RationalWiki's 2020 Fundraiser

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

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

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

Donations so far: $1680Goal: $3500

RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Not to be confused with the Chicken coop.
Information icon.svg Moderator noticeboard
Welcome BoN
Use this talk page to contact the mods and report behavioral problems.
The RationalWiki moderators are:

Ace McWickedBongolianRWRWScream!!Spud

Archives for this page
Moderator.jpg

Requesting input on CS interpretation

Okay, I'll just keep this short. As a part of RW:BLOCK, we forbid bigoted material being posted on the wiki, which warrants a block. To this end, I've attempted earlier today to clean up three Saloon threads because two BONs inserted blockable crap as threads (a Comicsgate website and a Ludwig von Mises Institute article that goes "racism doesn't exist, but hating on men does") and the third one being a Steven Crowder video on how Trump deserves a Noble Peace Prize. I'm not here to ask about that last one, given it was duplicitous anyway. Rather, Hastur appears to have restored the other two, saying "if I don't like it, just ignore it". What I am in effect asking here is that in the event that we block someone for posting bigoted crap, is it okay to then also remove the bigoted crap. Sirius (dog star) 19:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I would argue that this particular BoN's posts don't meet the standard of what is block/removal worthy. If we can't handle a link to the Ludwig von Mises institute, we have a problem--Hastur! (talk) 20:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. — Godless Raven SDAPOe logo.svg talkstalkwalkbalk 🌹 Flag of Europe.svg 20:21, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
I am content with just placing the troll posts in a nice {{collapse}} block. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 21:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
I disagree with the use of the collapse template. I think its use ought to be discouraged--Hastur! (talk) 21:16, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, there is an excessive use with the collapse template. It should be used conservatively and, instead, it's used all the time. — Godless Raven SDAPOe logo.svg talkstalkwalkbalk 🌹 Flag of Europe.svg 23:28, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
We shouldn't be seen as giving a platform to people who say, "racism doesn't exist but hating on men does". That definitely should have been collapsed. Don't worry about using the collapse template too much. If crap needs to be collapsed, collapse it. Spud (talk) 00:12, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Or don't be so stubborn and just revert it. Oxyaena Harass 00:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Or literally don't revert or remove it because the talk page policy states you may only remove "obviously vile trolling" and "spam". Brx is right. In fact, nearly everything brx has said for months is right. What the fuck. Nutty Roux (talk) 03:38, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Yeah fuck man, what the fuck? Brx has gone from that vile bastard who shits on your lawn during their morning jog to a valued voice. It just shows how low some people have dragged this site when Brx becomes reasonable. AceModerator 04:04, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
It's not my fault your lawn is so poorly maintained it looks like a gas station toilet--Hastur! (talk) 04:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
My God...next thing you know Satan will sin the Nobel Peace Prize!!! ShabiDOO 05:26, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
I protected the Saloon Bar for 9 hours. I don't mind him spamming us a few times a week but clearly this troll must have gotten a particularly mean wedgie from the boys at school today, and feels the need to compensate for his insecurities extra hard. --Hastur! (talk) 05:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Oh, so that's who Hastur is. I had wondered. Spud (talk) 05:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
That's Brx alright. Funny he used to be such an annoyance but now I kinda like him. AceModerator 07:20, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
You could also just clean up the shit on the floor, instead of letting it sit there and fester. Oxyaena Harass 02:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Oxyaena already being hostile/aggressive after getting sysop back. Hopefully the people who voted to give her sysop back will rein her in (sarcasm: they won't and they don't care). — Godless Raven SDAPOe logo.svg talkstalkwalkbalk 🌹 Flag of Europe.svg 02:57, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't see how that's aggressive or hostile, but okay. It's just blunt, but, anyways, as always: Troll. Oxyaena Harass 03:21, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Editwarring on the Leo Gura page

