RationalWiki's 2019 Fundraiser

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

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2020.

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

Donations so far: $2200Goal: $3000

RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive67

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

McLaghing[edit]

Sorry if I don't format this right.

I feel really dirty for what I'm about to do, especially considering Luigi warned me about losing my sysop privileges with pissing contests in the saloon but I have to stick up for myself. Recently I got into an edit war with McLaghing over the Stefan Molyneux page over removing some snark[1]. He had already posted his concerns over on the talk page before we even got into it, but I honestly didn't think a debate would go anywhere. Furthermore ignoring a debate wasn't anything I wasn't already used to, as having been a regular user, I was used to reverting content and even edit wars with sysops. See some of what I had to put with from Ariel31459 on the Christina Hoff Sommers and Jordan Peterson articles, both times edit warring with me[2][3][4] and when it came to the talk page, he recommended I get another mod/sysop to agree with me or he'd continue to revert the changes [5][6][7], eventually blocking the pages so I couldn't edit them[8][9][10][11]. So eventually I did have a debate with McLaghing per Molyneux, or what passed for one anyway. He didn't like what I had to say, and told me, a regular user at the time that he, a sysop, was going to flat out ignore all my replies in the talk page and revert all of my edits no matter what[12]. I responded with some similar choice words for his lack of respect and nothing more was said between us. So there's that.

Later after becoming sysop, I reverted some of his changes on the Basic Income page, feeling they were too shallow and unsourced to be mentioned, even mentioning that on the history page stub[13]. I didn't think it was out of line either considering I'd recently gotten into edit wars with both him and Ariel before. Only thought debates were done if the edit warring got out of control. Just another day at work. Wham, McLaghing immediately goes into damage control mode, notifying two mods on their talk pages, Bongolian[14] and Christopher[15], that I was taking some sort of revenge on him, and we moved to debate (again). Bongolian criticized me for acting rashly on the Basic Income talk page, and at the time I apologized because I felt it looked bad on my record, and I certainly didn't want to make excuses. At the time, I didn't know McLaghing had skipped the chain of command over something so small either.

We had a debate that started out good, but eventually McLaghing tried to pull rank on me, saying that his edits should stay since Christopher, a mod, liked them [16][17] despite Christopher saying earlier than McLaghing should be open to contributions from all users[18], and eventually he stopped responding to my points, going back to our bad blood over Molyneux[19]. It wasn't just me either in this debate either, ScepticWombat and another user named Gospatric contributed to what points of actual substance should be included. Gospatric had issues with some of McLaghing's changes[20], but McLaghing reverted them anyway[21] without warning and ignoring our issues with his arguments[22]. So as the debate idea had failed and he stopped responding on the talk page for what I was thought was long enough to think that this had sort of settled down and the "debate" was over (again), I thought, okay, guess that's over, it's open season again. I deleted some of his points I felt were too weak to warrant inclusion that I didn't feel he had sufficiently argued for (and I thought this would be justified since I also had support from Gospatric earlier in the thread) and I even deleted a large chunk of content about Utah's homeless I had previously written[23][24], a section I might add that I alone had fiddled with him and nobody else even touched [25][26][27][28][29][30] feeling it was too wordy and confusing. Thought I was doing a favor with that last one, since I felt sooner or later somebody would take issue with how bad it was, and I didn't want to be implicated as the lousy writer of piss poor content. That's what a responsible sysop should do right? I was later planning on looking over the MIT econcomist's blog ScepticWombat recommended me[31][32] and seeing what could be added as criticism of the advantages section, to truly balance out the article.

Again McLaghing cries wolf, and immediately runs back to the two above mods in addition to LeftyGreenMario this time, that I'm reverting his edits without warning while ignoring how inconclusive our debate was, even implicating me as a vandal for deleting the chunk of content I was in fact the original author of, and generally trying to slander me to the brass without even using the coop[33][34][35]. Right now, I don't even care about losing my sysop privileges anymore. This guy is out of control and if this kind of tattle-tail bullshit is what's accepted as normal when someone feels even the little bit slighted, I'm done.

