RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive37

Paravant & Fat Aardvark[edit]

I've removed User:Paravant's sysop status for repeated arbitrary blocking, specifically of User:Fat Aardvark. I'm sharing this information here as last time I removed an unruly sysop's powers the various busybodies & BoNs of the wiki kicked up a flap about it.

Paravant has ostensibly only been here a month or so but oddly was sysoped before making a single edit so I can only assume he/she is somebody else's sockpuppet or wikireincarnation. Notwithstanding, he/she shouldn't be handing out month-long blocks without warning.

Fat Aardvark seems mostly harmless. I've looked through his/her recent edits & see some pointless frivolity but nothing bannable. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Paravant is Miekal.

There was warning -- this is FA's 5th block of geometrically increasing length.

FA is a self-described troll who adds nothing and clogs the Bar.

I oppose the desysop and support the block. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 19:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

FA only contribution to the RW is spam. The block was justified, the de-sysop-ing not.--Arisboch (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

More importantly, Paravant is still a moderator. Desysopping fixed nothing. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 19:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

FA is a borderline case of RW "blockworthiness": He's not practising the kind of deliberately nasty trolling of mikemikev as he's not "[a]dding purely offensive bigotry (racism, sexism, etc.), solely for the purpose of causing emotional harm, into a page", but is nevertheless an effin' waste of bandwidth and a bugger to keep an eye on in order to remove his self-proclaimed "banter" that no one but himself see as anything but trolling. Blocking FA after numerous warnings and repeat offences, while not in line with a strict view of RW practice, is certainly not something that should be punished by desysopping or anything else. ScepticWombat (talk) 19:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok ok ok ok I'm sorry for the trouble I caused plz don't reinstall the block I love the freedom to edit.--Fat Aardvark (talk) 20:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Block the infantile twit (F.A. that is). He's been warned repeatedly and continues with his unfunny 'banter' (which isn't banter). Scream!! (talk) 20:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

His contribs have been boring vandalism or concern trolling. Block or bin him. CorruptUser (talk) 20:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

A month-long block for the guy posting "hey I'm back, look at me" comments in the bar is excessive, but I don't think a desysop is necessary either. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

They weren't really being blocked for a month for posting innane comments in the bar, but for doing so after repeated warnings to stop and previous blocks of much lesser length after said warnings. Ontop of the prior year long muzzle for being a vandal. I was only doing it (and so the one Weasloid saw doing it) because others were and nobody had really said we shouldn't be.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 21:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

No, you kept doing it after I had lifted the block twice already. I don't see a whole lot of difference between Fat Aardvark's comments & User:MadmanJohnson's, who was never blocked for more than an hour or two. Ŵêâŝêîôîď

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Only I wasn't the one who blocked them, I changed the length. If you're going to go after somebody, should go after all of us. Or did you miss that part where I'm not doing anything unilateral? --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 23:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Why should I need to go after somebody? Wėąṣėḷőįď

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll be good don't ban me I can change!--Fat Aardvark (talk) 21:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Is unblocked, but is in the bin. Can come out when there's evidence of not being a useless and annoying waste of space - David Gerard (talk) 21:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The only reason I haven't given FA an indefinite block ( or at least a severely weighty one) is because the geometric thing was funny. Storm in teacup, slap on wrist for Weaseloid for general muppetry, let's move on. Queex _{chthonic murmurings} 23:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

LogicMaster socking as FedTruther to deceive, evade ban[edit]

The below is a quotation from FedTruther's talk page. It was placed there after I noticed he had edited Talk:Federal Reserve as an IP by mistake and poked my nose into that IP's contributions. Based on the evidence quoted, I believe that FedTruther (and associated BoN) are one and the same with LogicMaster777, and that the account FedTruther has been used to circumvent LogicMaster's recent block, as well as taking part in LM's coop case as though a separate user.

[1] You, messing up and identifying your IP address (did the captcha not give it away?)

[2] (et seq.) You, as a BoN, repeatedly reinserting material on behalf of LogicMaster

[3] You showing up to a boring dispute over coins and the law which otherwise did not involve you in order to support LM

[4] (et seq.) LM showing up to the coop to complain of Miekal, making nonsensical legal threats

[5] LM being blocked for making said threats

[6] (et seq.)You, showing up very shortly thereafter to also complain of Miekal

[7] You, showing up to vote in support of LM, despite being ineligible, and spitting out some unrelated arguments of his while there. Aside from this and your filing immediately following LM's ban, you have never shown even remote interest in coop-related goings-on.

Stylistic arguments up next if desired. PacWalker

[8] LM ranting about statist censorship.

[9] You, doing the same in remarkably similar terms, made more remarkable by the rarity of those terms in other discourse. Note also Wombat's observation of the peculiar similarity.

[10] LM denying Paul's connections when unsavory

[11] You doing the exact same; again in similar terms

Also, how many other RWians use the word statist on anything approaching a regular basis? Answer: not even Smerdis. PacWalker

[12] Forgot this gem, your first contribution as BoN outside bush league edit warring on Godlike Productions, in which you gripe about LM's very muc misplaced rant being deleted. PacWalker

(timestamps removed) PacWalker 08:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

This is completely idiotic.

[1]: Ok. (I am always presented with a captcha because I am binned)

[2,3,7,12]: So what, I support LogicMaster's logic?

[6]: Coincidence. Miekal used his sysop abilities to remove things, at a similar time, that we thought shouldn't be removed.

[8,9]: The Federal Reserve strongly relates to statism. Is using this word 2-3 times a "regular basis"?

[10,11]: Coincidence (and a very weak connection). What I wanted removed contained misleading information about Ron Paul followers' beliefs of the Federal Reserve. This is because my purpose here is to provide correct information about Federal Reserve Trutherism.

And, again: LogicMaster writes a lot more than me, and generally in a very different writing style.--FedTruther (talk) 08:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

LogicMaster isn't banned. Weaseloid

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 09:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Correct. He was recently, however, and FedTruther was active during that time, including voting against that ban. PacWalker 09:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

If all these things are true coincidences, they are a remarkably unlikely series of coincidences. The simpler, more believable explanation is the one I have presented, which is why I brought this here. PacWalker 10:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, I think LM's and FT's styles are distinct enough to make them being 2 people seem most plausible. It's quite possible that they know each other though, and LM pointed FT to the site. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 11:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not very convinced by stylistic arguments (unless it's something like highly unusual spelling mistakes or really arcane lingo), but it's kind of interesting that FedTruther didn't respond when I suggested that (s)he hook up with LM. Whether it suggests that they know each other and adhere to similar "anti-statist" crankery (quite possible), ~~suck puppeteering~~ sock puppeteering, or simply that FedTruther doesn't deign to reply to that kind of snark, I don't know. My immediate thought was that LM had drafted a fellow crank to team up with him on RW, while my second one was sock puppeteering. Not that I think it matters hugely either way. ScepticWombat (talk) 12:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

If FT is the same person as LM, then LM is guilty of sockpuppeteering. If he isn't, he's guilty of meat puppetering. Gotta love 'em Morton's Forks. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦

^{Nani wo surunda? Yuruzan!} 13:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Since when has RW policy prescribed penalties for sockpuppeteering, let alone tedious fuckwittery? IMO this is not coop fodder. Alec Sanderson (talk) 14:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Ban evasion is, though. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ﹐ Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 14:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Meh. He was blocked for being an annoying crank and some edit-warring. If he had been blocked for something serious (legal threats, doxxing, threats of violence, hate speech) I could see the need for an investigation and a case. This ain't worth it. Shut it down. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah sure, I'll buy that. Anyone opposed to archiving? FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 14:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Please do archive, though I'd just point out that while LM wasn't blocked for an out and out legal threat, he was blocked twice for (barely) veiled pseudolegal threats. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Then he probably should have been pseudoblocked for them? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 15:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

[EC]That falls under the rubric of tedious fuckwittery, risible and not a real risk to the wiki's continued existence. To RW's credit, there isn't a "Sanderson's gut feel" clause, or else LM would be bloxxord til the expiration of every Sea Org contract. Thankful for small blessings, I am. Alec Sanderson (talk) 15:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Vandal Bin 145.64.134.245[edit]

Basically, ze's a holocaust and measles denier, but so far has only been messing around with the talk pages. But annoyingly so. It's mostly JAQing off, and we try not to ban people for "defacing" the talk pages, but I think we should bin em.

Aye[edit]

Me CorruptUser (talk) 12:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Ah, shoot, I'll chip in here, even if it just lessens the amount of stupid trolling this BoN keeps spewing by increments. ScepticWombat (talk) 12:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Went ahead and put the BoN in the bin after the latest bit of JAQing off. Doubt we'll get any more quality out of it, but at least it cuts back on the quantity of trolling. ScepticWombat (talk) 13:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Given the call to action by the fine denizens of TheRightStuff, I don't think we need heavyweight process to vandalbin white nationalist trolls - David Gerard (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
"White Nationalist" being the projected term for people who oppose anti-White genocidal Semite Nationalists. 211.168.87.95 (talk) 18:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Just seems to be here to cause issues. Stupidly funny at points, but gets old pretty fast. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
"Issues" like contradicting your anti-White agenda. Asshole. Gas and burn. 211.168.87.95 (talk) 18:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
By all means, keep spouting nonsense. It's hilarious. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Zot! Narky Sawtooth (Nyar?~) 02:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Nay[edit]

All you have is name calling followed by censorship. 58.235.189.191 (talk) 14:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Looks like the BoN troll figured out how to use a proxy sockpuppet. Pro-tip; we can tell it's you because your sockpuppet only has one edit. CorruptUser (talk) 14:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
And how exactly is there censorship? None of this BoN's posts have been deleted and the vandal bin doesn't limit what or where someone can post, just how often. ScepticWombat (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Why are you calling me a troll? 58.235.189.191 (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Eh, because you behave like one, mayhaps? ScepticWombat (talk) 14:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Nonsense, I'm completely sincere. You just want to paint me as insincere as a form of projection. Stalin wasn't White, he was more similar to Jews and Turks. Is that wrong? Does calling me a "troll" disprove that? 58.235.189.191 (talk) 14:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Ah yes, because there's no such thing as race trolling - say hi to Mikemikev, I'm sure you'll get along famously. PS. I've binned this IP sock puppet too. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
So because race trolling exists, anyone that says anything about race is trolling. What a shamefully dishonest person you are. Note how you simply avoid the point. Your dishonesty and lies are matched only by your chutzpadic arrogance. And I have never written anything about measles, it was someone on the same IP. Someone who is not me is editing GM food and measles on ‎145.64.134.245. 58.235.189.191 (talk) 15:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
You know what's a brilliant tactic to make yourself seem respectable? Calling people liars when purposefully using sockpuppets. There's zero way that could ever backfire. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 15:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
So the BoN only wants to take "credit" for the Holocaust denialist stuff? Cool. Btw BoN, if you made an account you wouldn't risk this kind of mistaken identity (if that's what it is...). ScepticWombat (talk) 15:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Using a sock IP isn't lying retard. That's what you people do. #GuiltProjection 58.235.189.191 (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Not sure how much of a difference it'll make. Looking at his edit history, there are relatively few "machine gun edits" that would have been filtered out by the vandal brake. Mind you, I'm not against binning this waste of time, just not sure how much of an effect it will have. ScepticWombat (talk) 12:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC) Changed my mind, obviously. ScepticWombat (talk) 13:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

User:FedTruther[edit]

Some users want/have wanted to ban him/her primarily for edit warring, as far as I can tell. I don't think this is justified. If people want to ban, here's where to make the case for a block. 2/3 vote to succeed. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ﹐ Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 16:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring is annoying as shit. I don't have much tolerance for it, especially when it's over things that basically form the antithesis of our anti-conspiracy nut side. This coop will go nowhere, no one is seriously going to defend them. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 16:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

No talk page was probably excessive, but my point still stands: We don't need a coop vote to ban somebody who's only actions here has to edit war, be vandal binned nearly 100% of their time here, and bitch when we've locked the pages because of edit wars. --Miekal 16:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Is there any way to edit a user's rights so that they can't edit certain pages? CorruptUser (talk) 17:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

[EC] S/he does edit war too often. But that itself isn't enough to block. You & I edit war quite often. The difference is that a vandal does editwarring to hurt discussion and finding truth. FedTruther seems to believe his/her shitty ideas, and discusses them (albeit for too short before editting, etc.). S/he doesn't seem malicious, only ideologically different from us. And that is not bannable. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 17:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring is indeed annoying as shit but it isn't a permablock-worthy offence. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦

^{I'll take you right into the Danger Zone} 17:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

[EC] @CU: We could do a topic ban, but that's just based on him not editting those pages and us punishing if we do, versus in the wiki software. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 17:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@Raysenn: the issue here is Miekal blocked for 3 months, a bit less than infinity. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 17:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

S/he does edit war too often. That would be because of the aforementioned Vandal brake and Page Protections - hard to edit war pages you can't edit. And no, being ideologically different isn't bannable (to a degree, as tisane shows), but not being interested in discussing the issue with us (and being willing to ignore us and just edit anyways) is. And "searching for the truth" isn't a noble intention when said truth is bullshit fuzzy. --Miekal 17:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I am going to point it out again - every time they have had a chance to edit these pages they have done so, and have had to be reverted because of it. discussion with them has clearly failed. --Miekal 17:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Bring back the Fibonacci sequence. Ŵêâŝêîôîď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

But, but discrimination! --Miekal 17:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

How about the Pascal's Triangle (of Pascal's Wager) middle numbers, X choose round(X/2). E.g, 7 choose 4, which is 7!/(3!*4!) or 35 minutes. To 20 (starting at 0!/(0!*0!)) 1, 1, 2, 3, 6, 10, 20, 35, 70, 126, 252, 462, 924, 1716, 3432, 6435, 12870, 24310, 48620, 92378, 184756. Incidentally, they teach combinations wrong, it should be for example 10 over 3 and 7, not 10 over 3. This isn't just because 10 over 3 is the same as 10 over 7 (10 people into two groups of sizes 3 and 7), but you can also have 10 over 2 and 5 and 3 (e.g., 10 people into 3 groups of sizes 2 3 and 5).CorruptUser (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Topic Ban FedTruther from Fed Reserve[edit]

Aye[edit]

Prevent hir from editing the page, let hem edit other stuff for now. CorruptUser (talk) 17:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Let them bang away at something else that doesn't seem as directly feeding their OCD and down the rabbit hole. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, he's a single tract crazy, so this will be more than enough. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{I'm the coolest driver's high} 17:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, but maybe all bank stuff. Fed nuttiness tends to spill over into related financial conspiracy theories. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
So far, the nuttiness has seemed to target only the Fed - oh, and the Hillary Clinton stuff, of course. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I see no reason to put up with this nonsense. --Castaigne (talk) 19:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Nay[edit]

Meh[edit]

(or whatever sound a goat makes) CorruptUser (talk) 17:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
bah - David Gerard (talk) 18:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
[Insert relevant noise] Whatever dudes (& dudettes & whatever duderistic you care to take on). ScepticWombat (talk) 18:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
So can we close this? Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 19:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Somebody who knows half-assed what their talking about needs to clean-up/expand the Fed article. His stuff can be tweaked later. nobs^{I'm not from this planet, but let me tell u what I think....} 04:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

That would imply said person is FedTruther. Just the "truther" part of them name means ze doesn't know shit about it. CorruptUser (talk) 04:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt[edit]

He just desysopped someone without a vote or consensus, which constitutes an abuse of administrative powers. Kind of hypocritical, given what he's going on about in the section above.141.134.75.236 (talk) 12:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, he undid what he did. On that note, how bad are administrative abuses that are readily reversible? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 12:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Confiscated someone's mop for a whole four minutes? Parade the heretic around the village square in a cart and give him a bath in the mill race! Seriously, this is not a coop case, and should be archived post-haste.

The question of "how bad are administrative abuses that are readily reversible?" would be better presented in the saloon. Alec Sanderson (talk) 13:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Pretty much nothing an admin does in MediaWiki is not trivially reversible. (The only exception I can think of is a messy history merge.) - David Gerard (talk) 14:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Ryulong[edit]

I just blocked Ryulong.[edit]

And I think he needs to chill down. If the mob doesn't agree with my ban, I'll gladly unban him.--Palaeonictis (talk) 05:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Eh, Ryulong's had his share of bad behaviour, but his latest edit doesn't seem particularly objectionable, so I'm kinda wondering which specific recent activity made you think he needs to "chill down". 141.134.75.236 (talk) 05:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The activity towards that Gamergater, which don't get me wrong I don't think is a morally reprehensible "ideology", but he still hasn't been a vandal, and much of the activity Ryulong does is pretty much the same that Gamergater does (sorry I don't remember his name, I`m horrible at that). Again, as he's been told numerous times, being an asshole doesn't warrant vandal binning him, although Ryulong has been feeding the troll himself numerous times.--Palaeonictis (talk) 05:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

"Don't feed the troll" is garbage. Naqoyqatsi is posting conspiracy theories about living people made up by a group that was trying ot get one person to kill herself. What the hell else am I supposed to do? I'm not allowed to reprimand the troll. I'm not allowed to block the troll. We're just supposed to let the troll post shitty conspiracy theories day in and day out even though they're complete bullshit and bordering on libel?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't suggest vandal binning him, but do what I do and block him from anything from a second to an hour, and I think he will get the message. If not, do what the Policy says, and keep making it harsher and harsher.--Palaeonictis (talk) 05:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I've vandalbinned them. I've blocked them. I've blocked others. Every time I do someone else overrules it and gaslights me over why I was banned from Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

You've blocked people for the most frivolous of reasons, just because you're an asshole doesn't warrant you getting vandal-binned, so I gave you a taste of your own medicine. Blocking me in turn with a "Don't tell me not to feed trolls when that doesn't solve shit" remark doesn't solve anything other than your own spitefulness. Neither does blocking them and vandal-binning them solve anything either than showing that you're at the level of (insert target of accusation here).--Palaeonictis (talk) 08:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

You came in from nowhere and decided you knew what was what in all directions. Perhaps stop concern trolling? - David Gerard (talk) 11:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Then stop doing it. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Then don't complain when allowing Naqoyqatsi to continue his gaslighting of Ryulong is considered to be endorsement of his views by the wider population. Your choice. --Castaigne (talk) 14:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Ryulong definitely needs to stop blocking / binning people as vandals / trolls. Let that banhammer cool down. Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 16:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

That's fine. So long as we all understand that it gives tacit approval to Naqoyqatsi saying Ryulong is mentally ill and needs to stop editing. I guess KiA is right; everyone else here aside from me and DG thinks he needs mental help and to be topic-banned. --Castaigne (talk) 16:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

There's a difference from not stopping his speach and giving tacit approval; Further, many people have spoken against the contents of his pages and his ideology. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 16:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Allowing something to happen is tacit approval of that something; if you didn't approve, you would act to stop it. Or more succinctly, inaction/neutrality inevitably is choosing a side. --Castaigne (talk) 16:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Or perhaps we value free speech highly enough that it takes precedence over stopping assholes. FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 16:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Last time we had moderator elections, Marcuscicero, possibly our biggest troll ever, was elected. That's how this place rolls. Bicycle^wheel

19:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh yes, I am familiar with the more-or-less general adherence to free speech absolutism here.