It's happening between two sysops (Machina and HairlessCat), and it has been going on for days now. Request input by the mods. — Godless Raven SDAPOe logo.svg talkstalkwalkbalk 🌹 Flag of Europe.svg 00:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree. We've already discussed on the talk page how it needs to be edited to be less verbose and that being a justified measure for change (I said I would edit it tomorrow). Although, I suspect Machina's changes are indeed more ideological in nature and not related to the prose at all, which'd be why Machina's not waiting a tad. HairlessCat (talk) 00:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
OK - I have protected the page as it is now. Hash it out on the talkpage please. AceModerator 01:18, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
@Machina You might want to respond to this here. Bongolian (talk) 01:22, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

The additions I removed were more about legitimizing woo or crank ideas, so they weren't relevant to the topic. It's not important what drugs he took or what he felt as a result, especially since the only evidence for any of his claims is personal experience from drug use. The segment on the incompleteness theorems seems like a bid to led Leo's interpretation credibility even though the article linked mentions that such an interpretation is incorrect (in that case why include it). The study linked for psychedelics increasing rebellion is not what the study says at all. If it were Deepak I would slightly understand since he is a big name who literally influences far more than Leo. But that page rightly calls him out for what he is. The edits on the Leo page seem like they were either written by Leo or some apologist to give him some credibility when all he has is personal experience for his woo. The edits I took out were irrelevant to the whole topic, if others BESIDES Hairless feel that this is in error I will side with that judgment, especially if it's the mods. Otherwise I see no reason to admit I was wrong. I mean even the callout on the talk page shows Hairless is too close to the subject matter to give a clear view of it.Machina (talk) 02:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

A person having a mental breakdown that stops them from believing in woo is pretty important, and the Godel quote is actually meant to show where he is mistaken on that matter. This isn't a conspiracy to whitewash the page. I'll fix the prose evening ETC. On the sixteenth of September once things cool down. HairlessCat (talk) 14:42, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Request for IP suppression in Edits

I mistakenly edited a page without logging in properly and left my IP on a page. Is it possible to delete it?--Nessundorma (talk) 03:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but I think you are making it worse by notifying us. Otherwise it would just be a random IP editing a certain page and that be it. Unless there is a significant privacy risk, I don't think the mods or techs will heed your request, though. — Godless Raven SDAPOe logo.svg talkstalkwalkbalk 🌹 Flag of Europe.svg 03:10, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Easy fix. Just post the edit and we can make it like it never existed. Or email it if you want to take an extra measure of privacy--Hastur! (talk) 03:17, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, if you really want it removed, it's best to email the IP address to a moderator to make it less obvious, but if for some reason someone is watching recent edits, they might be able to figure it out anyway. Don't forget the Streisand effect. Bongolian (talk) 03:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Raven

I request an interaction ban, he's going out of his way to troll me and, as per the terms of my probation, am requesting moderator assistance because I feel I can't handle this in a civil manner. Oxyaena Harass 05:13, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

