RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive93

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 28 August 2019. Please do not make edits to this page.

Nobs' edit warring and libelous material[edit]

Nobs has edit-warred by repeatedly trying to insert his libelous material into the Saloon. I have patiently told him not to do this, but he thinks he can use RW as his libel platform and has not desisted.

List of edits:

  • 20:49, 22 August 2019[1]
  • 21:15, 22 August 2019[2]
  • 22:46, 22 August 2019 [3]
  • 20:08, 23 August 2019[4]
  • 14:16, 24 August 2019[5]

Warnings by me to Nobs directly:[6]

  • 20:51, 22 August 2019: "libeling the person you were impersonating" [Hillary]
  • 21:22, 22 August 2019: "You can't say that libelous bullshit without adding a CREDIBLE source"
  • 23:40, 22 August 2019: "Reference does not confirm your statement, 'slandered and impugned…'; fuck off, stop edit warring"
  • 20:23, 23 August 2019: "reversion of libelous material in the Saloon. Cut this shit out."

Warnings by me in Saloon edit comments:

  • 09:07, 23 August 2019[7] "Removing libelous material again. Do not revert."
  • 20:18, 23 August 2019 [8] "Removing libelous statement AGAIN: stop putting it back!"

The elements of defamation (which covers libel and slander) are: "1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement."[9]

Nobs' original statement: "Cat:Pedo could apply to Hillary for the 1970s case where she slandered and impugned a 12 year old rape victim (and ruined her life) to win a case for a child rapist."[10]

Why Nobs' statement is libelous:

  1. False statements: A) Nobs stated that Category:Pedophiles ("Cat:Pedo") could apply to Hillary Clinton. B) Nobs stated that Hillary "impugned a 12 year old rape victim (and ruined her life)."
  2. Nobs published the communication in the Saloon.
  3. Nobs exhibited negligence: A) Nobs did not initially provide evidence of hist statements. B) When evidence supporting his claims was demanded, he provided a reference that did not support his claims.[11] The reference was Factcheck.org,[12] which did not support either of Nobs' false statements and if anything contradicted Nobs' claims.
  4. Damage: This is obviously damaging to Hillary since the acts that Nobs is accusing Hillary of are particularly odious. It is particularly damaging because much of Hillary's career has been involved with feminist issues, and she herself cofounded a rape crisis center.Arkansas years

Bongolian (talk) 00:45, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Snopes and Factcheck rate nobs idea's as "mostly false", Hillary did indeed represent a rapist and as part of the case did organize testimony from experts that impugned on the victim's claim and secured a favorable plea bargain for her client. Generally the details of this are exaggerated by conservative commentators for political reasons. I can't see why that would justify the category but nobs is nobs .... — Dysk (contribs) 01:15, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
@Dysklyver I mean... We're talking about Hillary Clinton, as a private attorney for the defense. I can buy that she judiciously represented her client up to and including destroying the victim's character. That being said, Rob is still talking out of his ass. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:23, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
She did that? Wow. Fuck her. Oxyaena Harass 01:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
@Oxyaena As scummy as that sounds... It's pretty standard practice in rape cases that make it to trial. That is to say, (like almost all Hillary's controversies) par for the course. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Reporting shows Hillary didn't want the case, tried to get out of it, failed, managed to get the rapist to accept a one-year sentence and had she not presented the defendant's story as he alleged it to be, any subsequent conviction would not hold up on appeal, and she probably would have been disbarred. You can be a lawyer or follow your conscience, not both. If Rob doesn't follow protocol as determined by moderators he should be penalized by a temporary block, say 1-30 days. If he unblocks himself, that would be an abuse of sysop tools. This isn't climate science.Ariel31459 (talk) 02:19, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
The "damage" (Bongolian's note 4 above) is more than just damage to Hilary. Posting such venom and letting it sit there for all to see is damaging to RationalWiki. It paints this site as tolerant of potentially libelous material, wild conjectures, and lowers it to the gutter of the fake news and conspiracy theory sites on the 'net that are critiqued here. This is a serious offense. If this was the first time Rob's pulled this kind of shit I'd say a short term ban was warranted. But this is just another offense in a long series of offenses against RationalWiki. Cosmikdebris (talk) 02:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Irrelevant aside. The notion that people accused of sex crimes against children aren't allowed to have a defense is far creepier than anything Epstein ever did. So is the idea that they aren't allowed to challenge the credibility of their accusations, which amounts to the same thing. Whatever charges anyone may bring against Hillary Clinton, being bad at lawyering isn't one of them. The rest is the usual spin and moral hyperventilation that characterize US politics on all sides. Statements of opinion, which are generally not libel. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 04:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