It's just that no one ever likes the consequences.

Oh well. As I say, no longer my problem. I have made my point and thus am absolved of all responsibility and guilt for whatever consequences occur. --Castaigne (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

And if we don't like the consequences of free speech, guess what we can do? Complain about it, freely. FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 20:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't get it. If you allow something to happen, why complain about it? Especially why complain when you can't undo what's been done? Why whinge?

If there's no practical point to complaining, no action that it will result in, there is no reason to complain. So no, I won't freely complain about the consequences of free speech; it's like bothering to complain about your injuries after you deliberately step in front of the speeding bus. --Castaigne (talk) 22:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

This isn't a freedom of speech issue. It's an issue of adhering to community standards at RationalWiki. Ryulong has repeatedly been called out for blocking users and deleting edits where it isn't warranted. He makes no attempt to adapt to RW's standards and instead expects RW to adjust to his, despite other editors constantly reversing his blocks & deletions. What I suggest is that he takes a step back & takes his finger off the trigger. We have enough sysops around that if an edit or an editor is a genuine problem to the community (& not just what Ryulong arbitrarily considers to be a problem) somebody else will deal with it. ωεαşεζøίɗ

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

If you feel that Ryulong is such a bad dude, then ban Ryulong for several months. Or vandal bin him. Or perma-ban him like Tisane. If Ryulong is so wrong, then take action.

I guess there must be something wrong with me too. I've just never had much truck for people who pick on other people deliberately, like Naqoyqatsi does Ryulong. Don't matter whether the picking is for personal reasons or an agenda; it's all bad to me. But I must be wrong on that score; the results of such gaslighting must be A-OK to the world. Clearly it is a mental defect of mine that makes feel otherwise. --Castaigne (talk) 01:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

See, the problem is that nobody thinks that Ryulong is a bad person -- they think he's overzealous with his blocks. If he stopped blocking, people wouldn't care about him. (With the exception of those opposed to Gamergate coverage at all.) So a block isn't the solution. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 01:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Welp, I don't see any other way to prevent Naqoyqatsi's targeting and gaslighting, but like I've said - No Longer My Problem. I guess if y'all come up with another solution, y'all should implement it. But don't go thinking that Naqoyqatsi or others of his ilk will lay off Ryulong, ever. It doesn't matter what Ryulong does or does not do. The stated goal of the Op on 8chan is to drive him off the internet, by any means necessary. Your choice whether to help or hinder. (And since I won't be doing anything to hinder, that places me in the "help" department by default. Sucks to be me, but oh well.) --Castaigne (talk) 02:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I can speak for myself, thanks. I'm not trying to drive anyone to suicide and I don't think school bullying has any relation to not backing down when someone yells at you on the internet.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 02:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Uh-huh, riiiight. Nice try on plausible deniability, though. --Castaigne (talk) 03:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘What 8chan op?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

So for when people wake up[edit]

Someone's really buttfrustrated at me and is using a bunch of proxy ranges to be a cock so I hope people don't mind that I've been blocking the ranges rather than the individual IPs. I'm crosschecking all of these at the English Wikipedia and they're all blocked there for like 2 years at most so I hope no one minds that I'm just keeping myself sane until the baby tires himself out.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, someone's been persistent tonight.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Endorse - We either deal with this shit or let these determinedly malicious shitheads turn RW into ED - David Gerard (talk) 07:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Seems like worthless trolling, pure and simple, but targeted against a single editor which I agree makes it "block worthy". But I (again) wonder why it's considered necessary to hide the revisions afterwards? If anything, having them on the record illustrate the pathetic level of trolling this BoN (or several BoNs?) stoops to. Unless we're talking doxxing or similar serious shit, I really don't think there's much of a justification for this extra level of "deep burning". ScepticWombat (talk) 08:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I thought it made it more difficult for the layman to restore by like undos and shit when I wasn't protecting everything and blocking massive ranges of IPs.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think that this piece of convenience warrants hiding revisions, but then I do seem to be on the rather permissive end of the spectrum here. If either the convenience argument or another (which I've heard before) about not hiding the revisions as furthering the harassers' agenda is considered weighty enough to warrant this approach, there should, at the very least, be a change to RationalWiki:Blocking policy. It currently describes that hide revisions "is only used whenever someone posts personal information (e.g. street address, phone number, real name, place of work, etc.) without the subject's permission." If this practice has changed then so should the (descriptive) guidelines. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:34, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Do we really need like 30 revisions of some BoN replacing my screenname with a nonsense word chosen to get my goat?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Why not? There are other ways of dealing with it. Rev. deleting them is and has always been overkill. Not that you give a damn for what that means. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 08:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Do we need them? Obviously not. Should that mean we should revdel them? That's another question. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 08:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't. Rev. Delete has always been reserved for things like libel that can actually get the Wiki in serious trouble. Nothing more, nothing less. Not that the rules mean a damn to Ryulong, of course. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 09:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you really think there's any point in keeping anything that happened to me tonight available to the like 5 people that dn't have admin rights?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

That's not the point (not that I expect you to get it or care for it). RationalWiki has rules about things like rev. delete for a reason. And that reason is that, applied uniformly, those rules prevent administrative abuse. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 11:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

RW is a mobocracy though. Historical precedence only matters to the extent the mob decides it matters. Granted, I don't see the consensus on revdelling notably changing anytime soon. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 11:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

^^^That's complete and utter bullshit, and you know it. Historical precedence matters in that the rules are applied as they always have been applied in order to prevent things like unilateral changing of the guidelines. It's why people like Nutty Roux were never allowed to change the rules on a whim just because. Because, based on historical precedence, we always followed what was outlined in the guidelines to a "T." Thus, the permabanning of people like Blue and FuzzyCatPotato never stuck for longer than a few minutes. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 11:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Um, I'm not sure how Nutty would count as a mob, or does he suffer from a particularly extreme form of multiple personality disorder? And what I do know is that RW being a mobocracy is not complete and utter bullshit. The infactual assertions I've sometimes seen otherwise respectable people make in order to condemn Ryulong are honestly pretty discomforting. He's far from an ideal human being, but that doesn't justify stretching reality just so you can say more bad stuff about him. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 11:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Can't agree with you. "Historical precedence" is just custom at best or "the way I like things done" at worse. If you want firm rules on who does what and how, you outline them specifically. Otherwise, who gives a damn about revdelling nonsense vandalism? It's not worth the trouble to make a fuss and it doesn't harm you, me, or the wiki. --Castaigne (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

We needed a new heading for Ryulong apparently[edit]

He lied about hiding this revision in its edit summary, claiming it was "inappropriate personal information. It was not; it was simply wandalism. Since this is not Ryulong's first offense, nor his first recorded abuse of admin privileges, I recommend removing his sysop status for a time (two months). John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 11:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Second. Excessive banhammering & revdelling. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 11:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I had some BoN hopping from open proxy to open proxy to just harass me. What the fuck is both of your problems?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I mean there is literally a thread above this going "Yeah, this seemed fair to do".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

"Seemed fair to do" only applied to how you dealt with the IP wandals with regards to blocking, not the revision deletion. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 11:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

So, how does that justify rev. deleting something that was not, as you described it, "inappropriate personal information?" John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 11:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Like what is your problem with me John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt? This is the second time you've decided I've done something so horribly wrong to be personally policed by you when the first time was just editing Gamergate a lot. Get over yourself. Have I really overreacted to someone stalking me across multiple fucking websites, and using a dozen different proxy addresses to do so? RationalWiki doesn't need 50 revisions of someone changing "Ryulong" to "Buddyroid" across every talk page I've ever edited. Would it have been better if I had to paste the same copied message over and over again when the first time the IP did it that was restored again by FuzzyCatPotato was a link to my dox? Seriously, man. Get over whatever problem you have with me. Go back to not editing for another month again.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

^^^None of that is relevant to the topic at hand (your abuses of administrative powers). John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 11:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

No I think it is relevant because you reappear a month after being an asshole to me to do it again unprovoked.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

When you only seem to show up to say bad things about Ryulong, it does seem kind of suspicious. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 11:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

That's not exactly true (granted, I've been mostly IP editing for the last 3 months). But, you think what you want to think. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 11:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

And what I think is that you have a grudge against Ryulong. Now, either the grudge is personal, or you are acting on behalf of someone. Which is it? Tell the truth and shame the devil. --Castaigne (talk) 19:48, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

"Grudge" is a strong term here. I have no respect for Ryulong because of his propensity to feed the trolls and then tuck tail and use RW as his fortress from them, abusing RationalWiki's rules along the way. That, I'm afraid, is as far as it goes. The rabbit hole stops there. Well, I also don't like that he thinks he's a clearing hour for any and all edits to the Gamergate article, but I don't even care about that damn thing anymore. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 01:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

He does have a history of using inaccurate block/revdel reasons. I don't disagree with his actual reason for revdelling, though. (Stated in the section above; basically to make it harder for vandal(s) to undo his revert.) Though now that the vandalism's stopped, there's little reason for keeping the revisions revdelled, given the relatively innocuous manner of vandalism they contain. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 11:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The beauty of a Wiki, as Trent used to say, is you can undo anything. So what if it was temporary, fell-good wandalism that he was preventing? That doesn't justify an abuse of administrative powers any more than water boarding is justified by prevention of terrorism. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 11:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I hid a revision from anons and the 5 people here that weren't cursed with adminship. Do anons need to see my screenname changed to a translated name from a TV show that I'm known for having used? No. It's not like I oversighted every single diff. But sure. Undo everything so everyone can see "Būddyróid" on every page I ever left messages on.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. Streisand effect much, Ryulong? John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 11:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe if you weren't making such a stink about it it wouldn't be a god damn streisand effect. And maybe we should amend RW:BLOCK#Hiding revisions to say revdel can be used to clean up ridiculous vandalism.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Except that amending the rules in the way you seem to want would set a bad precedent for abuse of those rules because one man's "vandalism" is another's "trolling." It creates a slippery slope whereby sysops can abuse rev. delete to hide their own bullshit. It's why Wikipedia doesn't hide every wandal revision. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 11:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Except on RW, revdelling revisions draws attention to them and most users are sysops so they can still look at them. Also, slippery slope fallacy? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 11:52, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

For fucks sake I was dealing with someone who had a proxy service that let them use 20 IPs in the span of an hour. One of those diffs actually had my personal info available through it. Perhaps I was wrong (under the word of the law as it stands) to revdel all the blatantly useless diffs that this asshole made. But denying them the courtesy of having their shit in the history should be this whole "Don't feed the trolls" thing that's told to me day in and day out when I rebuke people who've made vague complaints about me here. Also, it would just be a big waste of time to revdel vandalism at Wikipedia considering that there's like 100 edits a second or something. Me revdelling one person trolling me for an hour and a half shouldn't be this big of a deal.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Not slippery slope fallacy at all because, when rules are applied uniformly, people will find their own ways to manipulating them. It's different from asserting that, say, gay marriage leads to beastiality. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 11:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

You all saw whatw as in the stuff I revdelled. What will make that any different than if there's a rule that says "revdel can be used to clean up unfunny vandalism"?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

And stop fucking comparing me to TK, asshole.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarding TK, if the shoe fits, wear it. Aside from that, rules must be applied with a light touch precisely because they can be abused. You've made no argument as to why the things like unfunny wandalism must be rev deleted; only that you don't like them and feel that you are doing us a favor. But there's no necessity to delete them, and you've yet to prove that there is such. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 12:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

"Don't feed the trolls" seems to be a sufficient reason. If we revdel edits like the ones I had to deal with on my own for an hour straight tonight, then it denies them the satisfaction of having trolled anyone as the record is lost. The only reason Wikipedia doesn't do this is because it's just so inefficient due to the scale of vandalism there. When all that happens here is people using BoN hopping proxy services to troll me once every 4 months (apparently more frequently now if Castaigne's mention of an 8chan op specificaly to harass me because they don't like that I'm writing about them in any fashion here) then it's more effiicent to take care of vandalism as it was tonight in this fashion. Also we should probably have an open proxy policy cause every IP used by these guys were proxies or like hosting service stuff.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Ryulong, your sense of proportional response (or rather the lack of it) has been noted before and by several editors in relation to your heavy-handed use of your mop. This is especially true of your gratuitous use of revdelling. I'm sorry that ze trollz are gunning for you, but that doesn't mean you're free to start using your own sense of what "anons need to see" to revdel. You may not realise it, but you're likely one of the beneficiaries of the current permissive environment on RW, considering that several editors have found your style rather grating. Changing that could end up backfiring spectacularly if touchy personal senses become the basis for punitive use of admin powers. ScepticWombat (talk) 13:01, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘This only seems to flare up when there's a flurry of activity of people gunning for me. Other than the I just have content disputes which isn't an administrative abuse issue. Unlike hastily desysoping and having done so while an auto block from an earlier non-joke block was somehow still active.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, can the innuendo Ryulong. You've been on an exceedingly long leash because you've decided to focus mainly on Gamergate which (along with your attitude) is what makes you a troll magnet. Since gators aren't allowed any slack (and don't deserve any either) you've had wide latitude to wield the banhammer and revdel, but this is not the first time you've been cautioned on revdelling.

Personally, I've stayed away from GG because I see it as fundamentally unimportant, uninteresting and unproductive conflict verging on a manufactroversy and I don't think the original claims by Sarkeesian were particularly well-founded or well thought out (and no, this is not an endorsement of the obnoxious and hateful response she received as Sarkeesian is literally not as bad as gators - that just doesn't make her cause any more worthy in my eyes). However, I quickly found out that involving myself in it here on RW without being staunchly pro-Sarkeesian was an invitation for suspicion of being a gator, not to mention entailing the necessity to wade to a seemingly endless mess of attacks and counter-attacks in this online perpetual motion machine, and since I don't think the topic is worth a fraction of the time spent on it so far, I've chosen to concentrate on topics that I find more rewarding.

The reason that this "only seems to flare up when there's a flurry of activity of people gunning for me" is because you tend to go overboard in your responses. Just because gators are whining when you (quite fairly) block them for their crap, doesn't mean that every objection to your use of your admin powers and general style of responding to criticism is somehow a gator-generated hounding of you. ScepticWombat (talk) 13:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Revision deletion is for doxxing and libel. That's pretty much it. Wèàšèìòìď

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 14:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Ryulong: Can you justify your rev dels? FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 18:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Vote in the negative. I watched it happen in sequence last night on my tablet, though I did not intervene, because such things are no longer my problem. Ryulong was courteous about it and issued advisement as necessary. He even solicited Watcher In The Night's assistance in determination of right action. Watcher either ignored it or didn't see it. So, Ryulong did as he saw necessary and accepted assistance and advice when others finally noticed.

Secondly, there is no set rule that revision deleting is used for only doxxing and libel and no punishment listed for using it otherwise. I understand that this is the custom of the RW for it to be used solely for D/L purposes, but let's drop this "historical" nonsense. It is custom only; it is not law. And if it is not illegal, then it is legit. Therefore, I cannot endorse any punishment for Ryulong for this.

And frankly, if you think rev.del should be used in a certain way? Then it should be laid out, in black and white. I recommend you create a set policy for it. --Castaigne (talk) 19:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

And further, for all the bitching y'all do about Ryulong, y'all sure as shit don't do anything to prevent such vandalism. If ScepticWombat and Schmidt think so poorly about Gamergate, how about we put the article up for deletion, and get rid of it, eh? Or perma-ban Ryulong. If he's the cause...well. *shrugs*

But I sincerely doubt that anyone will bother to embrace actual solutions that meet their desires. --Castaigne (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

"put the article up for deletion, and get rid of it, eh? Or perma-ban Ryulong." seems like a plan. Scream!! (talk) 22:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Then do it, Scream. I'd like to see it. --Castaigne (talk) 00:29, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, there is a rule about revision deleting. From RW:CS#Deleting:

"What can be deleted without discussion: [....]

Edits adding personal information about someone (e.g. phone number, address, place of work, real name(s), etc.) not volunteered by that person. In these cases the first sysop to come across the information should immediately "hide" the relevant edit; see the sysop guide.