It would help if you didn't try to troll him--Hastur! (talk) 05:15, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Troll Oxyaena Harass 05:18, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Not a mod, but Hastur, that doesn't really constitute "trolling." Oxy is trying to abide by the terms of her probation. Grow up, please. RoninMacbeth (talk) 05:21, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Why did you remove this?. Anyways, de-escalation is one thing, but it's really the least we can ask of you to not try and needle Raven and then get offended when he responds in kind--Hastur! (talk) 05:22, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
I asked why you egg Raven on, you said "because it amuses me." You're no better than him. Get off your high horse please. You're actively hindering efforts to deescalate things. Oxyaena Harass 05:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
I offer my observations. I derive amusement from all sorts of discourse. Adding commentary to your interactions with Godless Raven is much like adding commentary to WIGO:CP--Hastur! (talk) 05:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Grow up. Your "observations" only serve to inflame tensions even further. Oxyaena Harass 05:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Oxy, please try to just ignore Raven. I know your terms of probation are to inform mods instead of taking action yourself but please try to ignore Raven. Do not engage with him. That should be your first action to take rather than running straight to a mod. As a mod, and I don’t think I’ll be alone in this, I’d rather watch you be the bigger woman and walk away. AceModerator 07:49, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
To be clear, @Ace McWicked, Oxy attacked me first. Check Hastur's link. — Godless Raven SDAPOe logo.svg talkstalkwalkbalk 🌹 Flag of Europe.svg 07:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
I don’t give a fucking shit who fucking attacked who. Raven, just fucking ignore and refuse to engage Oxy. Oxy, stay the fuck away from Raven. Jesus fucking Christ - this is like moderating my 6 year old daughter. At least she understands enough to stay away from the kids that are mean to her. What’s your fucking excuse? AceModerator 08:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Yeah, bothsiding this won't help. Treating the reactor the same way you treat the instigator is a bit smoothbrained. but eh, sure, I'll stay "away" from Oxy. Don't forget that she is on probation, not me. — Godless Raven SDAPOe logo.svg talkstalkwalkbalk 🌹 Flag of Europe.svg 09:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Raven, for awhile there I was totally on your side. But no longer. Stop. AceModerator 09:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
I would like to see a solution that ends this endless fighting/cooping/pleading-for-rights-restoration. I don't think I'm the only one who's quite tired of it. If the solution is a stay-away agreement that both parties agree to, that's great. Otherwise, I would support whatever it takes: permanent sysoprevoke for one or both parties, or permaban. Bongolian (talk) 16:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't think that's necessary, the whole reason I came here was because of me abiding by the terms of my probation. Oxyaena Harass 16:24, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Then why did you remove it, @Oxyaena? [1] This was part of the probation that you were supposed to undergo. @Bongolian The permaban was rejected by the mob in the last coop. If you want, you can start a coop to sysoprevoke me, but that would be quite funny because I didn't abuse my sysop tools to sysoprevoke me in the first place (unlike Oxy, who, according to Nutty's stats, has systemically abused it). — Godless Raven SDAPOe logo.svg talkstalkwalkbalk 🌹 Flag of Europe.svg 17:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
@Ace McWicked Oxyaena Harass 17:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
I just want to point out that my recommendation of adding it to her profile page was just that, a recommendation so both she and the mods wouldn't forget. It wasn't ever added to the sanctions, so she's technically not required to do it since it's not a part of her sanctions (can't say why she'd remove it tho...). Anyway, GR, please stop stirring shit just because you don't like Oxy, or else you could be looking at an interaction ban, because you're just stirring shit up to get her angry. Hell, even Ace told you to stop doing this on your talkpage and here we are again on what I'm pretty sure is just the same subject. Cut it out. Sirius (dog star) 17:46, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Crow, nobody asked you. Shut up. — Godless Raven SDAPOe logo.svg talkstalkwalkbalk 🌹 Flag of Europe.svg 18:12, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Crow is right. Just because nobody asked doesn’t mean crow can’t have an opinion. Raven, you’re burning any good will you had. Move on, fucking end it. AceModerator 18:15, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Raven. Stop. Leave Oxy alone. Do something else. Jerk smack, go for a walk, whatever else you want to do - you’re not making friends here. Just stay the fuck away from Oxy. Oxy, please do the same. AceModerator 17:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Yes, the permaban was rejected before, but given the frequent history of you two appearing in the coop, there's a reasonable likelihood that you're both going to burn all the good will you had to reinstate you. I'm not planning to coop either of you. I'm just saying that you two should stop causing shit shows for your own good. Bongolian (talk) 18:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I`m merely abiding by my probation terms. Oxyaena Harass 18:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Oh I really like that term "jerk smack". Urban dictionary has an extremely descriptive definition of the term. It's quiet evocative and I dare say even poetic. ShabiDOO 19:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Urban dictionary is wrong. To jerk smack means to shoot up heroin. AceModerator 19:49, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Interaction ban that goes both ways would be acceptable to me. It'd be better if GR and Oxy would do it voluntarily without involving the mob. My respect for the first of the two to stop responding to the other ones provocations will increase exponentially. CoigreachAnnoySpySilence 19:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
I do think that you could've handled this better Ace. Perhaps a polite request to GR to stay away from Oxy, followed by a request that Oxy also do the same with GR would've gone down better? I can see Oxy's point, and I fail to see why she needs to stay the fuck away from GR. Kiko4564 (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Ace doesn't do politeness really well. But other than that he did exactly what you asked there. CoigreachAnnoySpySilence 21:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
@Kiko4564 If I was impolite it is only because this has been going on for ages. AceModerator 00:14, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Yeah fuck this burning trashfire. lol — Godless Raven SDAPOe logo.svg talkstalkwalkbalk 🌹 Flag of Europe.svg 02:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Another day, another 'retirement'. Bongolian (talk) 02:20, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