I wouldn't even have resorted to using the coop because apparently it's a last resort, usually it doesn't even accomplish anything, but reporting me directly to the mods over deleting unsourced chump change content and especially my own content that I felt was redundant wordy garbage as if the latter somehow proves I'm a vandal, while never acknowledging his own lack of decorum, is slimy as hell. Adding insult to injury is that he reported me at the drop of a hat, not once but twice. I'd like to think it'll all end here as Christopher has let the community decide on a vote whose Basic Income version should stay[36], but considering the lengths McLaghing has gone to get his way over the most quibbling of details, I don't know that. I don't want him giving anyone else grief. As well, Ariel has advised him on his talk page when facing difficulties, instead of edit war, just revert edits every now and then, and nobody will notice[37][38]. Letting McLaghing slide for what is arguably akin to using the coop to drag someone's name through the dirt puts forth a poor standard, and dare I say it, Ariel's sketchy “advice” implicates him too by extension but I think I might be getting ahead of myself with that one. I'm not sure what action I would recommend for McLaghing's punishment, but I still think something should be done because whining to the mods that I'm a vandal and out to get him so he can have his way when he is nothing if not guilty of the same behavior is absolutely reprehensible. James Earl Cash (talk) 04:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Besides, McLaghing (on whose talk page I have put the coop notice), I would like to here from all users mentioned above who care to comment: @Christopher, @Gospatric, @ScepticWombat, @LeftyGreenMario, and @Ariel31459. I don't have too strong an opinion at this time other than 1) edit warring sucks and 2) if one doesn't have a quality reference to back up what one wrote, then one should accept the reversion and stop trying to force what amounts to your one's own opinion. Bongolian (talk) 04:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


After reading the extremely long "report" of James Earl Cash, I still have no idea of what I am accused. Is contacting the moderators against the rules of RW? I do not think so. Rather, I think that it is recommended. Regarding "responding to James Earl Cash", everybody can see on the Talk Page of Basic income that I have answered one by one to each of James Earl Cash's points, until the conversation escalated and then I stopped. Regarding Molyneux, I did not answered to James Earl Cash's points and stopped the conversation simple because he did not answered first to my motivations, both in the fossil record and in the Talk Page of Stefan Molyneux. I have already spent a lot of time on those pages without concluding anything, so that I have lost any interest in continuing debating on those edits. Probably, I will take a break from RW or I will look to other pages. Unless some other concerns are raised by the moderators, I do not have anything else to say on this matter. -McLaghing (talk) 07:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

You admit you stopped. That's it, right there. You stopped the debate, but you still cry wolf whenever I go ahead and make an edit. That's not working things out, that's you trying to get your way.
EDIT: It's not even the running to the mods that's grinds my gears, it's that you try and pull rank whenever you don't get your way. I revert one of your edits the one time because we got testy in a debate? Shit, I must be out to get you. I have an issue with your points? Well Christopher liked them so they're okay, even though he asked you to consider others' viewpoints, mod status be damned. I make an edit after our debate goes south? oh noes, he's a vandal, he's trying to make things his way even though I think appealing to the mods' opinions makes me right!!!!11oneoneeleven
Didn't CowHouse warn you not to block other sysops and you said you did it because you didn't want him reverting your edits? This behavior here is exactly the same kind of tomfoolery, you're just being way more of an ass about it.

James Earl Cash (talk) 04:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring is not a coop case. Neither is askimg mods for help. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

It qualifies when it gets to this level. 𝔖𝔭𝔯𝔦𝔤𝔤𝔦𝔫𝔞 (𝔱𝔞𝔩𝔨) (𝔠𝔬𝔫𝔱𝔯𝔦𝔟𝔲𝔱𝔦𝔬𝔫𝔰) @ 14:49, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
its hardly that bad and could just as easily be resolved on the relevant talk pages before we need another coop debacle. a vote of some sort there would have sufficed. i beleive christopher was in the process of doing just that. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, McLaghing's only "crime" is being kind of a dick. Unfortunately, we don't (or at least shouldn't) ban people for that. I think we should just follow the Basic Income vote, and tell McLaghing and James Earl Cash to knock it off. RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