How does "Buddyroid" apply? FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 22:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

"Obscenity and/or personal attack" as it was done to harass me.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, only the second bullet point was relevant; check again. FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 22:52, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Can someone tell me why I can't delete (not revision delete mind you) a page created last night by the troll BoN that happens to be the account he obviously created and why that account can't be blocked either?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Since the page wasn't even created by the user with that username, that it should be deleted seems obvious. Whether the newly registered user is to be banned (for a considerable amount of time) seems considerably more controversial. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Link to the page and the user. Makes it easier to figure out the problem. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 22:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Seems he's talking about User:Buddyroid. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Seems like a user page that reads "I am a dragon" is not worth a deletion or a block. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 22:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

It was created by a proxy IP hopping BoN to harass me this morning.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Factoid: Ryulong's name is a combination of two languages' words for 'dragon'. That's why Gators call him Double Dragon. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, I didn't block that account because of the user page contents. I blocked it because it's the same person who spent hours this morning harassing me.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

How do you know? Are you running Checkuser? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

That's disabled, anyways. Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 22:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

When I spent an hour reverting every change of my screenname to "Buddyroid" this morning and User:Buddyroid was edited by one of the IPs in question and then it actually is registered by someone, I think Occam's razor applies.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Eh, I don't think it's implausible that the Gator behind the proxy IPs shared what they did on one of the Gator boards and someone else noticed the username "Buddyroid" wasn't in use yet. They're obviously a Gator troll, but we don't know if it's the same one. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

If by "harassing," you mean "monkeying with your signature on a few posts," which is all I saw, that's not worth a one-year ban, but a trip to the vandal bin. Was there anything of a more serious nature? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 22:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

This was cross-site shit and possibly 8chan shennanigans. Leave the account blocked because it's obvious who it is (the proxy user).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

And why, AgingHippie, did you see fit to undo every single range block I made that was actually condoned in this thread and by others last night?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Ryulong needs another section[edit]

Because we've never range blocked, and it obviously wasn't working. I've binned him, which is all his actions here warranted. Question for you: when you decided to come here using a name that you knew was already toxic across most of the troll-o-sphere, did you stop for a second and think that you might be bringing an inordinate amount of stress and drama to an online community that might not want to have to deal with it? In other words -- were you short-sighted as to the effects of such a move, or merely indifferent as to the climate of that community? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 22:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The range blocks actually helped stop him when he was forced to find a different website. That was clear because playing whackamole with the single IPs wasn't doing shit.

And are you seriously victim blaming?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

You blocked maybe 16 ranges. Was it effective, or did he get bored on his own? Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 22:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

And that's not victim blaming. We aren't blaming you for the harassment; we're blaming you for bringing it here, accidentally or intentionally. If you're the victim of harassment, why not change your username? Nobody would have cared if a new RW editor started editting GG articles. Instead it was Ryulong, the evil Wikipedia villain. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 22:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I blocked 16 ranges all owned by webhosting companies that have only ever been used for illicit purposes here and at WMF websites. And it's clear above that David's fine with it. Zero was fine with it. SkepticWombat was fine with it. The revision deletion issue is being resolved by every single edit being restored. The rangeblocks should stay. Because I don't want to have to deal with this same idiot for another hour tonight. And it's not like they wouldn't have found out anyway. They found my legal name FFS.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Bringing it here IS victim blaming, FCP. If Ryulong brought it here, that makes it HIS fault, and as he's the victim and he's to blame, therefore...it's really not that hard for logic.

And secondly, who the fuck are you to tell someone to give up their handle? Are a fucking chan here? Are we all anons? To hell with that noise. --Castaigne (talk) 00:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you remember when you rangeblocked last time, and it wasn't supported? That applies, too. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 22:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

It was supported until you and AgingHippie logged in for the day.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:59, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

EC And Fuzzy, me, and Goonie and a few others aren't fine with it. So there's no clear consensus for the blocks. And if you don't want to deal with it, don't. There are always lots of sysops around who will deal with any wandalism in good time. That's never been an issue. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 23:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

No one was helping me at 2 am this morning when it was happening live.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:01, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

RationalWiki_talk:Community_Standards#Consensus. I supported it, and support it; that doesn't change the rules or the consensus. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 23:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

And I see that everyone in there is comparing me to TK like JJJS did this morning, too.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Totally unfair, you're more like user:conservative. Tielec01 (talk) 23:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

You know what, Ruylong? Fine. You win. I give up. Block everyone for as long as you see fit. RevDelete whatever bothers you. Do what you will. Have fun. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 23:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

"It was supported until you and AgingHippie logged in for the day." Ah yes, and when the mob was called in and the mob overwhelmingly voted against it? Must've been a GG false flag. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦

^{The ill-bred kite of cruising!} 23:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

That is nothing at all like what I was saying. David, Zero, Wombat, etc. all said "Yeah go ahead, sounds reasonable". But FCP and AgingHippie log on and say "no that's not reasonable anymore".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Should we call in the mob on whether Ryu should or should not be desysopped? It's clear arguing with him will not go anywhere, as he has proven to be willfully ignorant and can't obviously be reasoned with as long as he continues to live in his bizarre parallel reality where everyone agrees with him except for AG and FCP, who are clearly evil gators. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{The pain is indescribable in any European language} 23:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Go ahead. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 23:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd be all for a vote if it helped end this constant back and forthing, whether through supporting ryu or not.--Miekal 23:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I've noted that you, doxxing Redditboy, are nobody to call anyone out on anything - David Gerard (talk) 23:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Reminder that spewing blatant bullshit is not a good defense for your golden boy there. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦

^{WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK I AM!?} 23:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I dealt with bullshit on my own for an hour this morning and dealt with it as necessary. I played whack-a-mole with several IP addresses in a row and then blocked the ranges (only for 3 days) when that seemed more efficient to deal with this one asshole for that short period of time. The revision deletions are all undone. The obvious troll is vandalbinned instead of blocked. But now it's "Ryulong argued with someone over sysop shit, let's desysop him" again. It's so fucking tedious.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

No, he wasn't willfully ignorant. And he's telling the truth. Everyone was fine with it up to about 14:00 EST today. --Castaigne (talk) 00:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Should we desysop Ryulong? (Resolution: Ryulong renounced sysopship)[edit]

Aye[edit]

In light of his constant abuse of sysop powers, and his willful ignorance of community standards regarding them. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{I'm sorry, dear. I'm reading Pokemon horror stories for the internet.} 23:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Desysop. Repeated, excessive, and often unjustified use of blocks, of revision deletion, of page protection, of page deletion, and of ideologically motivated removal of talkpage comments, all after months of repeated warnings. Further, desysopping will let other RWians cool down towards Ryulong. Sorry, bud. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 00:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Everything I did this morning was in response to live vandalism and trolling. I had to do whack-a-mole for an hour and while doing that semi-protect every god damn talk page I had ever commented on. Its ridiculous that I should be punished for that when now everything's undone for petty reasons.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:28, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Today is not the only relevant incident. 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 02:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
So how are the other apparent incidents even possibly different from this one? One person doesn't agree with what I've done, and causes all this to happen. I try to justify it, but because it's not explicitly codified as OK (is there a rule against rangeblocks or just no rule that says they're OK to do?) I'm still wrong.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Regardless of the exact number of persons disagreeing with something you do who cause the backlash to happen, the consensus against rangeblocks or revdels that follows after the initial complaints is pretty readily observable. Arguing "it's not explicitly codified (enough)" when you're well aware of the level of controversy such actions inevitably entail on RW is disingenious. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm not disputing the rangeblocks (though the length of them was a little excessive; I wouldn't have gone more than an half hour or so). However, Ryulong has a history of abusing the revision delete function. He needs to follow the rules as they are written, not the rules as he wishes they were. Moreover, he needs to be somewhat mindful of his propensity to feed the same gator trolls he accuses of attacking him here. I do not support gators at all, but when you feed the troll and the troll bites, it's not this Wiki's responsibility to be your fortress of defense. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 01:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
The blocks were all originally only 3 days. How is that excessive? Also, "Don't feed the trolls" is garbage.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:25, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
As I said, I'm not disputing your use of the rangeblocks. It's very cute that you'd pull out that "DFTT is garbage" thing again. You know what else is garbage and earns you no respect in my book? Using "DFTT is garbage" as an excuse to prod them they way you do. You're a lightning rod for controversy here precisely because you don't know when to back down and make everything and everybody who dares go against you out to be "one of them." Then, you turn around and wonder why you don't have many friends here. Look in the mirror for one damn second and maybe you'll see that the reason there are so many damn issues with you are because you keep violating the same damn policies here that have been in place for years. Worse, when you do and people like me get mad, you whine and complain about how those policies shouldn't apply to you. Grow the fuck up, accept that you are never going to change our policies on things like revision delete, and learn to deal with things like GG trolling within those guidelines. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 03:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm not saying they shouldn't apply to me. I'm saying that they're in need of a tune up. And you're the one putting words in my mouth here. I've not said AgingHippie or you or FCP are Gators out to get me. I said that the rest of the people commenting here didn't have any major issue with what I'd done until all three of you appeared to say anything. AgingHippie doesn't like long blocks. FCP doesn't either. You don't like me. And DFTT is a useless thing to tell someone when they've been targetted without provocation. The only gator here regularly is Naqoyqatsi and they aren't the type to troll. They're just satisfied posting the usual conspiracy theories that have long been debunked. So what should I have done this morning when the proxy IP hopper showed up to be a little dickbag? What would you have done?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:46, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Desysop because Ryulong just deleted my user page. When I told him to restore it he did so only partially. I believe some revisions (including the most recent) are hidden, but I'm not an admin so I can't confirm. This is one of many abuses I see detailed on this page. What's most striking is his complete unwillingness to admit any wrongdoing. It is a strong indicator he has no intention of changing his behavior. NOTE: If I'm mistaken about my user page history my criticism stands but I retract my vote. Sarah (HH) 05:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

EDIT: And now they are restored. Rather than restore them on my initial request or my second request I was forced to come here. If that's the kind of babysitting you want to force upon yourselves, fine by me. Sarah (HH) 05:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
IIRC, you don't have the clout here to vote yet. Also you were kindly asked a month ago not to have a userpage that was worded in a way that was mocking my old Wikipedia one but you refused to change it on some bullshit reasons. All of the revisions are restored by the way so people can see exactly what I'm talking about.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I was right, you don't have the voting requirement yet. You pass the total edit number requirement, but not the total account age requirement.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I've moved this ineligible vote down and used strikethrough to make it clear it doesn't count. Any other ayes can submit their votes above this section. ScepticWombat (talk) 05:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
We can still have fun with indents though.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:46, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Boy, it's a good thing we have community standards that can be enforced to prevent abuses. Right, Ryulong? John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 05:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Now if only they could be this helpful more often.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Now now. I voted that we allow their vote. After all, there are no clear guidelines about voting requirements against hypocritical rulebreakers. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 05:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
When you do make ridiculous blocks on my account, could you at least do it so I don't have to deal with the autoblock afterwards?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I would, but there are no clear guidelines about doing such things. What else am I supposed to do when I unblock somebody? John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 06:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
At times like this I wish wikipedia:m:DICK wasn't a watered down version of what it once was.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Desysop for 1 week only. I think Ryulong should be invited to enjoy the health benefits of an extended RationalWiki break. I know I have. A brief period of desysoping may be a helpful nudge in that direction. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
So you come off of a 1 year+ absense to vote? How odd.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Not really. ZM has always been more of a fleetingly-active lurker. 184.97.209.166 (talk) 10:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
That's a lot of lurking. To make a decision like this apparently zero context of anything else.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, in actual fact... the Russian ambassador called me tonight, asking me to help out with the persecution of Ryulong. Being the obedient Kremlin stooge that I am, I immediately logged into this website to make this vote. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Nobody could reasonably doubt the wisdom and judgement of this user - David Gerard (talk) 12:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm tired of Ryulong misusing sysop tools after repeated requests & warnings not to, & the endless coop cases about this. There are no shortage of other sysops around to deal with actual vandalism when needed, most of whom have better judgement & understanding of RW community norms. ωεαşεζøίɗ ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 09:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
It wasn't deemed misuse for hours on end and I was sort of commended for it. Why is it that when someone rebukes the act that I'm now a danger to everything?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
"It wasn't deemed misuse for hours" - until the majority realised what was going on.Scream!! (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
He's a recidivist who won't learn until he's forced to. Scream!! (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
--Bob ^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 18:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Remove his sysop privileges for, say, a months or so and see what happens afterwards.--Arisboch (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
And judiciously protected by all those that voted aye so that not one of his edits is unfairly disrupted by GGers. We should aim to harness an enthusiastic editor who is unfortunately not ready to be a sysop.Tielec01 (talk) 19:18, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Nay[edit]

Fuck off, Raysenn - David Gerard (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
10/10 great reason. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 00:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I think ze is still salvageable. At most, a stern warning is all that's needed, not a promotion. CorruptUser (talk) 00:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Stern warnings have been given. Cf nearly every thread on Ryulong's talk page & is archives. Щєазєюіδ ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 09:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
One thread on my talk page presently, 4 spanning February through May, and a couple from when I first started. What we have here is hyperbole.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Hell the fuck no. And this is coming from someone who REFUSES to be made sysop. --Castaigne (talk) 00:28, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm seconding David's statement.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:28, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I think the only thing Ryulong did even marginally sketchy last night was the burnings. This dude's under constant scrutiny, not just from us around here, but from assholes who want to make him unable to enjoy things he likes. I'm only sorry I didn't see it happening last night and therefore wasn't able to lend a hand. --Maxus (talk) 03:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I'd love to see how the people voting "aye" would fare under the same non-stop pressure from an unhinged GG mob. Let's not try to give the harassers any victories, OK? Typhoon (talk) 06:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

I don't think he's done something that really warrants desysopping him, but honestly, it'd probably result in people getting mad at him considerably less. On the other hand, desysopping him'd mean that the Gator troll has won. >.> 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
The troll aimed for harassment, not desysop. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 02:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
They're aiming for driving me off the Internet from all of my preferred communities.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Good that we aren't, then. FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 02:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Yeah but it's not like this isn't what they want.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Why should anyone give a flying fuck what thy want??--Arisboch (talk) 03:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Because then I know I'm doing something right.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Just 'cause your opponents are often cunts (GG, so no, I don't mean anyone from RW) doesn't make you automatically right.--Arisboch (talk) 03:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
^^^Exactly what I was just about to say. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 03:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
If I'm pissing off people who are established as being one of the shitstains of the Internet, then I think I'm doing the right thing with regards to whatever is pissing them off.
But on point, blocking 12 IPs and ranges for 3 days, semi-protecting pages so they can't be hit again, and denying the troll the satisfaction of having the content remain in the page history for anyone to see as well as making it more difficult for the content to be restored shouldn't be a big deal like it's been made out to be. I'm being reprimanded at for having acted against someone trolling me. What was the right course of action? Was I just supposed to let every single instance of my signature be changed to the nonsense word and leave it there? Was I supposed to not block the IP? Was I supposed to block for like only 5 minutes or something? What should I have done differently? Perhaps then I will know I know what not to do next time because it only seems the only thing you wanted me to do was nothing at all.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Good question. Repent and give your life to Jesus. nobs^{I'm not from this planet, but let me tell u what I think....} 04:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Give myself onto Nyarlothep you say?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:18, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
NO, you should give yourself to the holy and revered Shub-Niggurath, the goat with a thousand young!!!--Arisboch (talk) 04:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
"denying the troll the satisfaction of having the content remain in the page history"... What? Is this a real form of satisfaction that people really experience? ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 09:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Trolls are fuckin weird man. Why else would one have spent an hour changing every instance of my screenname to some word from a shitty fansub group?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
what the fuck did you just say about fansubs

you cheeky twat

fight me irl m8

(Unless it's Commie, in which case feel free to trash them) |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{I suppose there is no fantasy like power fantasy} 17:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm putting my 2 cents' worth here, rather than in Nay, to illustrate that I think this case is part of a cumulative process in which I'm gradually moving towards at least a temporary desysopping of Ryulong. I don't think his abuses of the mop and flagrant disregard for rules and practice about when to break out such tools as revdel are bad enough yet, but if he keeps up this trend, I'm changing my mind. The fact that Ryulong is the target of noxious Gators shouldn't be a reason to throw the usual standards of RW out the window.
Ryulong's latest comment (in this section) is illustrative of his complete disregard for what revdel is for at RW when he asks what he should have done differently because it's pretty clear what his critics have emphasised: Don't revdel just because you don't think anon's "need to see" something. Also, while it seems okay here, be careful with the extent and duration of rangeblocks. Oh, and when challenged on your sysop conduct don't hint that there's not already a history of complaints and cautions on the way you've handled them in the past and that this is all the fault of Gators. ScepticWombat (talk) 05:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
But how does one quantify that when gators were what I was reacting to that led to the use of the tools that have cause so much disagreement?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I really don't care about the misconduct of others when judging your use of the mop. As I've already pointed out: That Gators are obnoxious dipshits and that you're in their crosshairs doesn't mean that you're suddenly exempt from the usual RW standards for mop wielding. ScepticWombat (talk) 05:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
That is fair, even though I am often left on my own when confronting these gators it seems.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Although what's to be had in all this now? The revdels were undone and now it's blatantly clear that people don't agree that it's a valid tool for vandalism clean up and I will abide by that decision. The blocks are apparently all undone because no one likes blocks longer than 1 hour apparently. Even my arguably petty actions with regards to HuskyHarlot are undone in full. Whatever half the people commenting here say are errors in my judgement have entirely been undone. So what is the point of this? Punishing me by making it so I can't do it again and leaving me open to ridicule by outside parties and making it so much more difficult when another chucklefuck decides it's time to pester me again? I mean the only time I do seem to use the sysop shit is when shit like this happens, and then afterward two to three people say they don't like the way I handled myself in the immediate situation and it's time for me to be censured for a lack of foresight again.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Stealing something and then returning it doesn't make people not think you're a thief or not want to punish you for the original theft. They want to punish you because you -still did it-, that part isn't that hard to understand. --Miekal 13:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Some people were fine with it. Some didn't care. Others think I'm too dangerous to be trusted. There's no middle ground.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Hyperbole level: fucking inane - David Gerard (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm perfectly fine with it (i'm likely even more radical than you in my prefered solution to the ggers here), just pointing out why people would stillwant to punish you --Miekal 15:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Do feel free to vote, y'know. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{This isn't 'Nam. This is programming. There are rules.} 17:18, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Does this remind anyone else of Judas? You have repented a little late Ryulong. Tielec01 (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Weak nay.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 19:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I've done it myself. Can we end this then?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Yep. Archive plox. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ﹐ Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 22:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

HuskyHarlot[edit]

I hate to be back here so soon, but as discussion had been going on at Talk:Gamergate tonight, I began to realize that HuskyHarlot has been ignoring my posts and responding to a third editor each time and above my own, making the talk page a bit of a mess to read. My attempt to make the page actually legible by placing the comments in the order they were originally posted (with various sub-threadings) seems to have struck a nerve with her, as she seems wont to accuse me of refactoring them when it's clear from the diff that barely any of them were even touched in my attempts to restore order to the page. She does not like this and is seeing fit to edit war with me about it. This is surely very wrong. What to do?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

EDIT: I see he has already filed a complaint. If someone chooses to respond to another editor and not you, perhaps the problem lies within. You can not force anyone to converse with you and you should not refactor comments to appear that they have. Sarah (HH) 06:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The one here who has refactored comments is yourself, as evident with the following diffs where each time you leave a comment on the page, it's to post yours directly above my own to respond to Player 03 rather than have the thread properly threaded: [13] [14] [15] Surely, RationalWiki doesn't condone such disingenuous discussion tactics. Not to mention that restoring a chronological order that you seem to have intentionally disrupted counts as refactoring. The only thing I've done to your comments is add a timestamp to that post you forgot to sign hours ago.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, I note that with each revert HuskyHarlot has done, she has erased the comments I made calling out her disingenuous discussion tactics. It's hard enough to read some talk pages as it is.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I added them above your comments with the proper indents, showing I'd replied to the poster, rather than your response to the poster.

