a wiki I can certainly confirm that you would need to try manage it with your eyes closed if you wanted to avoid seeing IP addresses. And if you wanted to try to stop spam bots or whatever you certainly might want to look at those IP's and try to find patterns. And tying the username back to the IP was trivial. At least that was the case a decade ago when I was last involved in my tiny wiki. So such rights are really only for people of absolute trust and discretion. Quite honestly it should be the job of someone who is emotionally uninvolved in any of the debates which periodically occur. If I remember correctly, when checkuser was removed, it was initially agreed that only Trent would have access to this godlike power as he was assumed to be above petty politics.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Usually Bob's right, this time's no exception! Scream!! (talk) 19:30, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Bob is wise. AceModerator 19:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Oh, so you ignore me and Sirius, but one of your buddies is a-okay to trust? Oxyaena Harass 11:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Uh... what did Ace ignore about what I've been saying? Sirius (dog star) 11:33, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Voting time[edit]

So yeah, the requisite 72 hours have passed.

I'll also quickly add to the mix that I've found a very likely (not hard proof) diff of Smith doxxing Dysk, which has been supppressed from non-techs because it's doxxing and then someone who is definetly Smith recreating the page in question by copying an external user profile of Dysk, likely in an attempt to see how far one could go. The entire page has since been suppressed since (by Dysk). Anyway, the vote is for two, Abd and Smith.

Please observe voting guidelines. This is a penalty vote. Votes must reach a supermajority in total for the vote to pass. Users voting must meet our rules surrounding this by the time the coop closes.

Smith[edit]

Also known as Flight right now, but has been blocked several times for alting.

Permanent block[edit]

  1. Sirius (dog star) 17:47, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  2. CoigreachAnnoySpySilence 17:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  3. Flandres (talk) 17:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  4. Fucking finally. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 17:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  5. Johns (talk) 18:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  6. Oxyaena Harass 18:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  7. Insulted my tastes in video games one time under a sock. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 18:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  8. Judge Dredd (talk) 01:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
    Dysks bot. He can still unblock himself and vote with his actual profile. The bot doesn't have enough verifiable edits anyway.CoigreachAnnoySpySilence 02:26, 19 September 2020 (UTC)Striking my protest and restoring the vote as per conversation here. CoigreachAnnoySpySilence 20:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
    1. For the record would you mind sharing what those are so that others can avoid anathema and this disasterous fate? nobsBlack Guns Matter 02:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  9. Burnt away countless ergs of energy here going on and on and on about off-site internet drama. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 19:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  10. --RWRW (talk) 01:18, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  11. As a wise man once said, "The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend." Good riddance to the big-headed, paranoid fuck! Again! Spud (talk) 03:04, 19 September 2020 (UTC))
  12. Bongolian (talk) 01:28, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
  13. If Smith has doxxed someone, then this is a foregone conclusion. While sock puppetry is not an offence on RW, neither is it a loophole to skirt bans (permanent or temporary). If a user is banned, so is any existing or new socks and circumventing a ban by using socks is grounds for increasing the duration of the ban (if it’s not already permanent, of course). ScepticWombat (talk) 06:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
  14. I said I would. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Invalid votes[edit]

Do nothing[edit]

Abd[edit]

Was brought up due to being blocked under similar-ish circumstances as Smith.

Permanent block[edit]

  1. Known crank, and there's reason to suggest that his community attempted to raid RW from what I can find. Sirius (dog star) 17:47, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  2. CoigreachAnnoySpySilence 17:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  3. Flandres (talk) 17:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  4. Yes. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 17:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  5. Abd has doxed editors and threatened this website with legal action in the past. Johns (talk) 18:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  6. cold fusion is a crock of koopa dung --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 18:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  7. Burnt away countless ergs of energy here going on and on and on about off-site internet drama. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 19:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  8. Nothing he'd want to do here I reckon anyhow. Judge Dredd (talk) 01:35, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
    Dysks bot. He can still unblock himself and vote with his actual profile. The bot doesn't have enough verifiable edits anyway. CoigreachAnnoySpySilence 02:27, 19 September 2020 (UTC) Striking my protest and restoring the vote as per conversation here. CoigreachAnnoySpySilence 20:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  9. See how sane I am, Abd. Spud (talk) 03:06, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  10. This should not even be up for a vote: he didn't appeal, and he's moribund if you believe D. Bongolian (talk) 01:30, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
  11. Being a crank is not a (perma)bannable offence, but doxxing and such definitely is; so, I don’t see any reason not to permaban. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Invalid votes[edit]

Do nothing[edit]

Goat[edit]

  • I left out non-permanent blocks. This entire coop is about the question on if both Smith and Abd are to be regarded as persona non-grata, so I don't think much less will get traction or be relevant to this. Sirius (dog star) 17:47, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Smith has already been blocked to enforce his decision to LANCB, why not just revoke his talk page and email access so he can't appeal, and make it clear that he must never come back? Kiko4564 (talk) 18:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
    Recent events have made it clear these coop votes HAVE to be given decisive outcomes. We can't end it because someone said "you can't fire me, I quit!"-Flandres (talk) 18:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Anybody else here think Johns is Smith? He's weirdly informed about the situation, also weirdly invested, and has similar editing habits (i.e. a fixation on personal information). If sockpuppeting is such a problem (and I would argue that at this point, it is), we ought to have a procedure for investigating-Hastur! (talk) 18:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, Abd Lomax does. He's written about 100 articles about me on his blog, claiming I am Smith, he started that in 2018. It's nonsense. I have exchanged emails with both Abd and Smith. Abd has threatened to sue me for editing his article, so I have to say I prefer Smith than Abd but both do not belong on this website. Johns (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
@Hastur As a matter of fact, I have irrefutable evidence that Johns is Smith. However, I can't go into details here without skirting around doxing concerns... that said, Johns has posted information known only to Smith, myself, and a very few others I known personally. There is no doubt that Johns is Smith, the linguistics, knowledge, editing patterns, and so on all match. Furthermore, despite this being brought up multiple times there is still no evidence he isn't Smith, bar Abd claiming without evidence he's Smith's brother. There is significantly more evidence that Johns is Smith than most here are working with, it would be very interesting to have evidence to the contrary, although that would bring into question why if Johns isn't Smith, he works with Smith so closely and shares information with him. Judge Dredd (talk) 01:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
I hate all of this-Hastur! (talk) 02:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
I have evidence that LeftyGreenMario is Smith, Brx is ElvisIsKing, GrammarCommie is Abd, AgingHippie is TheDarkMaster2, Rationalzombie94 is Mona, Oliver is Ikanreed, and RightyBlueLuigi is Father Vivian O'Blivion. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 02:34, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
I have evidence that every editor except for me is a sock of  K e n  D o l l .  K e n  D o l l  has evidence that I am a sock of the ghost of TK. CoigreachAnnoySpySilence 03:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Oh no you got me. Looks like the fetid odor of the mixture of abc Emilbo quirkywineguard and mikemikemikeekimv offal in in my mouth crept over to your computer screen and gave it away, huh? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 03:16, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I suspect D is engaged in sockpuppetry here, and behavioral similarities leads me to believe that at least Oxyaena is a sockpuppet of D. In fact, the whole lot of them (including EK) could be socks of User:Pbfreespace3...

Just a reminder how this all started in June 2019. Judge Dredd (talk) 10:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)