  1. I was pinged and asked to comment;
  2. I had nothing to do with placing Hillary in Cat:Pedo;
  3. I cited a 1975 case of Hillary defending an alleged pedophile, who was convicted.
  4. I disclaimed everything by responding, If Rationalwiki editors chose to go down the road of placing the Clinton's in Cat:Pedo, it should be disclaimed as "alleged", a position I specifically stated I do not necessarily support - and to clarify - I do not necessarily support inserting either the Epstein or the 1975 material in either Clinton pages, without proper vetting per the guidelines Bongolian cites above;
  5. Bongolian leaves out exculpatory evidence - redacted posting.
  6. Bongolian could have been clearer in his objections. He habitually reverts properly cited information. to wit today.
  7. Bongolian fails to prove any malicious intent. I regret answering in shorthand that is common on talk pages. nobsDie fascists! Make America Great! 03:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
1) Malicious intent is irrelevant to libel, as noted above in the explanation of the elements of defamation. 2) Nobs did not address his own statement above "impugned a 12 year old rape victim (and ruined her life)." 3) Nobs' entire sentence was "Cat:Pedo could apply to Hillary for the 1970s case where she slandered and impugned a 12 year old rape victim (and ruined her life) to win a case for a child rapist.", which would lead a reasonable person to understand that Nobs believed that Hillary supported pedophilia. 4) Nobs' claim regarding the Mueller investigation edits, besides being a red herring is false because I did not revert Nobs' edits that he is claiming that I reverted.[13] Bongolian (talk) 04:15, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Granted on malicious vs negligence. However, you as a Mod could have been clearer who or what you were objecting to. I had no idea you were referring to the testimony of Kathy Shelton, the child rape victim.
Two, "lead a reasonable person to understand that Nobs believed that Hillary supported pedophilia." You're living in dreamland. The context and full paragraph contradicts what you just posted.
Three, overwriting is the same as reverting. On the Talk page, RipCityLiberal said he was writing about the Mueller Report, and nothing else. I cited the Mueller Report. You slandered and defamed Gen. Flynn with non-sense outside the Mueller Report. nobsDie fascists! Make America Great! 04:30, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
It's much harder for a public figure to prove libel than it is the average citizen fyi. Oxyaena Harass 14:19, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
This is not a court of law so we're not bound entirely by legal standards. Being a public figure should not be relevant to our decision: we should be upholding basic standards of discourse. The question is whether people should be allowed to use RW as a forum for unsubstantiated, likely-libelous statements. I think not. If one wanted to go the public figure route though, the legal standard generally includes actual malice (as Nobs implied).[14] One doesn't have to go very far though to find what appears to be actual malice from Nobs, to wit Nobs' authoring of Clinton murder volume on Conservapedia. By Nobsian logic, I was actually trying to protect Nobs from assassination by deleting his comment as per Nobs' loony claim in a previous coop case.[15] Bongolian (talk) 18:14, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
A great deal of our talk page space is dedicated to inane right-wingers writing crappity complaints about us, most of which doesn't really adhere to any standard of discourse. In the meantime most our active users are happy to throw every insult in the book at each other just generally whenever someone stupid appears. It would seem to me that enforcing any cohesive type of talk page decorum would be a major shift in site policy. — Dysk (contribs) 18:41, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────This is not about complaints or insults. This is about libel, which is entirely different, as I noted above in the elements of defamation. Give me an instance where someone else has been allowed to say something libelous about a living, identifiable person on RW. Bongolian (talk) 18:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I suppose in Bongolian's world Kathy Shelton has no right to speak up and present her case - particularly if her video testimony is hosted on the Brietbart or Freee Beacon website. nobsDie fascists! Make America Great! 19:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Lmao if you tried this as defamation in court it would be laughed out. Even that is, if someone like Hillary ever would sue a lowly internet troll, which even nobs admitted was itself a joke in 2017. — Dysk (contribs) 19:40, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Does it actually matter[edit]