I was previously offered (indirectly) admin tools but uninterested. As I said to the editor who suggested it, other than unblocking myself what would I do with them? Instead I'd rather not be blocked in the first place. Now I wish I had them. I don't know if this was the case here previously, that editors vied for power so they could use it against others but iit is certainly the case now. I will not be editing that page again in the near future. Sarah (HH) 07:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The point is that the way everything was formatted was getting out of hand such that anything I had said to you or Player 03 was being pushed all the way to the end of the page, making an ugly little crescent of the indents. It's clear you have nothing to say to me as you classify me as an anti-Gamer whatever and I already know how to blow all your hackneyed Gamergate conspiracy theory talking points out of the water. That's why Naqoyqatsi also hasn't really responded to how I pointed out that the stuff they posted has no real relevance to what Gamergate should be about, and that was met with having it reverted outright. The concern trolling from Gamergaters is getting tiring but it seems I'm only one of a few here who can ID that shit straight out.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

(EC) Looking through their edit history, it's very apparent they are only here to harass Ryulong. While I don't care for Ryulong on the sysop-level, Tielec put it best when he said that we should still continue to defend Ryulong from GG harassment. Therefore, I've gone ahead and wandal binned HH. While people are free to reverse this pending a discussion here, a simple look through HH's history shows that they are a one-trick pony and should be treated as such until they prove otherwise. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 07:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Putting aside the individuals involved in this dispute, is there an established practice about how replies should work? If A posts, and B posts a reply to A, and I wish to reply to A not B, where should I insert my reply? After B at the same indentation level? Before B at the same indentation level? Or does it not matter? If it matters, then refactoring a deviation from the rule to comply to it would be acceptable; conversely, if it does not matter, then doing that kind of refactoring is best avoided. If one can agree on what the rule is in general, then one can admonish the editors involved to follow that rule in the future. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 07:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

It's clear that the following

A
- B
  - A
    - B
      - A
        B
        A
        B
        
        C
    - C
- C

Is not the right way to do things (if all indent levels are to be assumed to be related to each other).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Why? What does it matter? As long as the indents differ from each other so you can easily see where one user's comment ends and the next begins, I don't see the harm. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

There's a point where it begins to be disingenuous when any response is just pushed a printed page away from its original context.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Posts don't need to be in chronological order. As long as replies are below the thing they reply to with an extra indentation things should be fine. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 09:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Except it turned into that weird curve above.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

As long as it's clear which is replying to what, I don't see a problem. If you think that looks messy, you haven't seen some of the messier saloon bar discussions, with outdents added in the middle obfuscating what is what and who is talking to who. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 09:23, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

My issue was that it was intentionally disrupting the flow of the discussion in that every comment I had made was being pushed further and further down just so they wouldn't be in her way of talking to the other participant.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Ryulong, I think you are being overly sensitive here. I've never seen anyone complain about the order of replies before. It is generally a haphazard thing. If your insistence on reordering them is contributing to comotion, just leave the order as-is. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Gamergate[edit]

I'm unsure how the process works here. Can someone stop Ryulong from refactoring my comments on the Talk:Gamergate page please? Thank you. Sarah (HH) 06:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I literally made a thread right above this.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that HH has been removing comment from the talk page on GG. By the looks of it the comments removed were Ryulong. I guess it is about ethics in talk pages for HH? --Aile Dhoo (talk) 07:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

It's hard for me to break my ethics on talkpages here, but I feel since that page has been nothing but a troll magnet, we should consider a community vote on some measure of long-term protection of that talk page. It would have to be a community vote (since it would be an exception to one of our rules), but it should at least be put to one in hopes of getting the trolls to lose interest for a bit. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 07:23, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me but the only comments I removed were ones he added while refactoring. If he'd allowed my revert to remain long enough I would have re-added his comments but the edits were too complex to do both simultaneously. This editor re-organized my comments to make it appear I was responding to him when I was not, re-formatted one because line breaks are apparently an aesthetic offense. I have gone out of my way not to interact with Ryulong, ignoring him can not be considered "harassment" by any definition. Sarah (HH) 07:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I refactored. Finished, then added additional comments. And I was not refactoring the comments so it looked like you were responding to me. I was reording the comments to show that I was responding to you.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Untrue. There is no need to argue, one can simply compare the page previous to your refactoring [16] and post [17]. Your goal seems to be to "win" fights on the internet and for that you need to pick fights, as you did when you blocked me for my userpage, as you did months later when you deleted my user page, as you did when you hid revisions from my restored userpage and as you've done tonight. What you fail to realize your harassment is a direct results of that. I am not interested in fighting. Sarah (HH) 08:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

EDIT: Corrected links Sarah (HH) 08:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

You're a Gamergater coming to a liberal website trying to convince people that the group isn't as it's described by the 300 citations being used to describe it. I'd say you're the one here itching for a fight.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

HH, you came here to pick fights, as you did when you decided to "win" the internet fight on GG's behalf, as you did when you turned your userpage into a parody of Ryulong's userpage on Wikipedia, as you did when you fought tooth-an-nail to be able to continue to mock Ryulong, as you did now when you engaged in a revert war with him. And now you even go full victim blaming on Ryulong, because he apparently deserves all the harassment from you and other gators just because he refuses to be silenced and chased away from the internet? You, HH, are only interested in fighting. Typhoon (talk) 08:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

GamerGate is a stupid waste of time. But Ryulong seems extremely wound up. HH is doing tiny little insignificant things - no doubt in the hope that Ryulong will react negatively - and Ryulong is delivering on the hope. If he just chose to ignore what HH says or does - then if HH is only here to bother Ryulong, HH will go away; if HH has something more useful to contribute, HH might do that. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

If he just chose to ignore what HH says or does - then if HH is only here to bother Ryulong, HH will go away that's wildly optimistic.--Miekal 12:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Has he tried? Why doesn't he? If he does, and HH still causes problems - then he has only strengthened his case. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 12:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Zack, stop talking completely fatuous idiocy - David Gerard (talk) 13:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Gators never stop. It's like asking 8chan not to troll; ain't going to happen, it's just their nature. --Castaigne (talk) 14:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Since coming here the only thing I've done, which could reasonably been seen as "wrong" is maintain a user page which Ryulong disapproves of. I maintain it on principle. He blocked me for that and I complained; recently he deleted it and I complained; he restored it disingenuously (hiding revisions) and I complained. Then yesterday he refactored my comments to make it appear I was responding to him when I was not (without changing their relative indentation which had been appropriate) and I complained.

When you say I'm doing "tiny little things" to wind up Ryulong, what are they? I have been hounded by Ryulong since day 1. Every response and criticism was the result of his instigation. I want nothing to do with him and he's gone out of his way to make that impossible.

And can someone please remove whatever restriction is in place. I had to wait half an hour to correct typos in my last post.

EDIT: Thank you. Sarah (HH) 17:15, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

You signed up here to concern troll over Gamergate and a month ago decided to reformat your userpage in the same way that Cobbsaladin and a bunch of other Gamergaters who think they're edgy as fuck did at Wikipedia. You know what you're doing and feigning innocence with "it wasn't me, it was Ryulong" is bullshit and you know it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Considering that I refactor comments myself because people make mistakes in indenting (or do not know how to indent properly), I fail to see the problem here. --Castaigne (talk) 14:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I have sometimes removed one or two indentation colons because some bizarre obsession I have and because seriously people what the fuck is indenting ONE colon more than the comment you are responding to so damn hard but yeah I don't give a shit about chronological order feel free to comment before or after me just use the RIGHT INDENTATION LEVEL jesus christ |₹Λ¥$€₦₦

^{This taste... it's of a liar!} 15:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

^^^This. --Castaigne (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Alli thix over indentation? Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 15:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Apparently. --Castaigne (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Indentation is SERIOUS FUCKING BUSINESS ya cheeky twat did you know wars have been started over proper indentation |₹Λ¥$€₦₦

^{Now I'm not tense anymore, I'm just miserable. Hooray!} 17:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Naqoyqatsi BLP indefinite block[edit]

RW is not a platform for outing people. FuzzyCatPotato, what the fuck were you thinking undeleting these revisions.

And the rest of you. What the fuck do you think you're doing enabling these people. - David Gerard (talk) 06:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

If they were outing people, then they deserve worse than a permablock. Conversely, I found the thing that got them blocked and added it to a filter to prevent it from being re-posted. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 08:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Come now, David, you're no stranger to RW. It's no secret it has a culture that likes to boast of how it doesn't ban people for the views they hold and allows the nutters to argue their points. Exactly how much leeway should be given to these... people with questionable viewpoints can sometimes get pretty murky. In addition, in a global culture where personal information is increasingly becoming less private, exactly when people's doxxing alarm bells should be going off can be kind of unclear as well. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 09:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this is not the place to be posting, re-posting or whatever, personal information. However, the sheer volume of bitching and fighting, from both sides, around the whole GG area has completely eroded by ability to give the tiniest crap about the detail of what happens. Probably not a good thing, but I simply filter it all out. Worm (talk) 09:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

"Outing"? Is that what mentioning someone's IRL name is? Where do we draw the line, David?

Further, it's pretty fucking clear that Naqoyqatsi, if he doxxed, did so unintentionally.

And way to go for emotion over argument, David. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 11:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

That was no doxxing, the stuff was already in the open. --Arisboch (talk) 11:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

You two are so fucking pigheaded. Her legal name is not something "in the open" or just an "IRL" name. Why can't the both of you acknowledge that it is only known from having been harassed nonstop for 10 fucking months?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Which still doesn't change the fact, that Naqoyqatsi didn't dox her, since that was done by someone else. If you want to block someone out of ideological considerations, then at the very least have more balls than Andy and say so.--Arisboch (talk) 12:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Cernovich doxxed her, yes. Cernovich is also a noted vile individual. But Zoe's legal name is not open information; it is not banded about; any material that was doxxed on her (or anyone else) is not tolerated here and never has been. FCP and you should already know this.

And if you think that is a problem, think on this: what if I doxxed you, Arisboch, and then posted it on the internet, and then a month later, posted it here? Would you have no problem with your bank account info being plastered on a talk page on RW, because hey, it's "out in the open"? Would FCP be OK with having his current high school + yearbook picture being posted here? That information too, is out in the open, if one cares to look.

Keep in mind that I'm a person who considers doxxing to be a valid tactic. But it isn't allowed here; the rules on that need to be stringently abided by. --Castaigne (talk) 14:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

It became open information the minute it hit the net and was picked up by a ton of people. You can't force the genie back in the bottle and if you want to indulge in "what if"-scenarios ("if my grandmother'd have balls, she'd be my grandfather", right?), then, well, here's my answer: I wouldn't give a shit about one site more with this crap (you see, you can't prove or disprove, that this answer to this "what if"-scenario was true or false). It was no doxing by Naqoyqatsi, they wanna block him because of his views (which are not mine, btw. I'm neither pro- nor anti-GG. If even 4chan exiled this mess from their servers, that's something).--Arisboch (talk) 14:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

RW is not a storage site for doxxing info even if it came from another location originally. FCP seems to like to have those things in black and white to solve ambiguity. This is an old rule that has been stated numerous times even to FCP. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Storage? Wasn't that more of a link than storage?--Arisboch (talk) 14:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Aren't references to the information pretty much the same thing? We use link repositories in the articles to store justifications for statements, opinions, and snark. FCP has been here longer then I have and gone through the rules of the site to improve them. I know this so he should be more well versed then I am. The fact this is such an issue confuses me. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

We do not post doxxed information here.
We do not link to doxxed information here.
We do not allow doxxing here, no matter how "open" the information has become.
Don't post celebrity nudes either.
Don't advocate for genocide.
Don't advocate for pedophilia.

Follow these rules and you will not be perma-banned. It's really that simple. --Castaigne (talk) 15:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

if I remeber correctly, the events preceding exiled being banned (through a coop vote) for whatever years I gave him was linking to information about David, so I'd sat we already have a precedent for this from the mob. --Miekal 17:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, unblocking Naqnaq isn't gonna happen. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 17:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

And nothing of value was lost. --Castaigne (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Blocked and desysopped FuzzyCatPotato for unblocking. Do not fuck with this shit. You were told this first time around the BLP tree - David Gerard (talk) 12:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

is this really an argument?[edit]

Are we really arguing whether it's ok to repost information that was posted in a previous dox? REALLY guys? --Miekal 17:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Apparently this is a thing. Which surprises me, as I always thought everyone was pretty dang clear on the subject. --Castaigne (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Fuzzy's argument seems to be that he doesn't consider real-name-revealing as doxxing, or at least not the kind of doxxing that's severe or malignant enough to justify a permaban. Why Arisboch is arguing that doxxing is somehow legitimized by it having successfully publicised information is beyond me. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Doxxing is revealing someone's identity online. In case of Zoe Quinn, the cat was out of the bag already.--Arisboch (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

If you really feel like sticking to this line of reasoning, don't let me stop you. But I don't think it's a good idea. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Though let me stop you if you ever feel like acting on it. "The door was already unlocked" is a pretty sorry excuse to begin with. Tacking on "Because of the last robber who came through broke the lock" makes it worse. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The metaphor is shit, find a better one.--Arisboch (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Here's a simple guideline to follow: Did the person in question reveal the private information themselves? If no, then don't post. --Castaigne (talk) 18:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the failed parallel here. Excusing shitty behavior that could make things worse because someone already did the same bad thing. That's exactly what you're doing. And since you've got so much contempt for its harm, I think you need to be warned: don't dox anyone for any reasons here. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I can't doxx anyone, even if I wanted to. I'm not a hacker or something.--Arisboch (talk) 19:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

As someone who can hack at the "yeah I know how to actually program and how software works(or doesn't)" level, you don't need to hack anything to doxx people. It's almost never a part of the process. Digging into "public" records and combining that with a dash of e-stalking to get, collate, and publicize information people would nominally keep private is all it takes.

I mean hell, I'm not on any social media, and a dedicated person with a will could find my name and home address online within the hour. I'm not gonna give hints on how, but they could, entirely through legally mandatory records. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

That people don't understand this officially boggles me. It's been like this for over a decade now. --Castaigne (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I can't agree with that. I, for instance, had no idea that Zoe Quinn was not her real name and I have never seen this real name published anywhere. I'm not surprised Cernovich doxxed her and put it on his not-much-visited website; this is the same guy who rooted for War Machine as "manly" when said MMA fighter beat the shit out of Christy Mack. (Though he later tried retracting, natch.) So, no, the cat is not out of the bag already. I've no doubt the 8channers know it, though.

Still doesn't matter, though, because we still don't post doxxed info here. --Castaigne (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

From the banned tuber[edit]

Here's the situation as I see it:

Naqoyqatsi, while arguing, posted a link to a blog post about the restraining order(s) on Eron Gjoni that also mentioned Zoe Quinn's full legal name. This is the diff in question. I initially revdelled it, on Ryulong's advice; after Naqoyqatsi appealed, I decided that the name alone didn't qualify for doxxing, due to (a) her near-public figure status, (b) the information's previous wide-spread nature, and (c) the relatively harmless nature of someone's name, and unrevdelled it. Wehpudicabok disagreed, and, as discussed, revdelled it, which I did not protest.

And then David Gerard blocked Naqoyqatsi indefinitely. This is dually problematic:

It's likely that he did not intend to dox; the point he was making was about Gjoni's restraining order, not about Quinn's name. Blocking him for this is comparable to blocking someone on the Saloon Bar because they posted a link that, unbeknownst to them, had personal information.
It's questionable whether Naqoyqatsi's post was doxxing; even if it was, it was relatively low-level doxxing, and the "doxxing" was not the intent of the link -- it was an unfortunate byproduct of trying to prove a point. (Don't believe me? Read the conversation.)