seconded, though i wouldnt if go as far to mclaghing is or has been dickish. you folk are far too thin skinned. if we must do this here JEC is as at least as culpable as mclaghing AMassiveGay (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Hence the "kind of" part. Move to archive? RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I was dragged into this recently although I have been keeping up as best I can, I don’t see any coopable offendes, just general dickishness from McLaghing and rookie mistakes from James. I’ll archive soon unless discussion properly starts or anyone objects. Christopher (talk) 17:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I support archiving at this point. A reminder to all: including good references in substantial edits can help to avoid edit wars. Bongolian (talk) 19:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I do not believe this problem, that of bad style, can be treated rationally on talk pages. There is no accounting for taste.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I suppose my issue is that on the Basic Income page, he immediately took it as a personal offense when I first made an edit and reported me to the mods based on that alone. Like I said, I'm sorry for having wasted anyone's time here, but he accuses me of trying to make things his way, when even after debate fails in the talk pages and I made an edit, he still runs to the mods for support. This isn't diplomacy or debate to find the best way of doing things, this is him trying to divert the page to his way because he can't handle people disagreeing with him. Look at the Stefan Molyneux talk page. He literally admitted that as a sysop, he's going to revert all my edits and ignore any points I bring up in debate. His behavior on the Basic Income page where he stops responding to my points on the talk page and immediately makes another big deal as soon as I make an edit the main page is the same. Far from me trying to start something with him, he's engaging in his own little witch hunt. If he can try and shut me up by crying wolf whenever he wants, and that seems to be the case here, then yeah, that's a problem.
EDIT: I'm not even going to try and deny that I've edit warred. The other parties have too, so I have no I have no problem with their obstinancy, obnoxious thought it may be. Didn't think it would be different this time either. I think I even once saw Fuzzy edit war with Ariel and a few others on the Jordan Peterson article over some snark. However I take serious issue to someone trying to make me look like an asshole to the mods of all people, multiple times as a matter of fact, over one single stupid edit each time, whenever I take issue with the smallest thing he does, and especially because he tries to deliberately Shanghai the debate his way. James Earl Cash (talk) 04:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Some more general advice to anyone who wants to listen. 1) Take a deep breath. 2) Say to yourself, "It's only a Wiki." 3) Ask yourself, "Is this worth getting in an edit war over, or do I have better things to do?" 4) If you decide to do more edits, then go to step 5: 5) Add quality content with quality references. No one will think the worse of you for it. Bongolian (talk) 06:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Merkel[edit]

User:Merkel is a neo-Nazi who administrates Rightpedia as A Wyatt Man. Recently, that wiki has started to defame and harass RationalWiki sysops and editors by writing smear articles in our real names, myself included. Merkel's contributions are almost exclusively based around Rightpedia, as well as attacking me by spreading falsehoods and defending neo-Nazis Michael Coombs and Eleonóra Dubiczki; he filed a fake Coop that was quickly deleted. I would link to the Rightpedia smear article on me, but it is giving them traffic, so won't bother.ODS (talk) 12:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