Yeah so this might sound weird but does it actually matter if nobs wants to say weird shite on the bar? It's not impinging on RationalWiki's liability since it isn't in an article. If nobs gets sued for libel by the Clintons that would be gleefully amusing and entirely on him and not us. — Dysk (contribs) 12:09, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

If it was just ordinary Nobshite, I wouldn't care. Bongolian (talk) 18:14, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't look much out of the ordinary to me? nobs spends his entire time repeating right-wing talking points concerning US Democrats. — Dysk (contribs) 18:41, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


To clarify, this is the statement from our Legal FAQ page about defamation:

While some of RationalWiki's content is satirical (see RationalWiki:SPOV), defamatory material in articles is unwanted and should be removed. Keep in mind that just because you dislike something does not make it defamatory. Statements of opinion are never defamatory. Only false statements of fact may be defamatory. Truth is always a defense in these cases and content should only be removed if it is objectively false. Obvious cases may be removed by anyone but if your removal is reverted or if you think it might be at all controversial you might consider heading to the talk page to bring it up there and probe the community for consensus. Gaining consensus is the best way to assure the removal of such material by giving concerned editors an opportunity to explain why a particular statement of fact is or is not defamatory.

I would like to also clarify about my motivation for this coop case. My intent was to remove defamatory material from RationalWiki because it is against RationalWiki policy and not create a coop case. Nobs insisted several times on putting it back, as noted above. When he refused despite repeated warnings, I removed his sysop privilege (Sysoprevoke). User:RWRW gave Nobs back his Sysop privilege and advised me to take the case to the coop, as I have done so here.

Because this coop case seems to have devolved into an issue of RationalWiki policy (i.e. Was this defamation? Does defamation matter?), I request that all moderators review the case, voice their opinions if desired, and cast a vote when the time comes (@DuceMoosolini, @LeftyGreenMario, @RoninMacbeth, @RWRW, @Spud). Bongolian (talk) 03:04, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I have been Informed that the complainant la emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing.
Blaming a 12 year old victim. nobsDie fascists! Make America Great! 09:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
I support Nobs in this. Oxyaena Harass 11:19, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't support taking any action here. I wouldn't call what nobs was saying "defamation". Even if it was, he only put it in the Bar. RW is hardly responsible for what people post in the Bar. If anyone is genuinely worried about legal consequences, just stick a note on the Bar header that says RW doesn't endorse anything posted there. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 13:29, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
@DuceMoosolini, You are wrong that RationalWiki is not responsible for what is in the Saloon. If there are threats of violence, doxing, or other such maliciousness are you saying it is just to be left there? Bongolian (talk) 16:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
@Bongolian Actually no, RationalWiki is not responsible for anything nobs is doing per Section 230 so we can safely not worry about it. — Dysk (contribs) 17:59, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── You have yet to prove I posted any False statements. nobsDie fascists! Make America Great! 16:54, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

This is not a court of law, so no. Bongolian (talk) 17:21, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
If the key element of defamation is a False statement, you have no case. Your revert was entirely arbitrary and partisan. nobsDie fascists! Make America Great! 17:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Explain to me why the Mueller investigation has been dragged into this. None of the reporting about Flynn amounts to libel.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Rip: See [16] nobsDie fascists! Make America Great! 18:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

More clarifications[edit]

OK, what are we deciding here?