Keep the diff revdelled and unban Naqoyqatsi. It solves for any doxx but doesn't punish Naqoyqatsi for what he didn't do.

I understand desysopping me, since you didn't want me to unblock Naqoyqatsi again. (That said, this is NOT a BLP issue; what B are we writing?) I don't understand blocking me. What could I possibly have done as an autopatrolled? Is allowing me to comment here unacceptable? Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 21:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I take off for a few days and return to see that GG nonsense is still taking up space in the Coop. From what I can gather, what N-I-can't-be-bothered-to-learn-to-spell-his-name-i did was post a link to a blog post/article in which Zoe Quinn's real name was revealed? Given that I have edited the shit out of the RW Gamergate article and that I had no fucking idea that "Zoe Quinn" was a nom de plume, then, yeah, that's linking to dox, which is doxing. FCP, there is no argument to be had here, and N-I-can't-be-bothered-to-learn-to-spell-his-name-i will remain banned for it. I will give you your rights back, as you are generally are a decent contributor, but if you unban N-I-can't-be-bothered-to-learn-to-spell-his-name-i or revert the deleted passage, you are done here, as far as I'm concerned. Clear? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I have to disagree; Naqoyqatsi knew exactly what he was doing by linking to Cernovich's site. There is no possible way, with his supposed of knowledge of GamerGate, that he could not have know that Cernovich deliberately doxxed Quinn in retaliation for a supposed doxxing of himself, supposedly by Quinn. Which actually turned out that he was not doxxed at all and that Quinn had nothing to do with it. You are presuming that Naqoyqatsi is editing in good faith; his behavior since his arrival here has shown otherwise.
AgingHippies, frankly, has the right of the matter. He expresses what else I think quite concisely. --Castaigne (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

[EC] I want nothing more to do with David's power plays, so you're quite clear.

Naqoyqatsi did not intend to dox, should not be held accountable, and should not be banned. We're banning him not least because of his ideology, not his action. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 21:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, let's walk through this. How do you know he did not intend to dox? How do you know he made the faith in good edit, when he has had similar violations previously? --Castaigne (talk) 21:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

[EC] Naqoyqatsi is not in good faith? He's been opposed to out gamergate stance at every step, but he's not been a vandal.

What "similar violations"? FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 21:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I call bullshit. There's a lot I take objection to when it comes to Gerard's behavior on the wiki, but at the end of the day, if he wanted to ban that guy for ideological reasons, he would have done it weeks or months ago. And I don't care about "intent," only "foreseeable outcomes." And in this case, posting a link to a GIANT UNSPOKEN FACT ABOUT A KEY FIGURE IN A CONTROVERSIAL ARTICLE had the foreseeable outcome of doxxing a real human being at risk from an angry mob. End of story, move on. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Gerard has binned him before and has supported Ryulong's many attempts to block him.

Again: Keep the revdel, remove the block. Unintentional doxxing isn't bannable; I think it's reasonable that the doxxing was unintentional .FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ﹐ Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 21:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

How the fuck was it not intentional? The entire point of the blog post he linked to was to reveal a person's real name. Don't make the same mistake here you made with your constant pushing-of-buttons re: the libel issue. It was doxing, there is nothing more to be said. Move on to something else and write yourself back into my good books. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

On intent: His point, as I read it in the diff, was that Quinn had lied. Why would he want to reveal her name? What possible gain did he get?

On libel: Y'know, the subject that started that all was created by another user with almost no dissent, even after I brought it up. <_< FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ﹐ Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 21:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Um, FCP, not to put to fine a point to it, you do know that the doxxing of Quinn, Wu, and Sarkeesian and the spreading of that information for purposes of harassment is an actual part of...let's say the agenda of certain influential people within that controversy? --Castaigne (talk) 22:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

But that's because they want people to harass QWS for their heresies against manly man mankind, not just for the hell of it. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ﹐ Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 22:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

And you honestly believe Nacraycray is not part of that? --Castaigne (talk) 22:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

If he is, then posting it here wouldn't help -- how many RWians are going to go out and harass QWS? αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 23:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Attempting to post links to stolen copies of Zoe's suicidegirls photo shoots is an excellent example, IMHO. --Castaigne (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of how aware Naqoyqatsi was that the link contained doxxy stuff or how intently they posted a link with dox, when called out on it they were notably dismissive and defensive and used Ryulong saying bad stuff about Gators as a red herring; a problematic attitude that would, in my opinion, warrant a ban. Also taking into account previous problematic behaviours (trolling, edit warring, intentionally irking Ryulong, trying to shame RW users for their alleged lifestyles etc.) a permaban doesn't seem unreasonable (a tad exceptional maybe, though). 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

He was excessively dismissive to Ryulong, who is and was excessively dismissive to him.

It might be fair to ban Naqoyqatsi for a period of time -- maybe a week -- to warn him. But an infiniban for this seems excessive. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 23:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

He has been warned about doxxing before when he posted her nudes on our site. I see no reason why he would be unaware of Cernovich doxxing her.--Owlman (talk) 00:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Why? Because the blogpost is maybe a thousand words, and her name (which he may not have considered doxxing) is but a few of them. FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 02:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Jesus Fucking Christ. Did you incur numerous concussions when you played football in college? Because surely there is no other reason for someone to think that each word in a document is of equal weight, and thereby if I write someone a very pleasant and complimentary 1000 word note that happens to contain the 4 words "I'm fucking your wife," on the balance, it's actually a net plus for their day. Stop posting about this issue. You're just making yourself look bad. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 05:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

This response not only pulls ad hominem twice ("ur dumm" & "ur disrespkkin urself"), but fails to make a cogent point. Yes, some words can be more weighty. (Did I say otherwise?) No, her name isn't comparable to "I'm fucking your wife" in a compliment. Why? Because this is about Naqoyqatsi's intent. Naqoyqatsi may (1) not have known or not considered that her name was dox, (2) have failed to notice her name being mentioned -- instead focusing on the thousand words about freeze peach and llliiieeesss -- because sometimes people post links without having comprehensively read them, or even (3) read and knew about the name, but considered it irrelevant to the larger point of the blogpost. If any is true, it seems unnecessary to ban -- because then Naqoyqatsi did not intend to dox, and should not be punished for it. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ﹐ Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 11:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

1. N-si lives GG and breathes GG, much as Ruylong does, only from the other side. He knows the ins and outs and the minutiae, and it would be reasonable to assume he knew that Quinn's real name was a giant reveal of generally-unavailable personal information (ie, a dox). 2. Not noticing that the document mentions clearly that Quinn has another name? Impossible. 3. Even if it was not relevant to the general message of the post, it was there, it was clearly there, and it spoke loudly. He doxxed her on this website, end of story. Stop trying to defend him. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 14:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Fine. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 15:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

And that would be the difference between us. I don't care what Nacraycray's intent was. And I can't know what his intent was, not without being able to telepathically read his mine. All I can do is judge based on his actions and his previous behavior - and viewing those actions and previous behavior causes me to judge malice, not ignorance or stupidity. --Castaigne (talk) 21:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

By the way[edit]

The dox is still up in another diff. [18] FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 21:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Then I would highly reccomend a RevDel. --Castaigne (talk) 21:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't sysop at the time. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 22:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

You can only dox people who it's okay to dox[edit]

Probably my first argument on this site was on this exact topic. Apparently it's okay to refer to Karajou as Brian McDonald; Conservative as Ken DeMyer (indeed, Ken DeMyer of Buffalo), TK as Terry Koeckritz, Jpatt as John Patti, etc, etc. But other people can't be outed regardless of the distribution of that information on the Internet. I've never claimed to be able to understand that rule. rpeh •T•C•E• 21:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

CPspace is special and can never be touched lest we anger the old timers. that said, We use the real names of people besides ken?--Miekal 22:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

But you see, those people are ideologically opposed and are thus valid dox targets. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 22:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Miekal, click on each of those links. The real names are in the first sentence of each article. rpeh •T•C•E• 22:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Fair point. When I get home tonight I will deal with that. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 22:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I know they're there, was just saying. Also, supposedly ken put his real name online, though whether he did it in a way you can link between the international possible-group of mystery and Ken Demyer is unknown at my glance. I would say we can get rid of most of the things that reference where he lives if not his name, as that's a bit sketchy. --Miekal 22:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, Ken is the only one who was "doxxed" in any sense of the term. The others used their real names publicly when interviewed about CP in its early days, or in other forums. In some cases it may have taken a a bit work to match up names with usernames, but very little. They basically outed themselves. Except for Ken. DickTurpis (talk) 22:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm raising this as a question/notification over at WIGO:CP so people who watch cp but maybe not here can actually be aware of something that might actually be a problem with our ethics and would effect them. --Miekal 22:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

But what is this all mean? LlamaPastor31 ^{Boredom is a time for contemplative thought} 23:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I remember when I said on Conservapedia talk:Conservative that the article needed a serious fucking BLP cleaning and you pissed and moaned at the idea. Sorry if acting slightly like halfway responsible adults on occasion rankles your composure, but your argument is actually for setting fire to the half of Conservapedia: space that wasn't burnt down already, not making equal shittiness elsewhere - David Gerard (talk) 23:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you talking about rpeh? LlamaPastor31 ^{Boredom is a time for contemplative thought} 23:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Your comments there were nothing to do with BLP stuff, David. Don't pretend otherwise. rpeh •T•C•E• 08:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

We're famous![edit]

/r/Drama noticed (and spouts the usual shit). αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 16:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Excerpt: "Honestly, I just wish more conservatives would jump on the doxxing bandwagon. A lot of the bigoted hatred against white cis males that we see from SJWs would undoubtedly get them fired if it were identified with their real names, and since SJWs have no compunction about doxxing others, we need to adopt that tool into our war chest as well simply to avoid being at a disadvantage." Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 16:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Not /r/WikiInAction?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

That was more or less here. Apparently, we are all sick of you and have recognized you are "toxic" for RW. Also, RW is once against lambasted as being the home of SJWs, the "Futrelle Brigade", we're biased as shit, we're a circlejerk, blah blah fuckity blah.

S'all right, though, this is what they had to say about me: "Holy fucking shit. What is it with wikis that brings out the completely fucking unhinged? This Castaigne guy's talk page is fucking bonkers. His descent into stark raving madness, the admins of RW bending over backwards to indulge him, what a shitshow. Reminds me of that guy who got the Cultural Marxism deleted and then lost his shit on Wikipedia proper." They're just, ah, how do they put it? Oh yes, salty that I'm more committed to my ethics than they are to their "ethics". --Castaigne (talk) 20:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

/r/kotakuinaction is super-bored - David Gerard (talk) 06:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Ayup. I'm mostly amused by their bluster. --Castaigne (talk) 14:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

It keeps happening[edit]

So Arcane tonight decides to return to RW after months of inactivity, proclaims allegiance to Gamergate, and then fills Talk:Gamergate with an essay on why the entire intro is wrong while also casually dropping someone's alleged doxxed name.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

It's all revdelled now. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 02:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I apologize if I've offended you, but I wanted to lodge my opinion on the matter after having read the article. And, no offense Ryulong, I believe you've been very biased, as much of the article seems to be your slant and contribution oriented, and rather than engage in an edit war, I brought up my objections on the talk page first, in the intention of engaging in civil debate over where my views were merited or not before I did something as foolish as attempt to change things without soliciting community opinion, which I can see largely does not concur with my views, which I understand and respect, and I thank everyone for their time and willingness to listen to me. Arcane (talk) 02:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The page was written the way it is now long before I ever joined RationalWiki so don't even try that shit.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Wow. That whole above paragraph by Arcane was one sentence. Too many "I"'s, tho. nobs^{I'm not from this planet, but let me tell u what I think....} 05:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Doxxing - why do we care?[edit]

No, really. As long as it's factually correct, it's a normal part of discussing someone, and if you don't think we talk about people, well, that's why I chose this page. Scroll up. Walker Walker Walker 01:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

No it's really not. It's normal for people to decide for themselves what aspects of their life they want to keep private & what they're happy to share. When you don't allow them that or respect their privacy, you're not only overstepping their personal boundaries but potentially unleashing all kinds of consequences for them. Wëäŝëïöïď

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 02:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

It obviously isn't private if someone other than the subject of that information can share it. Walker Walker Walker 02:12, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

What a pleasant attitude. So if somebody can do something, there's no reason why they shouldn't? Is this also how you feel about theft, rape & murder? Wēāŝēīōīď

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 02:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

You said it was private info. I merely noted the error in that claim. Walker Walker Walker 02:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no error: you're appealing to an absurd definition of privacy and classing information known to any other person as public information. You're also evading my question: how does ability to harm somebody justify doing so? ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 02:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

If true information about you is harmful, you're doing it wrong. Walker Walker Walker 02:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

If this is a sincere attempt to persuade the RW community & influence site policy, you're doing it wrong. ωεαşεζøίɗ

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 02:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I would only be sincere if I expected to be taken so. Walker Walker Walker 02:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Address = true & harmful. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 02:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I NEW POTS OFICES WERE EVAL!!! Walker Walker Walker 02:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Stalking, breakins, hate mail, threat mail, explosives, diseases & poisons, the threat of all of these... FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 03:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

And the key word in that sentence is threat. Seriously, though: like essentially all information, someone's address can be harmful. Good job. Walker Walker Walker 03:01, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

No know address = negligible risk of harm. Know = greater, poss. nonnegligible. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 03:11, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

No know nucleus = negligible risk of bomb. Know = greater, poss. nonnegligible. Axe high school chem now. Walker Walker Walker 03:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Obv. false analogy. Stop. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 03:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Why? Both are potentially harmful information. Both are potentially useful info. You hate the dissemination of one irrationally. That and scale are the only differences I can find. Walker Walker Walker 03:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

By scale I mean that the one is potentially much more harmful than the other. Walker Walker Walker 03:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Address useful? FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 03:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

No, they're just a tool of the monarchy to keep us down, man. </sarcasm> Walker Walker Walker 03:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

(ec) i am sure it is all fine and dandy. watch what you say though because we know where you live. AMassiveGay (talk) 02:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I consider it entirely possible that you do, and I'm quite fine with that. Walker Walker Walker 02:12, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

you wont be when i put my plan into action. AMassiveGay (talk) 02:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Proceed at leisure, repent at will. Walker Walker Walker 02:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Raysenn[edit]

Raysenn is removing Sysop tools from users he is in a dispute with, stating that some 9-8 coop vote is reasonable basis for him to do this.

I suggest that Raysenn is not a Moderator, and does not have the authority to promote users. I suggest that a consensus of the coop inform him of this, and note that if promotes people who oppose his misogynistic hate movement again, he'll be prevented from further such actions. Hipocrite (talk) 23:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

And the same comment, exactly, about FuzzyCatPotato, except he's not part of the hate movement, he's just fucking stupid. Hipocrite (talk) 23:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

kek |₹Λ¥$€₦₦

^{I'll take you right into the Danger Zone} 23:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

9-6; Ryu desysopped hisself oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 23:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Read the words, not the numbers, you halfwit fuck. Hipocrite (talk) 23:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Quite the charmer, ain't ya? |₹Λ¥$€₦₦

^{"Ass to ass." "ASS. TO. ASS!"} 23:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Am I hurting you feelings, you shit-for-brains manbaby? Hipocrite (talk) 23:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Ryu desysopped hisself 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 23:22, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

And I resysoped him, assface. Hipocrite (talk) 23:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

9-6 Coop Case FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 23:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ 9-8. Two people in Goat were opposed. Hipocrite (talk) 23:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Goat votes don't count. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦

^{I've been a bad, bad boy, Father} 23:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Neither of those people were eligible to vote. ωεαşεζøίɗ

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

How did Miekal and myself lose franchise? Hipocrite (talk) 23:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Miekal didn't vote, and you voted after it was archived, which makes it non-elegible. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦

^{Thank you for the culinary utensils} 23:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

10-5 if Ryu's action is a vote The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 23:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Desysopped Raysenn overight, it's gone 1am here and I need sleep. Raysenn, please stop going out of your way to be a foolish person - David Gerard (talk) 00:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Could we get the mods in here by the way, rogue wheel wars are a shitfest of stupid - David Gerard (talk) 00:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed, Hipocrite here is the one insisting on wheel warring. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦

^{My life I trade in for your pain} 00:07, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't fucking care really, I'm getting multiple emails asking me to swing my cock about and that annoys me and strikes me as not the best approach, so let's get the mods in and GIVE FASCISM A CHANCE. In the morning. Good night all - David Gerard (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

So, the correct move is to resysop the wheel-warrer and desysop me instead? Smooth move. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦

^{THE BURNT TOWER WAS BURNT OFF BY FIRE} 00:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Who was I wheelwarring with, exactly? Doesn't it take two to wheel-war? Hipocrite (talk) 00:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Seems Gerard urgently needs that sleep he was talking about. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, it wasn't me who desysopped Hipocrite, it was Weaseloid, and it was to stop his wheelwarring. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦

^{Oh hai Anonymous user} 00:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I have resysoped Raysenn despite his earler abuse of tools, because the status quo ante is how things should be discussed, regardless of the fact that Ryulong's status quote ante is promoted. But I'll let that slide. Hipocrite (talk) 00:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

You're aware that on RW "promoted" is synonymous with "unsysopped", right? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, bro, sick burn. I think I was pretty clear that the status quo when I showed up was that he was promoted, and that I had constantly demoted him. You know, sometimes people realize they did something wrong and admit it? You should learn about that, some time. Hipocrite (talk) 00:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, guess I misinterpreted your statement. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Just wondering[edit]

Hipocrite clearly makes an unconvincing case for his actions. But what exactly would be required to resysop Ryulong? Does it require a mob vote session? Does a bit of time need to pass and can he then get sysop powers through the regular process (random passerby gives rights after noticing someone's not a sysop yet)? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how my case, which was "random passerby gives rights after noticing someone's not a sysop yet," is unconvincing. Hipocrite (talk) 00:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Your case was more "WTF Ryulong's not sysopped anymore? Lemme resysop him and spout insults at anyone who disagrees". 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The first half is correct, the second half is "spout insults at anyone who wheel-wars with me." Close thou! Hipocrite (talk) 00:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

On the question of "What is required to resysop Ryulong," the Coop vote from which he voluntarily ceded his rights was for his rights to be removed for 2 months. Therefore, all that's required is for Ryulong to be good for 2 months and his rights will be restored. Simple as that. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 07:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

So now, here is a legitimate question, filed under the "avoidance of HCM" category[edit]

I know that Ryulong is not a sysop, and that I was an advocate for him losing those rights. However, I would like him to help me on the AbuseFilter, and would like to teach him how to add variables to the filter that specifically target Gamergate (as he knows more about the traits of gators than I do). My question is: This would require my giving him "tech" rights so he could learn on and assist with the AbuseFilter. Since he is not a sysop due to sanction, would it be acceptablt for me to give him tech rights while he is under sanctions from the community? Part 2 of this is the fact that, if we had stronger filters to keep Gamergators out, a lot of the abuses the Ryulong committed on the sysop level would never have even happened, because the edits they involved wouldn't have ever been allowed to happen. Does this information change the circumstances? John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 08:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

NO! "Tech" is a position of trust and responsibility. If an individual's judgment can't be trusted with a lower level of responsibility, what makes you think that giving them a higher level is a good idea? Badger Ryulong for GG details. If he's unwilling to provide them, then apparently the problem is not serious enough to warrant intervention.