According to ODS, his family have been attacked and doxxed on Rightpedia by Merkel and Mikemikev. Shouldn't Merkel be blocked? Debunking spiritualism (talk) 12:08, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
The Rightpedia smear article on me, doxes my parents house. And these same Rightpedia editors including Merkel are going around attacking my family on other websites and blogs. Another admin Rightpedia (Michael Coombs) has recently bragged he is going after the families of RationalWiki sysops and openly admits Rightpedia is creating libellous hit-piece articles.ODS (talk) 12:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
And what pray tell, do you expect us to do about it? we cannot control other sites (despite some conspiracy theorists views to the contrary) and you have offered no proof that Merkel is a Rightpedia user, let alone one of their admins. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Agreed there is nothing RW can do about it, but there is evidence that Merkel is associated with Rightpedia. He only turns up to complain when someone edits the Rightpedia RW page. He wanted the Dubiczki article deleted and the Mikemikev one, he doesn't want coverage of Rightpedia on RW and works hard to close criticism of Rightpedia down on RW. According to his edit history he was worried that Nick Lowles wanted to complain about Rightpedia, so he tried to blame the defamatory Rightpedia article about Lowles on a Metapedia admin. Another interesting fact according to Merkel's editing history. When he was told that Rightpedia's registrant details were public on the whois database. The next day they were hidden and protected. He is clearly associated with Rightpedia, his editing history reflects that. But you are right no solid proof unless he comes out in the open and admits it. Debunking spiritualism (talk) 12:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Plenty of proof already presented Merkel is A Wyatt Man on his talk page; would pass a duck test on Wikipedia based on behavioural evidence... Furthermore, a Wyatt Man/Merkel is the only person to call me "Atlantid" - a name I used on Metapedia. A Wyatt Man is a former Metapedia sysop, like myself. My history with these Nazis goes back 5-6 years when I clashed with them on Metapedia and debated them on race. I don't believe in their racialist pseudoscience and since I debated them (and won), that's why they hate me so much to this day.ODS (talk) 12:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
ODS, aren't you the antifa guy who infiltrated Metapedia and got it closed down once, and the same guy who shut down Rightpedia twice? Debunking spiritualism (talk) 12:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't say I "infiltrated" Metapedia; I wasn't there for that long, and mostly stuck to editing a single article on population genetics/race. All the other crackpot stuff on the Nazi wiki I never touched, nor had any interest in. I quickly realised the place was pseudoscience, that's why I left to instead edit the racialism article on RationalWiki; in fact I was already editing the latter, when on Metapedia in 2012. And the same year I tried to edit similar articles on Conservapedia etc., no success there like Metapedia. As for closing Metapedia/Rightpedia - I sent complaints in when these sites began attacking me; this resulted in a host (Orain I think) terminating Rightpedia in 2015. If these Nazi morons just deleted their libel about me and stopped doxing my parents to intimidate me, I wouldn't bother and would just leave them alone. ODS (talk) 13:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Um, this isn't a coop case. I move to close. Boredatwork (talk) 13:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
I second the motion. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, best to close this convo. Debunking spiritualism (talk) 14:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Requesting ban for Abd ul-Rahman Lomax[edit]

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax has been socking on hundreds of accounts and proxy IPs recently causing disruption on multiple pages. He claims he will leave this website alone if a coop is opened and he is 'officially' banned by the community. He also boasts about this on his blog and requests a coop to be banned as he says he has only been 'blocked'.

Abd was blocked for doxing users and disruption in 2017. On his website "Cold Fusion Community" he hosts the dox of Rationalwiki and Wikipedia editors, including house addresses, real names that have not been disclosed and other private information. Some of his targets include myself (only recently since I edited his article), Joshua P. Schroeder (infamous Wikipedia user), a rationalwiki user ODS, David Gerard of RW fame, and a Wikipedia admin JzG. He writes thousands of words about these people. I will not link to his blog directly as it contains dox.

I will give an example of Abd's internet tactics. If you run an internet search on one his targets like Joshua Schroeder you will see that Abd's hit-piece blog is a number two for this person's name. Abd likes to abuse Google traffic results for peoples real life name's. Joshua Schroeder was public about his name on Wikipedia and publicly mentioned this so this is not doxing, but he legally changed part of his name last year. Abd doxxed this guys new name and where he works, including his address on his blog. I will not link to that, but this is the sort of thing Abd does. He has done the same to ODS and several other people, linking to their real life names, where they live or who their relatives are etc. He digs for peoples real names and private details. He does not respect peoples privacy. He claims he does it for "identification" purposes, but this is a bullshit excuse.

I collected Abd's socks on his talk-page. There are too many including many accounts so I am not collecting them anymore. He has given up creating accounts, he now uses proxies.

Proxies (most of these talk in third person or claim to be an 'ally' of Abd, they are clearly him based on behavioural evidence:

  • [39]
  • [40]
  • [41]
  • [42]
  • [43]
  • [44]
  • [45]
  • [46]
  • [47] (Finally admits to being Abd, in the same range as other 159 proxies)
  • [48] (IP hopping within minutes, as his proxies get blocked)
  • [49] (In this edit, [50] admits to being Abd, says he can use 20,000 more proxies to troll)
  • [51] (Same 159 proxy range, back to talking in third person)

Recent disruption on proxies [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58]

On most of the above IPs he has been leaving messages on CheeseburgerFace's talk-page. Abd in his latest edits claims "If I'm banned, where is the cooping?") [59].