  1. Did Nobs commit libel in the Saloon?
  2. Do we care whether Nobs commits libel?
  3. If Nobs did commit libel and we don't want RW to turn into a forum for libelous statements, should we remove the statement? RW is legally protected if we remove Nobs entire statement but not edit it if we so desire as per the EFF statement that D cited above.Section 230

Bongolian (talk) 18:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

His examples from my work are facetious and silly. Don't let that enter into any of your decision making.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:49, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Bongiolian is the one who libeled Gen. Flynn with false statements, presumably by negligence. nobsDie fascists! Make America Great! 20:07, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
No he didn't, nothing about Flynn has anything close to libelous.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Bongolian is not the subject here. But he did in fact (a) remove properly cited information, and (b) impugned Flynn as a Russian spy despite the Mueller Report absolving the Trump campaign, transition, and administration from any collusion or conspiracy.
I only brought the subject up because of Bongolian's selective habit of being an apologist for dubious characters and planting potentially libelous material, causing damages, to persons who are not Russian agents. nobsDie fascists! Make America Great! 21:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Your citation was invalid and Mueller didn't absolve the Trump Campaign. Not being able bring criminal proceedings and saying there was no conspiracy is not the same thing. And if you actually read the report you would know that.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:44, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
If you read the report, you could find page 26, which I cited. nobsDie fascists! Make America Great! 22:44, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
I would discount off hand anything Nobs says as fact, but Nobs didn't commit libel, and it's absurd to think that HRC would press charges on such a lowly internet troll. Oxyaena Harass 22:23, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
I think we should just robrail honestly. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 22:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
This motherfucker, I quoted page 26 to you over on Mueller talk page, fuck off.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Nobs isn't threatening anybody or doxxing anybody. I'm also not convinced that he is in any way guilty of libel. I do not support taking action. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 13:40, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


  1. I've seen people discount RationalWiki before who'd otherwise be the type of person to like the wiki, but that's more due to the bygone era when we were more centrist than we are now. Since this was on the Saloon Bar I think there's reason to merit not desysopping Nobs, but RW is a lot more prominent than it used to be, and that requires we enforce our standards more closely than we used to, maybe even getting rid of some old policies. We should leave it as it is for now but come up for protocol for when this happens again. Oxyaena Harass 07:49, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  2. When the clinton body count includes nobs, we'll all be sorry. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
  3. Maybe I just have short attention span but I can't help getting my eyes glazed trying to understand what's going on here. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 18:14, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
    See the "More clarifications" section above. Bongolian (talk) 18:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
  4. Seriously, why are people getting so worked up about nobsie? He's a CP CT crank. Is anyone still surprised that he does this? Just ban him already. This isn't the first coop about him... Tinribmancer (talk) 09:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
    I'm hurt. I thought I presented a pretty rational, straight forward defense, compared to the purely biased, emotionally driven complaint. nobsDie fascists! Make America Great! 15:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
  5. So in my opinion nobs is annoying and pretty much the embodiment of everything this site stands against. That said, I would vote against a ban/sysoprevoke on principle. — Dysk (contribs) 10:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
  6. He's a dancing bear, I don't care if y'all keep him around.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 15:28, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

There is no reason to banish Rob - this case should be dropped[edit]

He hasn't done anything that is contrary to our standards, hasn't abused his rights and only ever made stupid comments which are easily ignored. This Coop case should be archived. Acei9 23:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 00:02, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Also agreed, after just examining the case. RoninMacbeth (talk) 01:54, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Can we archive this crap now then. Acei9 03:49, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Ace is Nobs, you heard it here first ladies and gentleman. Revolverman (talk) 04:54, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Je suis nobs. — Dysk (contribs) 08:51, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Unless someone can make a plausible case that nobs is engaging in libel likely to cause damage to RW (i.e. risking opening the Pandora’s box of litigation against RW), then what exactly is the reason for banishing nobs? Sure he’s a crank, but that’s not necessarily a “banable” offense in and of itself. ScepticWombat (talk) 12:48, 28 August 2019 (UTC)