We should start up a scoreboard for the most fake retirements. Maybe we can even offer a free t-shirt for whoever has the record by 2025!ShabiDOO 04:44, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
I’m proud to say in my 12 years at RW I’ve never pulled a LANCB. AceModerator 05:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Well if you're interested in experimenting a few of us could harass the shit out of you until you LANCB! Limited time offer. Just say the word :) ShabiDOO 07:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
That wouldn’t work on me - I can give it back twice as hard and secondly I’m adept at ignoring it. AceModerator 07:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Really? Even if I call you a big stinky doe-head? ShabiDOO 09:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Suggested prizes for most number of LANCBs
  • First Prize: permaban (wish granted)
  • Second Prize: sysoprevoke for life (next best thing)
  • Third Prize: 1 week block (longer than you have probably ever LANCBed)
  • Participation Prize: free joke block, chosen by a committee of never-LANCBers
Bongolian (talk) 07:19, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
I'd say those prizes are generous. Are you personally funding them out of your own wallet Bongolian? ShabiDOO 09:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, LANCB is now a cliche in my opinion. It should be LAMCB (Leave And Maybe Come Back), as that would actually mean something. Thanks for your politeness, and civility when dealing with Oxy, Ace. Kiko4564 (talk) 10:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
SABWBBTW is maybe more accurate (Storming Away But Will Be Back This Week) ShabiDOO 11:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Request to inconvenience an ip range

Particularly there's a persistent ip address in Saloon Bar with string 2001:8003:59DB:4100 that's spamming right wing links. Can we get a 1-week range block to inconvenience it? I prefer this over a page protection. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 07:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't have an objection per se, but it would simpler to put a 1-week protection on the Saloon since that would not require a vote. Bongolian (talk) 07:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
I've seen an ip and a relative new user use that page, so I'm a bit hesitant barring them. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 07:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
A vote is required? That seems absurd to me. Kiko4564 (talk) 10:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
I would vote in favor of a short range-block, if I can be assured a range block won't blot out a whole city or something--Hastur! (talk) 10:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
I would vote Aye too, but I'm not an eligible voter. Kiko4564 (talk) 10:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

2001:8003::/32 seems to be the range. I note it has been blocked before. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 21:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

If a range block is unacceptable, what about using the edit filter to limiting this range's edits to once a day?--Hastur! (talk) 21:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
This works too; just do anything that can limit the ease of sharing links. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 01:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
How about the vandal bin for this IP range? That way it will be limited to editing once every so often. I know this isn't normal, but this is an IP range, not just a single BoN. Kiko4564 (talk) 19:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
We never vandal bin IPs. People in the bin stay there indefinitely until someone cares to remove them. Too easy to accidentally leave IPs in there forever, which can impact innocent people. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 19:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, that is a bad idea. I've striked out most my above comment, as those arguments are clearly invalid. Kiko4564 (talk) 22:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Was I ever banned from this wiki?

See the discussion here.

To make a long story short: one admin "D" started blocking my accounts as well as blocking many accounts I don't own (incorrectly tagging them under my name) after I confronted them about their behaviour and harassment a year back. As far as I'm aware there was no consensus to actually ban me from RationalWiki (or if there was it was manipulated by "D"), secondly, the ban doesn't work because I add valuable content on new accounts (I've been editing on Flight for 10 days and have already made three articles) and come back and do the same thing on a new account — when I feel there is an important page that needs to be added to this wiki — like the Spiteful mutant hypothesis. If someone wants to take a look at what the harassment I confronted "D" about looks like (that has been going on now for over a year) they can see here ("D"s Reddit account is virtually dedicated to libel):

Furthermore, the claim that Smith is mostly retired is contradicted by the many hundreds of accounts he's created on RationalWiki. Around 80 accounts a year since 2013. I don't necessarily have a feud with Oliver Smith beyond the fact he's a nationalist, anti-natalist, XXXXXXXXX, serial doxxer, cyber-harrasser, XXXXXXXXX etc. It would be truly difficult to imagine how I would even start character assassinating such an obnoxious person, he does it himself by simply existing.