On his blog he admits the proxies were his, but claims only 5 sock accounts were his. He says the rest were 'impersonations' to make him look bad. The sock accounts he claims are his are the Real deal, Authentic, Full disclosure, Open honesty. He denies the rest are his but I do not believe this. On his blog he claims that me and readymade are the same person which is laughable and that I and another Rationalwiki user ODS have been creating sock-puppets to frame him. These allegations are complete nonsense. It is a clever ploy Abd is using to spread misinformation, his agenda is to try and get back on RW as a syop.

Abd was blocked on Wikiversity for disruption and harassing users. He was recently globally banned by the Wikimedia Foundation. Less than 30 people have ever been banned by the WMF, so Abd did something very serious that put users safety at risk. The details are kept private but it obvious from his online behaviour he was doxing and harrasing users. There is also evidence to suggest Abd has been impersonating other users. Kujilia an Abd sock, is actually an editor on Wikipedia that Abd has a grudge against. A month earlier Abd had filed an abusive check-user request against this user which was denied by a check-user steward.

I started this coop so people can vote if they want to ban Abd or not. As I understand it he has already been blocked, but he is requesting a ban. No doubt Abd will turn up here on hundreds of proxy IPs claiming he has been impersonated and framed by skeptics. He also a tendency to write thousands and thousands of words and drain out anyone else's opinion by bolding his own text or trying to get the last word in. I personally wouldn't let him comment here but leave this vote for other users. But whatever. Debunking spiritualism (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm one of the people Abd doxes and smears on his blog. He's also emailed me harassing message. So of course I support his ban if that is now made official.ODS (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
He’s already banned, blocked and banned are synonymous on RationalWiki. However, if a coop case making it more official can get him to fuck off, I vote yes. Christopher (talk) 17:49, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Effs sake yes, the demented poltroon thinks he's hard done by because there wasn't a vote. I vote yes, infinite block, and my brother does too. WilderBicycle 18:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
ABD was permabanned for making legal threats against RW. No coop case was or is necessary. End of story. I call to archive it now. Bongolian (talk) 18:30, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Abd says on his blog that being blocked and banned is different on RW and that he has only be 'blocked' and for a ban a coop is required. He was obviously lying or misinformed. I myself didn't know either. He said he would stop socking if the community agreed to ban him but judging from his recent socking that was a lie as well. Best to move this to the archive. I apologise for creating it. Debunking spiritualism (talk) 18:34, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Abd speaks for Abd[edit]

The coop request lies or is deceptive about Abd and the situation. If Abd is not permitted to participate here, he will not be likely to respect the result.

Yes, there are IP edits that could be Abd, but there are also many impersonation edits (IP and named accounts) that were not. These edits pretend to advance his position, but actually are designed to torpedo it. Much of his editing by those IPs was to point out the impersonations.

Abd would use IP since every acknowledged account was immediately blocked, without disruption, as if he were banned. He did not request a cooping, he only pointed out that there was no cooping, neither for his desysop nor for the block, and both are not legitimate if not cooped.

The easy way to permit Abd to edit here is to unblock him, on the condition that he only edit the coop, or otherwise as allowed by the unblocking sysop. That would immediately stop the alleged disruption pending resolution.

However, this cooping would also properly consider the behavior of DS and ODS, which has been "interesting" if you love drama. These two are both identified as long-term abusers on WMF wikis, and have obvious clear long-term socking here, in abundance, including recently, and with impersonation socks that have been acknowledged (one is easy to show). That they are the infamous brothers Lomax has documented elsewhere has been acknowledged here by ODS. More evidence will be provided on request.

I will verify that this edit is Abd. See [60] in a few minutes. Meanwhile, if this edit is removed, I request any RW user to revert it to allow at least this much participation by me. --167.99.92.37 (talk) 18:01, 11 March 2018 (UTC)