Aside from that, the edit filter should not be used to keep Gators out. It should be used to keep harassment, spam and abuse out. If the Gators can't post without lapsing in those categories, tough shit, but merely coming from a position that is contrary to RW's position is not grounds to be edit-filtered. I understand that it was probably a case of lazy wording on your side, but I wanted to make the point clear.--AndYourFoesShallRejoice... (talk) 08:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, it was lazy wording, albeit because me giving examples of what I'm trying to keep out (malicious content such as doxxing or links to doxxing, for example) would give away hints as to what variables the filters are protecting against and, in turn, allow gators with malicious intent to exploit ways around them. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 08:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

If you need his help to do what is needed, then go right ahead. --Castaigne (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Why would Ryulong need tech to google for help with Wikipedia's abuse filters? Now thar's the question FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 13:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Personally I've got no objection to this as long as (1) JJS or other techs keep an eye on what changes Ryulong makes to the filters, and (2) he doesn't use tech rights to resysop himself or perform sysop actions and he loses tech rights if he does so. Weaseloid ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of all this[edit]

Can someone semi-protect my user talk and ban the fucking idiots shitting it up day after day?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

This account was made a week ago. What the fuck—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Weaseloid[edit]

Has removed sysop rights on several occasions without any sort of discussion when someone was doing something that annoyed him. Afterwards, he generally seemed extremely unmotivated to undo said promotions. I'm personally not proposing any particular disciplinary actions, but since Weaseloid's course of action blatantly ignores established Community Standards, it seems to me this is an issue that should be brought up. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Wake me up when someone invested enough in the community to take out an account gripes about it. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 01:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Can we just archive this pointless shitfest? Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 02:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Two comments is a shitfest? >.> 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Whole page is. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 03:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

These two so-far unaddressed inquiries included? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Almost whole page is. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 03:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I say ditch it. This is meaningless. --Castaigne (talk) 13:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Aye, the only legitimate part of this shitfest is 141's inquiries and JJJS already answered this. So shitcan this, as Duke Nukem would say. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦

^{Burning this game would be an insult to fire.} 13:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Whose rights were removed? What was the reason given? Do you have links you can give. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 06:51, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

A few links: [19], [20], [21], [22]. In [1], Hipocrite and Raysenn respectively gave and took away Ryulong's sysop rights a few times. In [2], Weaseloid was deleting a bunch of arguably superfluous redirects Fuzzy made and Fuzzy momentarily blocked him to slow him down and discuss things on his talkpage first. I don't know the context of the latter ones. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 08:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

So Hipocrite and Raysenn were having a user rights war. David Gerard removed Raysenn's users rights saying "Stop it" and Weaseloid, in turn, removed Hipocrite's rights. Looks to me like David Gerard and Weaseloid were trying to stop a user rights war from continuing. Could that be a fair interpretation? John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 08:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Weaseloid was the first to desysop, but for the rest it seems like a fair interpretation. The problem isn't so much that the desysopping occurred, but rather that in both [1] and [2], the desysopped user requested (non-antagonistically) their sysop rights back on Weaseloid's talkpage, with Weaseloid's response being an outright refusal to cooperate in undoing the promotion as well as giving no justification for why a permanent desysopping was warranted. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 08:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

"non-antagonistically" |₹Λ¥$€₦₦

^{"Ass to ass." "ASS. TO. ASS!"} 10:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Kind of exceptionally so, in Hipocrite's case. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 11:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Here's the conundrum as I see it, and that is that every charge leveled against Weaseloid on behalf of Hipocrite above could also be leveled against David Gerard in the case of Raysenn. Should it be? No, because this shouldn't even be a Coop case. But for the sake of fairness, they both did the same thing, and what they did (stopping a user rights war) seems to have been the right thing to do at the time. In my opinion, Hipocrite opened themselves up to have some sort of action after they began a war over Ryulong's user rights. Had they not acted unilaterally against an earlier Coop decision, then we wouldn't even be talking about the events that happened after it. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 18:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The reason I brought up Weaseloid here is because I've seen him do it before, and less defendably so than in the most recent case with Hipocrite. If you think David Gerard has committed multiple abuses of power and it might warrant discussion by the community, by all means open a case. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Oi vey, the goyim know! Shut the wiki down![edit]

-Mona- (talk · contribs · block · rights · rename)[edit]

Mona is definitely going to report the naughty word I said to her to all of the presses. See [23], [24]. Hipocrite (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

And she's not going to report me to teh pwesses?! How could she not?! I'm offended!!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 20:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I do not care for such threats. I say block her and let her take to press what she will, instead of trying to bully people into shutting up. Walker Walker Walker 21:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

That'd generate some decent publicity.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 21:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay. I am far less bothered by any otential publicity than by misuse of threats of such. Walker Walker Walker 21:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

[ec] Sez you. The way I see it, the bulk of the bullying here has been aimed at Mona, not dished out by her. Alec Sanderson (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I haven't paid full attention, but again, I do know I take threats seriously. They're ONLY good for stifling debate... and yet she preaches about stifling debate. Fuck this. Walker Walker Walker 21:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Right, offering to encourage press coverage is "stifling debate." GMAFB. Alec Sanderson (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

"I'mma tell on you to my big bad journalists if you don't let me blackwash this article!" is. Walker Walker Walker 21:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

That's one way to frame it, but not the one I would choose. How about "Some of you guys are being intransigent. Lets see how well that plays in a wider arena."

As far as "blackwash" goes, bullshit. I've worked alongside Israeli veterans, some of whom could be stubborn opinionated assoles. Still, I could respect them. I can't say I respect the chabadnik pencil-necks I've seen in US college towns, berating anyone who had the temerity to suggest that Palestinians were people too. Alec Sanderson (talk) 21:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I have never met the (word I don't even know what it means) and I am currently in college. What I have met were anti-Zionists of differing kinds of disgusting. Some people I actually like a lot and tend to agree with politically at least on some issues are so head up their asses when it comes to Israel... But any way, this is not and should not be the issue. Maybe we should define every thing that concerns Israel or Palestine as per definitionem not-mission? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Let me take that second paragraph at face value; I need to dodge that debate anyhow. Point remains: threats intended to shut people who disagree up. Walker Walker Walker 23:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Why would learning that if Zionists can shut things down here I will reach out to journos I know strike you as a "threat?" If I'm pulling that out of my ass there's nothing to worry about, right? If I'm only trying to childishly get my way, I come off looking bad, right? But if there is some behavior happening here that contravenes the practices of free inquiry and speech, then I'd be doing the right thing, right?---Mona- (talk) 23:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

No, you look bad no matter what, and no. Walker Walker Walker 23:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

It will most likely end up to be a waste of everybody's time energy and resources (unless of course what you plan is doxxing in which case we would have a serious problem with you), but threatening it at every turn of the page is not helping your case. Not in the least. If you hope to bring down RW.... This here site has weathered harsher storms and emerged stronger. But please, be my guest. Expose the evil Zionist bias shutting down dissent. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

While the electric fences that seem to exist at RW around the Zionism (and a few other) articles are a concern to me, this whining about running to the press is extremely counter-productive and will get you nowhere rather fast Mona. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 00:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I would never dox anyone. Ever. As a strong sup[porter of online anonymity (tho I don't choose it for myself) I would never do it. There are some narrow, and serious exceptions but they are totally inapplicable here. Exceptions like those organizing harassment campaigns against women, threats of rape or other bodily injury -- that sort of thing. That's dox-worthy. Not the flame wars here.^{— Unsigned, by: [[User:|User:]] / [[User talk:|talk]] / contribs}

TheroadtoWiganPier, while I understand your point, I don't think you quite grasp mine. I am not "whining." If it were literally any other topic causing this imbroglio I wouldn't be mentioning the press or writers in larger venues. But what is happening here is a perfect example -- writ small -- of a larger, pernicious phenomenon. The Zionist Hasbara Machine and Guardians of Israel's Honor, both online and off, is serious fucked up bullshit. I am literally gobsmacked to see what has happened here, and consider it significant as at least a paragraph, footnote, or even an entire entry for some writer whose beat is this area. It's not about RW -- it's about the Zionists and how they control you all by making certain facts, viewpoints and even topics off limits.---Mona- (talk) 02:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

There we are... The Zionists control us all... This of course has nothing to do with any kind of anti-Semitic stereotype or anything... Well, now that that's out of the way, can we please read the article in your major publication? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

"This of course has nothing to do with any kind of anti-Semitic stereotype or anything" That's right : I'm not invoking the Protocols. I'm objecting to actual, in front of us, demonstrated Zionist behavior. I'm nowhere near ready to go getting something written about your bullshit antics in a larger venue. It remains to be seen whether any of our colleagues grow some balls and decide that: "No, actually we will have text that is not acceptable to those who think Israel is great. Yup we will, We are Men (and Women) and by dawG we shall permit supported fact-claims form those who think Israel is less than great -- and we'll make the Zionists stop reverting every edit they don't like because, goddam it, they don't get to run the place on their cherished topic." Will we see that? Or does your beating them over the head with bogus accusations of antisemitism keep them all castrated? (I am totally impervious to that cynically deployed shit, so you can just can it -- doesn't work with me.) I am waiting to see if this plays out in a way where I can just go on and do what I had planned to do rather quietly as my interests moved me here, or whether I'm here more as an observer of a phenomenon to document.---Mona- (talk) 04:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Observe all you want, but remember - as you gaze into the abyss the abyss gazes back at you. Your behavior has been "observed" at least by part of the RW community by now, and I am sure some of them at least have drawn conclusions. Which ones I do not know, but some of these conclusions appear to not be overly friendly towards you. Kind regards. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 09:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Somewhat serious proposal[edit]

Everyone takes a one-week hiatus from Israel-related topics, comes back, and plays nice (preferably in fewer words). Walker Walker Walker 20:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm always a fan of getting to use that extra level of protection I can put on articles. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 20:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I just wanted to suggest asking a mod, but then Paravant came and ninja'd me...--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 20:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

We could also skip the hiatus and play nice right now. ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 20:46, 20 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

Not cause a huff? That's not the RW way!--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 20:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, I'd say our quota for huffs has been reached for now. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 20:49, 20 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

Nope, the house wasn't blown down.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 21:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

NO IT HAS"NR!!!1!2!!!!42!!! Walker Walker Walker 21:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Should somebody climb the Reichstag dressed as Spider man now? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I have no Spiderman costume, am afraid of falling down from there and and are afraid of being hauled away by the cops for that.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 23:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Well for reasons passing understanding, it is a meme over on WP, that this is not a means to resolve debate. But more and more we have come to expect less and less of each other. Anyway, I never ever get sick at sea ;-). And yes I do like Aaron Sorkin. Or at least his work. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

A suggestion[edit]

Perhaps being insular arseholes isn't a good way to go. One to consider!

Also, please step back with casually throwing ban threats around. A new user doesn't in fact know that Hipocrite can't do that, and this is what happens when people take such foolishness on your part at your word.

Has anyone actually told -Mona- this is here, or are you trying to get an action happening without bothering to tell your target? - David Gerard (talk) 22:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

^^^Well said, David Gerard. I've got to say the dick-wagging you all showed to Mona is quite disgusting and an embarrassment. Gooniepunk (talk) 02:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

DICK-WAGGING? WE'RE being obstinately threatened, but that's NOT the waggling dick in the room? Okay. Walker Walker Walker 02:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I get that the Wiki is being threatened. But the overwhelming response has been immature and childish at best which, in situations like being threatened, is anything but helpful to the situation. Gooniepunk (talk) 04:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Read the first few things posted under the "Oi vey, the goyim know! Shut the wiki down!" heading and tell me that they are an appropriate, professional way to handle the situation. I disagree, and think they are something straight out of Encyclopedia Dramatica. Gooniepunk (talk) 04:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Appropriate? Yes. Professional? No, and I would add of course not. It's like a wiki is being run, not a business venture. Walker Walker Walker 05:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

And ED was substantially more... ED when last I was there. Walker Walker Walker 05:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

In other words, you'd rather act like a child and make a bad situation worse. I gotcha. Gooniepunk (talk) 06:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

How have I made this worse? Do tell, unless your idea of "worse" is "not caving." Walker Walker Walker 06:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

So now you're being abbrasive to Mona on principle, because she said she might get a news article out there reporting on Zionist apologetics on this wiki and you perceive that as a threat? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 06:47, 21 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

Look below, Pac, where I pointed it out to you that you aren't helping the situation. Gooniepunk (talk) 06:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The user list and the list of recent edits are a matter of public record, so no.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 22:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

User:-Mona- this might interest you. I just tagged her. She should get a notification, right? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I dropped her a few words on the talkpage, just to be sure.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 22:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I hope she notices. While I disagree with her stance on Zionism (and quit frankly she has not yet added much of substance to most other pages), I would much prefer a civil resolution over the short term lulz that might be had by some if she does have means to back up her threats... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Amen to that. I think, she should, you see a yellow message on any page, if you your talkpage has been edited by anyone except you.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 23:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

"Tagged her"? Is this some new function I'm not aware of? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:17, 20 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

Over at some other wiki I edit at (not under this name of course, as BoN is a RW specific term), to "tag" somebody is to mention his username so that (s)he gets a notification like this. Or at least one gets a notification over at the other place... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I've seen it. As for this: "and quit frankly she has not yet added much of substance to most other pages." Jesus on a Pogo Stick - - I spent hours re-writing and adding references to the Greenwald page. I tidied up some on the CAIR entry. I looked at the Cults entry but was pleasantly surprised to see it's very well done already. I've only been here less than a week, fer cbhrissakes. And I looked at the Zionism entry and it's a mess. Assertions and snark piled on top of one another with little gravamen and almost no damned sourcing. I can fix that, and started to. But, oh no! Nevermind that I know tons of shit about the issue, and about related ones. No, never mind that. AS for the "threats" to go to the media it comes down to this: I STRONGLY believe in making public examples of Zionist bullshit that includes attacks on free inquiry, debate and speech. (I didn't come here looking for that, and actually had a reason to think it wouldn't apply.) You can expect me to begin pushing that story into wider venues if Zionists routinely "shut it down" here. In the meantime, I've added a Steven Salaita entry, in part because I have a lovely federal district court case that includes language I can use to smack around Zionists who try to stifle free speech. A federal judge has made that quite the debacle for the University of Illinois system and a certain former Chancelor at UI-CU-Mona- (talk) 23:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Read that one about what free speech is and what it is not.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 23:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

You are going to find a hostile audience if you keep up the "going to tell journalists on you" line. Telling people you're going to run and tattle isn't very conductive to discussions.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 23:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

(ec) We're not a public university, so I am thoroughly unimpressed by your non-citation. Walker Walker Walker 23:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

First of all: Who gives a crap about Steven whatshisface? That ~~old~~ young anti-semite (he calls himself that, right?) can go to hell or Riyadh (which amounts to pretty much the same thing) for all I care. Second of all: We have a policy called SPOV which can be interpreted as Scientific Point Of View (with snark) or Snarky Point Of View (with science). So finding snark on any page is not a bug, it's a feature. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I can be the Queen of Snark. But a piece that is nothing but assertions and snark, with almost no fucking sourcing, well, what's it good for? As for Prof. Salaita, perhaps I'll show you some snark as I go along on that entry -- but it will also be suffused with documented substance. I have found other topics in this general area lacking entries here. Thanks to you, they've become my priority, even over the woo-woo "Targeted Individuals" I had planned to soon turn to. You and your Zionist friends can preside over the crap-pile that is the Zionism entry for the time being.^{— Unsigned, by: -Mona- / talk / contribs}

{sigh} You all are not understanding me. About this: "You are going to find a hostile audience if you keep up the 'going to tell journalists on you' line. Telling people you're going to run and tattle isn't very conductive to discussions." I care about teamwork and camaraderie, I really do. But before I care about that I am deeply concerned what I regard as a chronic, pernicious phenomenon of widespread Zionist stifling of debate and free inquiry. No matter where I was of any significance, if I saw it manifested in a way that rose to the level of public interest, I'd say something. While RW is not a public institution, it's mission and name advertise a devotion to the values underpinning the Bill of Rights and academic freedom. Unless there is some "Zionism exception?" God knows there is in other places, and it's often news where that is the case---Mona- (talk) 23:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to tell you any journalists worth telling about our supposed pro-zionist BS won't care about RW's stance on zionism, and any who do aren't worth telling exactly because they care about some wiki's stance on Zionism. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 23:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘You know User:-Mona-, if you see something at every corner, there might be something wrong with you rather than the corners... Just sayin' ... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I really can't get over it: Here, the following people CANNOT be listed as contemporary examples of critics of Zionism in an entry of the same name: :Tony Judt, Glenn Greenwald, Judith Butler, Wallace Shawn, Max Blumenthal or Mark Braverman. The Zionists here simply won't allow it. Fucking amazing! It's the truth, but they'll delete it every time. Again, fucking amazing. ---Mona- (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

"any journalists worth telling about our supposed pro-zionist BS won't care about RW's stance on zionism" Oh, geez, yes, that's right. So all this talk about threats is just silly! Anyhway, I can sell a stroy, if I want to, and to the right platforms. One in particular that is all up in the issue of Zionist asshattery. ---Mona- (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Avengerofthe BoN -- and trust me on this -- no Zionist, and this includes you, is going to convince me there is a thing wrong with my politics. Your politics is based on racist, ethno-relgious supremacy and an obscene militarism that is actually evil. I'd be concerned if you approved of me or my views. No snark -- god's honest truth.---Mona- (talk) 00:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

If you want, but you continue to make no moves in the direction of getting them (I really could care less about this stupid argument you've gotten into) to actually compromise with these threats. Unless you think that threatening to go to the press is an acceptable method to make people agree with you.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 00:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

User:-Mona- Have you heard of the internet tough guy law? I think we have an article on that as well... And as for you unwilling to agree with me - well this I expected... But - and this may be a big but - I always try to let critical self reflection enter into my thoughts. Believe it or not, almost all my convictions are always uttered with the nagging sentence "what if you're wrong" at the back of my mind? And indeed what if I am wrong? Well than a people that has far bigger problems is deprived of about 0.3% of their land. (i.e. the percent of the surface area if the Arab world, Jews currently reside in). But what if you are wrong? Do ask yourself this question from time to time. It might in some rare cases help ease some persecution complexes you seem to be at least flirting with... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

"Do ask yourself this question from time to time. It might in some rare cases help ease some persecution complexes you seem to be at least flirting with." Because I am capable of asking myself whether I am wrong, I ceased being a Zionist -- an ardent one -- at the age of 49. I let myself read some people I had "heard" were unhinged, unserious, and just not "all there." People like Chomsky. Edward Said. And eventually Ali Abunimah and Max Blumenthal, as well as John Judis' recent book on Truman and American Jews vis-a-vis recognizing the state of Israel. So, you see, I have come to my position by having turned 180 degrees around as a result of immersion in works of excellent writers and historians. But you, you I think are motivated by base tribalism. Tribalism will cause people to react to unpleasant facts exactly as you have in the last several days -- yours has been an astonishing performance!---Mona- (talk) 02:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Paravant"Unless you think that threatening to go to the press is an acceptable method to make people agree with you." I'm not trying to force agreement, which is why the word "threat" is inapposite. I am saying I observe a gobsmacking heinous and pernicious phenomenon here that exists well outside of this small pond. It's the Zionist stranglehold on any facts or points of view that depart from their narrative. This thing is eroding, loosening up in many venues, online and off, but is fucking strangling y'all here. It's an example of something larger than RW, but notable because I expect people attracted to site like this to be rather like a herd of independent and strong-willed cats. And yet the Zionists appear to have you cowed. Wow. You cannot accept well-sourced facts because they have hissy fits and carry on like 10-year-old brats if you do. One even tells me I can't write anything that doesn't "satisfy those who think Israel is great" without this happening. And no one steps in to say: WTF? Really, wow. They have your balls locked up, and you hand them over. So yes, I think you all should grow a pair, or else I will conclude this really is the grotesquerie it seems to be, and likely will find a use for the example.---Mona- (talk) 02:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not a threat, but if you don't do as I say, I'll go tell on you. The fuck? Get your dealer to hook me up with whatever you're on. Walker Walker Walker 03:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

It isn't about "do as I say." It's about: "you fucking wussies, the Zionist assholes have you by the balls and you let them run around endlessly reverting any edits -- no matter how fact-filled and well-documented -- because you're afraid they are gonna call you antisemites." If that's how it is here, then yeah, it's a phenomenon I arrive already having a great deal of interest in. And I likely would find a way to use it, or have it used, if it turns out that's the dysfunctional reality here. {shrug}---Mona- (talk) 04:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

And again, you find a creative way to restate the exact same threat. Cool. How many more til you run out? Walker Walker Walker 04:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

You're not being helpful, PacWalker. Gooniepunk (talk) 04:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

And that was. Cool. Walker Walker Walker 05:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Helpful would be blocking Mona pending this threatened publication and then enjoying/riding out the publicity, if any. Walker Walker Walker 05:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I agree she should be blocked. But I don't think taunting somebody throwing out threats is a very good way of handling threats simply because of the possibility of somebody following through. That being said, shall we put this one to a vote finally? Gooniepunk (talk) 07:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

How and who exactly is she threatening? RW getting some negative publicity doesn't affect any of us personally, does it? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 07:04, 21 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

"Who" is RationalWiki. "How" remains to be seen, other than some vague "I'll report you to the media" remarks. I'm of two minds on this, which are evenly split right now and diametrically opposed: 1) block her for making threats against the Wiki because we shouldn't be beholden to catering to somebody who threatens us or 2) she's a wacko and we should continue to engage her as such. Granted, I'm disappointed in how the Wiki has handled it so far, but that can be changed. If I had to pick one right now, I'm actually slightly more inclined to the latter over the former. Gooniepunk (talk) 07:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

How is negative publicity a threat to RW? Any publicity'd be helpful to us to be honest. And if she manages to point out a genuine problem on the wiki along the way, all the better. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 07:32, 21 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

It depends on the form of negative publicity and the extent to which it does us damage. If it's just some blogpost on Breitbart calling us names, that's not a big deal. However, if it's something that could spark lawsuits against us or some real damage to our reputation and causes, say, and IRS investigation for some reason (I'm not saying it will be, just pointing out hyperbole examples here), then that's where a Wiki that relies on donations from its users and runs on a shoe-string budget can see problems. Gooniepunk (talk) 08:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

This page is full of horribly quotable examples of gibbering fuckwittery from RW editors, for example, and it's impossible to argue that any of them are -Mona-'s doing - David Gerard (talk) 09:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Why was she threatening to report it out the media? I'm generally curious because I was slightly involved in this painstaking discussion. I missed out on this. ChrisAmiss (talk) 07:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

My guess would be frustration with a few users constantly badgering her, derailing discussions with non sequitur lulzy quips, repeating the same pro-Israel PRATTs over and over, and reverting almost any edit she made unilaterally. Just a guess though. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 08:30, 21 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

It's definitely frustrating and feels like a roadblock when you're arguing sometimes. Trying to liven the discussion or widen it towards a different perspective is noble, even if tiring and time-consuming. ChrisAmiss (talk) 08:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, hello, experienced nonprofit PR volunteer person here. Publicly threatening someone with a ban for suggesting they might go to the media is quite possibly the stupidest thing I've seen a RW editor seriously suggest, let alone multiple RW editors, and is prima facie evidence anyone doing so is too stupid to edit here and needs to show evidence themselves otherwise. Like, in what universe is this even a good idea. You're acting like ridiculous mancave children. Fucking stop it - David Gerard (talk) 08:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

And it would not have been proposed at all if Mona had not been threatening the sanctity of RW's apparent sacred cow - the Zionism article. I thought I was finally getting my head around how things work around here and kind of enjoying it. Then this. Threats of bans, meh. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 08:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Hung from the highest tree, then drawn and quartered. Any punishment less is a travesty of justice. Tielec01 (talk) 09:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure somebody trying to insert language calling Israel an "Apartheid state" and then going on to claim to be censored by the evil Zionists as not all things go her way totally make her the victim. Well I say let her roam free and go the press. Thus she has one less bogus "grievance" (though tbh most wikis apart from ED would ban an editor of her kind of uncivil behavior already - there is a reason why some places have a "no real world threats" policy) and maybe she calms the fuck down. Who knows, she might even prove to have some valid opinions in areas where Zionism is not an issue unless she makes it one. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 09:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Incivility too? Oh. My. God. When will the horrors stop? Tielec01 (talk) 10:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Mock all you want, but have you actually experienced User:-Mona- in all her glory when she is on her quest to ~~destroy Zionism~~ "set the record straight"? She will be uncivil (to say the least) even towards people who agree with 90% of her points. If she was only attacking me and User:Arisboch, this would probably never have risen to this heights... And don't get me wrong, I can take a lot of uncivilty and if push comes to shove, I am willing to give as good as I get. But if you ask me letting this kind of behavior (including threats to "go to the press") run rampant may well make the climate of RW less conductive to productive editing in the future. That being said, I am opposed to the banhammer for User:-Mona-; just let her do her thing of accusing everything and everybody of all things she can possibly think of (especially having our balls stolen by the Zionists) and hope she eventually gets tired of it. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 10:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, twisting everything around and playing the victim, hmm? Well now, that's bold, I'll hand you that. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 12:30, 21 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

Who is playing the victim? I am afraid it is not entirely clear to me whom you mean... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 12:49, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

That's odd, as your previous comment makes it rather glaringly obvious. By all means, continue trolling us though. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 12:52, 21 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

Well if you'd care to explain how my contribution to this talk page consists playing the victim but the temper tantrum of User:-Mona- does not, I'd be immensely grateful... I neither feel the victim of anything nor is it my intention to be perceived as such... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure, backpedal all you want. Your comments are plain to be read and it's obvious who's putting themselves in the role of the victim in them. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 13:06, 21 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

We will see how other interpret my comments. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

[with my moderator hat on] You're looking pretty unconvincing to me here - David Gerard (talk) 14:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

It's at moments like this that I really miss the RationalWikiWiki HCM Meter. Ah, golden days! Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 14:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

So...[edit]

It's kinda true that -Mona- is tendentious and argumentative to an unreasonable degree. But so am I. So are you, reader, unless you're that one editor who is chill about everything. However, Arisboch is blowing things way outta proportion. This whole situation needs not a banning, but a serious application of glue to the handle(so that people might not fly off so easily). ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 14:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, I never argued for banning her.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 14:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Noted. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 14:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Yep, agreed. Contact adhesive maybe. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 14:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Y'all muthafuckas need Jesus. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦

^{THAT IS STILL LEGAL TENDER. I AM SANDWICH LAWYER.} 16:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Kaworu died for your sins!!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 16:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm actually very much looking forward to being Reported To The Media for the crime of Zionism, myself. --Castaigne (talk) 17:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

For the record: I am also against banning her. I don't actually know how the notion of the banhammer being the best (only) tool arose... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

What the fuck happened here?[edit]

Some silly editor "threatened" to reveal the Zionist Overlords Of RationalWiki (ZOOR) to big scary "journos ^[sic]" and all hell broke lose. There's no goddamn threat to RW; this is like all the other kooks that think RW is a shill and are gonna expose it on their Wordpress blog. Just ignore them. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 17:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Ayup. I'm actually looking forward to the reporting. --Castaigne (talk) 17:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

We go by ZOORW, actually. Walker Walker Walker 17:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Or ZOoRW, as you please. Walker Walker Walker 17:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh. I missed this element of the drama. I'm going to confess that they seem outright unhinged with that revelation. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 17:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

That was arguably but a very minor part of the whole gynormous shitfest and it's still not particularly clear to what extent Mona even meant it as a threat. Declaring Mona a "kook" or "wacko" is also rather overly dismissive. She can get rather argumentative, she's pretty fanboyish of this Glenn Greenwald fellow and she's a bit newbie-ish in the ways of wiki discourse, but otherwise I don't see any major problems. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 17:57, 21 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

People who go on and on about "revealing the Zionist overlords" of anything are kooks. Having that very strongly held kooky opinion is generally what makes someone a kook. There's a good reason people listen to Hawking over kooks like Alex Jones. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

If you were aware of the context, you'd be less dismissive. Mona only started talking conspiracy-ish about the ordeal after experiencing relentless opposition from a few users. While there certainly isn't such a thing as "Zionist overlords" on this wiki, when 3-4 very active users of the small amount of daily editors express blatantly Israeli apologetic views and you see very little effective opposition to these views, it's easy to overestimate their influence. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:13, 21 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

Context isn't going to change an opinion that people who spout kooky things are kooks after they spout kooky things. I can understand frustration, but acting like a loon after less than a week is at minimum grossly immature and counterproductive. It certainly will not accomplish anything but get one laughed at. Sticking to it, along with claims of un-provable NYT and Guardian articles, is making it easier to think dismissal was the correct course. Sane and well balanced people don't turn to conspiracy nonsense without proof...and certainly not as the first option. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

"Sane and well balanced people don't" While there's lots of things that we'd like to follow from mere sanity, that doesn't make that the reality, sadly. All someone who's only sane and well balanced needs is something with a persuasive narrative for them to accept it. Also, while there's no such thing as a global statist conspiracy (see LM), there is such a thing as an Israel lobby. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:23, 21 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

And yet the closest thing to a "lobby" here seems to be a group of people with opinions. Wow, what conspire. Walker Walker Walker 21:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm saying there's precedence for this sorta thing, not that it's actually the case here. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:41, 21 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

"she's pretty fanboyish of this Glenn Greenwald" He's my former law partner and I've edited several of his post-law books. I've been copying him on all the text from when that Avenger of the BoN, Arisboch, Hypocrite etc. were behaving like absolute children on the Zionism talk page and reverting every single thing I wrote, over and over. That I know, they were not much remonstrated with. Even tho the entry is noticed to need much work which I was giving it. Greenwald's also been been copied on the claim that I cannot write anything that "will not satisfy those who think Israel is great." He holds a very strong interest in Zionist tactics to stifle debate and speech, including online. This is a small pond, but what is happnening here is also a superb example of Zionist thuggishness, and a crowd of supposedly independently minded rationalists submitting to their demands -- likely because some or many in the mob fear allowing the truth to be posted (with reputable documentaion) will casue the Zionist to stamp their feet and call them antisemitic. Many people remain cowed by this promiscuous hurling of a term that is losing potency because of so such glib and casual Zionist deployment of it. But they still apparently can use the term to work the magic here.---Mona- (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Glenn Greenwald" He's my former law partner and I've edited several of his post-law books. I've been copying him on all the text from when that Avenger of the BoN, Arisboch, Hypocrite etc. were behaving like absolute children on the Zionism talk page and reverting every single thing I wrote, over and over.- Mona

And what exactly is Glenn fucking Greenwald going to do? And why should I give a fuck that you're "copying" things to him? Is he going to come here and shake his fucking finger at us? Are you actually trying to intimidate us with "I copied all this to Greenwald"?

Greenwald can personally kiss my ass. --Castaigne (talk) 22:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Glenn Greenwald, if you're reading this: I hereby invite you come over to my humble abode and lick my chocolate salty balls. And then repent to Jesus and/or Madoka and/or Tatsuya onii-sama. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦

^{X-Men! Welcome... TO DIE!!!} 02:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

"Some silly editor "threatened" to reveal the Zionist Overlords Of RationalWiki (ZOOR) to big scary 'journos [sic]' "In the world I hail from, I do network with actual journos -- from Glenn Greenwald, to Max Blumenthal and a number inbetween. You appear unaware that in the world of online journalism, by common convention they are referred to as "journos" all the time. (Teh google, it is your friend.) (I think this slang for jojurnalist may have originated in Australia.) In any event, you have little experience of me, but I am not "threatening" to go to some Joe Schmoe with a WP blog. I am not "threatening" at all. No, I'm telling you I see a bunch of cowards allowing Zionists to prevent publication of anything that doesn't reflect to "how great Israel is." It is that phenomenon happening here, writ small in this small-is pond, but a beautiful example of what goes on writ large elsewhere. The problem is receding in some spaces, but very demonstrably is quite acute at RW. I am observing what happens here and am waiting to see if it dawns on the crowd how significantly they've been manipulated to prevent tinkering with the narrative unacceptable to the Zionists -- even with FACTS. (If this were ANY other cohort, say some doctors who were insisting on protecting their "natural herb" bullshit, this stranglehold would NEVER be allowed.)--Mona- (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

"submitting to their demands -- likely because [...] allowing the truth [...] will casue the Zionist to stamp their feet and call them antisemitic" Actually, I have to correct you on this rather assumptive assertion. There were a few users that actively opposed your edits because they prefer a more pro-Israel slant and a one or two more that joined in because they saw the opportunity for 'trolltastic lulz' (or somesuch). The reason why a rationalist majority didn't jump out of the woodwork to call out the blatant pro-Israel and other bullshit is twofold: 1) the majority of RW users are not active on a super-regular basis and 2) many users are pretty disinterested in long arguments about complicated, divisive issues. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 18:57, 21 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

"There's a good reason people listen to Hawking over kooks like Alex Jones. -EmeraldCityWanderer" Oh, if you mean Stephen Hawking, I certainly do listen to him and have evidence he'd likely agree with me here:Stephen Hawking's boycott hits Israel where it hurts: science From the article: "That the world's most famous scientist had recognised the justice of the Palestinian cause is potentially a turning point for the BDS campaign." You just might want to consider that I know a very great deal about Israel, Palestine and the tactics Zionists deploy to manage Internet content. The Israeli Defense Ministry actually trains people to pretend to be regular people active online and others use email with frequent talking points and operate more informally. This isn't conspiracy theory bullshit -- it's documented in reputable, establishment venues like the NYT and The Guardian.---Mona- (talk) 19:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

To be clear: who, if anyone, are you claiming is on the Israeli ~~shekel~~ dime? Walker Walker Walker 19:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

While we don't need to make presumptive claims about ulterior motives, it's hard to miss that AvengeroftheBoN (likely the pseudonym of 141.30.210.129) and Arisboch have dawdled into rather blatant Israel apologetics/dismissiveness towards Palestinian-related injustices at several instances. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:28, 21 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

Correct. We can add even that I kind of have, though out of ignorance rather than... anything else, really. And as for claimed relation b/w bonbon and bonbonavenger, I plead ignorance (gee, this is an embarrassingly common theme) for this time. Walker Walker Walker 19:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

On Israel's dime? You didn't follow the links, did yoi? These are all volunteers. Many of them Zionist college student' who adhere to the guidelines here (pdf)---Mona- (talk) 19:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I do not seek your pardon, but who, if anyone, are you claiming is part of some organized propaganda machine? Walker Walker Walker 21:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

If she's claiming Arisboch, she's full of shit. I'm not fond of him, but he's no shill. --Castaigne (talk) 22:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

This coop case is ridiculous bullshit and I hate you all for making me think about it[edit]

Is there any reason not to close this now, with a call for more involvement from editors on the Zionism page and talk page? Like any really good Coop case, this is a fucking embarrassment to rational thought itself and an excellent example of why this page is in Category:Turdblossoms - David Gerard (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd amend that to "Is there any good reason not to close this now," and the answer to that is a resounding "NO!" Gooniepunk (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Has anyone made a compelling case for banning Mona or anything to that effect? No. But do we need to shut down the discussion right away? I hope not. I'm optimistic about how this shitfest is concluding. Let's not cut this learning experience short just yet. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:51, 21 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

Perhaps if people stop blankly reverting and actually discuss, that would be a good idea - David Gerard (talk) 20:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

As Talk:Zionism indicates, there's quite a lot of discussion going on. Not that it's going anywhere, because the same PRATTs and red herrings just get repeated ad infinitum. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 20:30, 21 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

None of this would've happened if all of the involved parties accepted Madoka as their Lord and Saviour. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦

^{I reject your reality.} 19:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

... I thought that said Makuta... -.- Walker Walker Walker 19:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Are we going to determine whether Avenger of the BoN and Arisboch are going to be permited to endlessly delete all evidence of the current state of the debate over Israel-Palestine? They want to quash, e.g., claims that Israel practices apartheid, but it is a FACT that the African National Congress, Desmond Tutu, Stephen Hawking, many Pulitzer Prize winnners, elite actors and writers & etc all take that view and have explanations for why. How is this growing phenomenon not relevant to a Zionism article? How is what Israeli officials and mainstream journalists themselves say about comparisons of Israel's brutal occupation of the Palestinians on the one hand, with Nazi occupations of Eastern Europe on the other, not relevant? How are recent historical examinations (some by Israeli historians and journalists) of what Zionists did to Palestinians to remove them from the land not relevant? How is it not relevant that serious-minded, non-fringe people call what Zionist terrorists and military did in 1948 "ethnic cleansing?" (Einstein called it terrorism at the time.) Are Avenger of the Bon and Arisboch going to be permitted to keep all that current reality from the eyes of all who visit this site? I ask that you all confront that question.---Mona- (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

That's something for the talk page, not here (with my moderator hat on I should keep the hell out of the discussion, and Israel/Palestine is something I've managed not to have a public opinion on since the earliest days of the permanent floating flamewar on the subject on Wikipedia a decade or so ago). But having more editors actually bother is probably a useful approach in general and would be the thing to actually solve the generalised version of your question. One problem with RW is that editing is pretty thin (compared to e.g. Wikipedia) - David Gerard (talk) 20:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Somewhat to my surprise I am in agreement with DG. I cannot understand what this is doing in the coop and some of the debate here would be better placed in the talk page. (@Mona - when this discussion is closed it will mot be deleted but will be in the archives of this page.)--Bob ^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 20:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

More to the point I can't make anyone do anything, and it would be a goddamn PITA to escalate it to the point where I could. So this is doing what I can in fact do with the power that doesn't do much. (We could get a consensus of the uninvolved mods to make some sort of "fucking stop it" decision, but that'd be work, and also it's better if people calm the fuck down without big sticks being wielded.) - David Gerard (talk) 20:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so are you saying I can post that question on the Zionism talk page?---Mona- (talk) 20:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure you can. Nobody has to agree with you - I would probably answer it "actually, nobody outside really cares what RW thinks", but that's here - but deleting stuff from talk pages is considered to require pretty bloody extreme circumstances - David Gerard (talk) 20:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

All I ask is that RationalWiki not drive off a new user who actually wants to edit articles. And that someone close this coop, because Jesus Christ what a waste of everyone's time.

Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 20:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: That all moderator hats be replaced with moderator capes[edit]

I think the reasons for this proposal will be apparent: style, style, and style. Walker Walker Walker 20:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I want a Moderator Dr Doom suit, complete with LASERS - David Gerard (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I can't imagine my cape will be in any better state than my hat is unless the wiki is willing to fork over money to buy new capes.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 21:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the goats that be... more thoroughly define what mods do? Elect mods? buy goat wool to knit capes? Walker Walker Walker 21:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I can't imagine a new mod election would be anything less than a Farce and/or travesty given the fact we barely even had an election for the Board, so in no way would i suggest that the goats activate the election signal. Thoroughly defining what a mod does is never going to happen on RW and would necessitate actually holding elections lest we run into the problem the ROC did when it couldn't hold elections for seats on mainland china. As such I would also not recommend the Goats hold a constitutional convention. So I guess the answer is yes, we must buy goat wool to make mod capes (And somehow make a complete Dr. Doom costume for David)--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 21:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

What specifically was the problem/resolution in re China? (just idle curiosity) Walker Walker Walker 00:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

After the civil war ended with the expulsion of the KMT, Taiwan underwent a undemocratic period where it's legislative body was in essence comprised mostly of aging old guys who represented mainland chinese provinces that could not hold ROC elections (and thus could not leave office). This only ended when taiwan underwent it's 1980's democratization period and they started to focus on -Taiwan and the ROC as is- instead of -the ROC as was- --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 00:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah. Thank you. Walker Walker Walker 00:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

RESOLUTION:[edit]

I mean, I can't make you do any of this at this stage, but it would stop pissing off everyone who doesn't care if you did.

Stop edit-warring and blindly reverting and discuss first.
Attempt to stay slightly civil about fucked-up shit you consider seriously important. This is a tricky one.
Driving off the new editor who actually wants to edit stuff in good faith is probably not an optimal strategy for the present or future.
Actually discuss stuff.
The rest of us are not your mothers. If it could conceivably be resolved on the talk page, it should be there and not splattered across the rest of the wiki.
Any actual journalist looking at an RW talk page would go "wtf is this shit, this is sillier than gamergate and less interesting".
Could you please try not to be arseholes? It'd be really nice.

Since we're a mob, let's have a BINDING STRAW POLL! - David Gerard (talk) 20:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

But will Trump pledge to respect the results? I THINK NOT! Walker Walker Walker 21:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Why should he? It's not like he actually cares about the Republican Party. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:25, 21 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

That is true. Walker Walker Walker 05:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes[edit]

I have no skin in this, but I don't see any difference so far in any of the others that spout about conspiracies every time they are the minority opinion on a subject. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
This whole coop is the most disgusting display of RationalWiki behavior I have ever seen (and I've seen plenty over the years). End this now before it inflicts even more damage. Gooniepunk (talk) 20:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Peer pressure FTW. CorruptUser (talk) 20:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I see no point to a coop case right now. Resolve this crap through the usual bickering on the talk page. It may take 6 months to a year to finally consensus, but so what? --Castaigne (talk) 20:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
If the "Yes" vote means "Let's close this page down" them I am for "yes". (As a side note, although this debate is profoundly uninteresting to those not actually prepared to go to war over it, I disagree what it is more uninteresting than Gamergate.)--Bob ^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 21:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Only thing I've even cared about in this discussion is people were edit warring and then threatening to go tattle on a supposed Zionist control of the wiki, so sure why not. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 21:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
As opposed to the people voting yes because "I just want to archive this and erase it from my mind", I'm actually voting yes because I agree with what is proposed above, in the "RESOLUTION:" section. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:31, 21 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
If yes means that this coop case goes away, then affirmative. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 01:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm mostly involved because I'm tired of the subject IRL. And honestly, what journalist is going to care about an argument on a RationalWiki talk page? - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 01:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

No!! I want my opponents TORTURED[edit]

Given this whole operation is a shitfest, I move that we make it more painful than necessary. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 00:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

No!! PUNISH ME MORE[edit]

Yeah, this too FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 00:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
You can always punish me more. ;P Walker Walker Walker 00:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Y'all motherfuckers need Xenu[edit]

This. Whatever this means. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

see here Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, duuh! I'm an OT VIII, bro. We're already wiretapping Gerard via his fridge. You teegeeackians are too much. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

I'm not too optimistic about the chances of this staying out of the coop. Walker Walker Walker 21:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- On the other hand, I really doubt keeping it here will do good. Walker Walker Walker 22:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

What does a "yes" vote mean?[edit]

As of now it appears as if the ayes have it, but what exactly would be the result of the yes vote being the dominant side? I mean, none of the issues at hand are actually addressed. Wild accusations fly left and right on the Talk:Zionism page, the edit warring has ceased for the duration of its protection (though it is anybody's guess how long that is), but I am not sure it will not resume and User:-Mona- has yet to take back her "threat" (which she insists is not a threat, though that seems to be her opinion almost exclusively) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

You stop being so hostile, -mona- stop being so hostile, and we all have tea and biscuits like good British Citizens/American Rebels.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 21:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

But what about people who are neither British nor American? scnr... And I am sorry if my behavior came off as hostile, I guess one thing we can all agree on is that when it comes to Zionism/Israel/Jews passions tend to run high... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Those people should stop beating around the bush and join the great British Commonwealth or the United States of American-Earth--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 22:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Around which Bush precisely? Sorry right now I am just being silly, but you seem to have started it... I hope this does not bother anybody... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

All three really, none of them are that great to be around.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 22:49, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Instructions unclear, cat caught in vote box[edit]

Thr question may as well be "How high does a toaster boil when the moon explodes?" and the answers may be "avocado", "42", and "Kamen Rider Wizard sucks balls". What decision am I voting for or against? Gerard's statement doesn't really contain much of a proposed action. Unless ir's more of a shitpost poll, in which case I vote "Y'all motherfuckers need Xenu", because let's be honest. Y'all motherfuckers need Him. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{THE BURNT TOWER WAS BURNT OFF BY FIRE} 02:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

-Mona- and Blacke[edit]

Apparently -Mona- has created a sockpuppet. All the edits by Blacke have been on Mona's talk page or things supporting Mona. CorruptUser (talk) 00:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

All two edits?!? Whoa, you're right! That settles it! 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:23, 30 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

Four edits, actually (and 3 edits defending against Avenger's accusation). Waiting to see how this develops. CorruptUser (talk) 00:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

This calls for an investigation by the Hardy Boys! ChrisAmiss (talk) 00:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh man, I only just got here and I've already been cooped! I am not Mona. I am not a sock of Mona. Do I even sound like Mona? (I have come and gone from this site by various names over the years, but "Mona" has never been one of them.) Blacke (talk) 00:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Well her/his recent edits at talk:Zionism are currently the only ones defending User:-Mona-'s disruptive walls of text and spammy links. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd say, that it'd take mod-rights or above to check, whether Blacke is really a sock of Mona.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 00:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Well I'd say let us collect further evidence for a couple of days. Who knows, maybe the user in question branches out with their edits. Or (s)he turns out to be a previously banned user who will probably engage in similar behavior as that that led to their first ban / LANCB or whatever the reason for said user supposedly having been here before... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

(PORCA MISERIA edit conflict) That may be also a possibility, since it probably ain't only mikemikev, that is hitting RW with socks.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 00:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Branching out is step 2 in my simple, 12 step plan for world domination. (Mwahahahaha!) Blacke (talk) 00:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

You have no chance against the ZOoRW!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 00:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I thought it was ZOoRW? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Initially not.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 01:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Whatever it is, nobody expects the ZOoR-something! Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Check the IPs, determine if sockpuppetry has been done by traceback. Personally, I don't give a damn if it's just another ally or a sock puppet. --Castaigne (talk) 03:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

There is no checkuser bit here. Technically, the same functionality is possible for those two people with server access, but this is fucking stupid. Walker Walker Walker 03:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Paranoia seems to be rampant. Two users seem to agree with each other and so one is a sock puppet?--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 04:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Mostly created the coop case as a warning. Eh, sorry about that. Feel free to close the case and block me for a few minutes as punishment or whatever. CorruptUser (talk) 04:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll do more than that. Narky Sawtooth

(Nyar?~) 04:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Ka-Thunk!
You've been whacked with a narwhal.

You done goofed.

Such... customizability... I must outdo! Walker Walker Walker 04:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh yeah Narky? Walker Walker Walker 05:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Whoa!
Look at it!

SO MANY OPTIONS!

Jesus on a fucking crutch. CorruptUser really wants rid of me. Surely someone can see what IP address I'm logging in with? That is, if this utter inanity is going to continue.---Mona- (talk) 04:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm going to archive it once I make a completely customizable trout template and whack Narky with it. Walker Walker Walker 04:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

1) No, you just annoy me; this was a warning for you because it looked like an obvious sockpuppet (no one creates an account just to tell a new person how awesome they are.

2) On the subject of headless chickens, am I out of line for calling ChrisAmiss an antisemite? CorruptUser (talk) 05:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

CorruptUser, all I can say, is that you have been exposed as the idiot that you are. Have a nice day! Blacke (talk) 06:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Fuck you CorruptUser. I answered your question already by explaining your sources are incomplete and not precise, as you yourself admit. So answering your question on who suffers the most with regard to hate crimes in Europe is difficult to pinpoint depending on how the data is categorized, while also including immigration rates into consideration. That doesn't make me an antisemite, it means I have a different take of the methodology behind the data in terms of which group suffers the most in hate crimes (which still belongs not to antisemitic hate crimes, but xenophobia and racism/anti-Christian and other religious groups which you have not refuted). And again, if we're only taking hate crimes into consideration, we should also take level of income earned and discrimination by the state to determine who is REALLY seen unfavorably (hint, Jews are actually a pretty successful ethnic group). But nope, if I don't agree with you on the seriousness of antisemitism or Islamophobia (a term Islamists use anytime Islam is criticized), that makes me an antisemite, fucking prick. ChrisAmiss (talk) 06:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the user above. You are not very well informed on Israel-Palestine and the politics of antisemitism. I had to use citations of Benny Morris' work on 1948 to prove to you that there was an intention by Zionists to transfer Palestinians before because you continued to deny it. I've repeatedly included diplomatic cables and Israeli intelligence reports on how the purpose of the blockade was not to stop rocket fire, but punish Palestinians, and yet you continued to ignore this and insisted that the responsibility of the blockade rested on Hamas. I had to cite independent human rights reports to prove to you that most of the casualties in Gaza last year were civilians and that most of the children were not armed, and yet you cited sources on Wikipedia that didn't actually dispute the statistics I raised and only quoted members of the Israel Foreign Ministry. You can complain all you want that you're trying to seek a middle ground, but you actually do rationality a disservice by seeking a false balance that is not supported by the evidence historically and diplomatically. ChrisAmiss (talk) 06:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

What does Israel's foreign policy in 1948 have to do with Antisemitism in Europe today? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 11:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive37

Paravant & Fat Aardvark[edit]

LogicMaster socking as FedTruther to deceive, evade ban[edit]

Vandal Bin 145.64.134.245[edit]

Aye[edit]

Nay[edit]

Goat[edit]

User:FedTruther[edit]

Topic Ban FedTruther from Fed Reserve[edit]

Aye[edit]

Nay[edit]

Meh[edit]

John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt[edit]

Ryulong[edit]

I just blocked Ryulong.[edit]

So for when people wake up[edit]

We needed a new heading for Ryulong apparently[edit]

Ryulong needs another section[edit]

Should we desysop Ryulong? (Resolution: Ryulong renounced sysopship)[edit]

Aye[edit]

Nay[edit]

Goat[edit]

HuskyHarlot[edit]

Talk:Gamergate[edit]

Naqoyqatsi BLP indefinite block[edit]

is this really an argument?[edit]

From the banned tuber[edit]

By the way[edit]

You can only dox people who it's okay to dox[edit]

We're famous![edit]

It keeps happening[edit]

Doxxing - why do we care?[edit]

Raysenn[edit]

Just wondering[edit]

So now, here is a legitimate question, filed under the "avoidance of HCM" category[edit]

Regardless of all this[edit]

Weaseloid[edit]

Oi vey, the goyim know! Shut the wiki down![edit]

-Mona- (talk · contribs · block · rights · rename)[edit]

Somewhat serious proposal[edit]

A suggestion[edit]

So...[edit]

What the fuck happened here?[edit]

This coop case is ridiculous bullshit and I hate you all for making me think about it[edit]

Proposal: That all moderator hats be replaced with moderator capes[edit]

RESOLUTION:[edit]

Yes[edit]

No!! I want my opponents TORTURED[edit]

No!! PUNISH ME MORE[edit]

Y'all motherfuckers need Xenu[edit]

Goat[edit]

What does a "yes" vote mean?[edit]

Instructions unclear, cat caught in vote box[edit]

-Mona- and Blacke[edit]

Navigation menu

Search