Needless to say none of these defamatory claims are true but I've had to deal with this crazy person run across the internet for the past year calling me everything from a paedophile, child abuser, child rapist, transphobe, psychopath, fascist, nationalist or far-right extremist on not only Reddit, but Discord, wiki-related forums and allegedly in emails where they are libelling me to others. Note "D" is not even consistent with the lies they post about me, for example they claimed on Reddit I created 80 accounts a year since 2013 (560 accounts) yet contradict themselves on a recent talk page claiming I own approximately 150. What happened to the other 400 accounts? Flight (talk) 12:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

For clarification I've owned around three dozen accounts since 2012. Claims of hundreds of accounts, 150 or 560 are a wild exaggeration.Flight (talk) 12:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Contrary to the quick closure done by @D, I want to point out that there has been no due process for Smith. Rather, Smith appears to have been speedily banned after he filed AfDs for pages he created, after admitting he'd gotten into legal trouble with some idiots and he didn't want RW to get into trouble. Dysk seems to then have gone and banned him outside of the mob, which in accordance with basic CS rules meant it had to be raised and voted on by the mob to get Smith permanently banned. While it was raised in ATIM, there was never any consensus reached on getting Smith banned. As a result, I feel that Smith does not currently preside under the rules that would constitute a permanent block, and it would be desirable for the mob to consider doing that vote now, because as is, there is no grounds to block Smith or any of his alts. Furthermore, I also call into question the competence of @D, who in this link appears to have admitted to using the Edit Filter as an outright alternative to CheckUser (tech rights technically allow for this, yes I need to bother David over this and yes I've been lazy in doing that), which is a fairly blatant abuse of rights given our rules surrounding the fact that we don't use CU and using AbuseFilter as a way around this is scummy as fuck.
Finally, @Bongolian there is no need to block out "XXXXXXXXX" and "XXXXXXXXX" here. These are words Dysk said on that subreddit. I've undone the suppression of those edits.
Because I was not specifically involved in whatever incident originally led to Smith getting his ass kicked (from what I know, not many a tear was shed over his departure), I will personally refrain from voting for this, but we have to respect basic procedure here. Sirius (dog star) 17:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
who in this link appears to have admitted to using the Edit Filter as an outright alternative to CheckUser I've long thought this was the case. In which case - anyone using the edit filter to check IP's should have tech rights removed immediately. I suspect Oxy used this feature too. AceModerator 20:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
I do not like Smith, and will openly state that I would vote to ban him if it came to that. However, it is better to go through the proper procedures, lest a mistake allow him and his drama to remain. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Icon fedora.svg * dons Mod Hat *Icon fedora.svg
The citation that was given by does not contain that text. It is indeed potentially libelous, as we don't know with absolute — just reasonable — certainty that this is the same Smith person. Reinstating the text is inadvisable, to say the least, because I hid the edits that showed it. Bongolian (talk) 18:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
It does contain that text. In fact, it's a literal cite (the only change is the removal of a newline, which might just have been the result from copy and pasting) from /u/Dysklyver (which is rather obviously Dysks' reddit handle). I would argue that we can say with enough absolute certainity that this is the same Smith, given that this user is arguing that he shouldn't be blocked, and his arguments are based on the assumption that he is Smith (which combined with his spiel on Duce's talkpage would indicate that he is Smith), which would be really weird if he wasn't actually Smith. Anyway, to prevent wheel warring, I won't bother to undo these suppressions. Sirius (dog star) 19:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
From what I have seen Dysklyver was originally on friendly terms with Smith. Dysklyver then became a close friend of Abd Lomax (who is banned here) and Lomax turned Dysklyver against Smith. On Reddit there has been a Dysklyver/Abd war against Smith and vise versa going on for over a year. They create countless petty threads against each other with accusations of sock-puppetry. Dysklyver has tech rights and he can see the IP address/s of created accounts on here. D has got a list of IP addresses from RationalWiki accounts which he claims match to Smith's geographical location (he's admitted this in a Reddit post) so he can apparently identify Smith by private IP data. Abd has repeatedly published private IP data on his website accusing Smith of owning hundreds of sock-puppets on this website. This is obviously a privacy violation. Mikemikev also has a history of impersonating Smith and he is also somehow involved in this drama.
Abd is a prolific sock-puppeteer himself, and globally banned from Wikipedia for doxing users. I don't trust any of his data. Dysklyver/Smith are both good editors. The real issue here is Abd Lomax, he appears to have a heavy influence over Dysklyver and responsible for the Dysklyver/Smith drama. BTW I am somehow loosely connected to this 'drama' by Lomax who still accuses me of being Smith and posts about 1 million essays on his website about my account, however unlike other users he has accused of being Smith I have never engaged any of his nonsense off this website. I don't care what people write, but private IP data thing is out of order. Abd is untrustworthy and should not be given private IP data or logs from this website. The man is a menace. Johns (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Johns Neither myself nor Smith are good editors, what the fuck are you talking about? Abd Lomax is half gone after covid, two strokes and a heart attack, you can write him off good as dead. Not that anyone was planning to send him obviously private IP-Data, except for you apparently. — Dysk (contribs) 21:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Abd boasted a couple times a while back that he has technical data proving who owns many rational-wiki accounts but he can't publish on his website for obvious reasons. As you are a friend of his I was thinking it might have come from you maybe even accidentally. But who knows. I don't believe Abd about many things but I do believe he has seen some private ip data from this website. He wanted to use the IP data in his amended lawsuit complaint but it was dismissed. Johns (talk) 23:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Should we hold a full vote to confirm the ban?

Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 18:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

No. Oliver Smith was permabanned. If Smith wants to appeal that ban, that was entirely the wrong way to go about it. If he thinks he was unjustly banned, he should:
  1. Take any off-wiki disputes with D or anyone else elsewhere, and not bring them up here.
  2. Confess to all of his puppet accounts and list them out: they were all ban evasions.
  3. Give a full explanation of why he thinks he was unjustly banned, including thorough citations.
Bongolian (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Oliver Smith was not permabanned in accordance with our CS. He was blocked outside of our regular procedures by Dysk and aftewards there was no vote on him getting blocked, just some amount of yes-nodding and the closest to a consensus was a private agreement between Oxy and RWRW. Sirius (dog star) 19:20, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
The community standards weren't as rigorously enforced back then, RW was a different place. Oxyaena Harass 19:32, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
For anyone wondering, this 'agreement' between myself and Oxy is referenced to here. It was something like 18 months ago so I can't remember the conversation, but I don't deny that it probably happened. I don't think there was ever a formal vote to ban Smith so in a sense Crow is right about that, in a sense he's just been considered 'de-facto' banned. --RWRW (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
What was the first Smith account that was banned? I thought it was much older than 18 months ago. David Gerard banned an account years ago for impersonating Smith (it was Mikemikev according to him). Bongolian (talk) 19:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Earliest Smith account that I've found was User:Krom, which was abandoned in 2015. I can't find any Smith account that was permabanned before February 2019 by Dysk (though I could be mistaken, he's had so many different accounts that it isn't easy to keep on top). @D might know if there was any more. --RWRW (talk) 20:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
D can see IP addresses on here for accounts so I am not sure how that works in regard to privacy, it can't really "work" because it is a violation of privacy. Can he check old edits and logs and get IP data from accounts created years ago? On most wikis CU data goes to about 6 months at the most, but I am guessing this is different. Johns (talk) 22:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Techs can only see IPs of users who proc the filter, which from what I know doesn't have expiring logs. (And yes this needs to be fixed.) I can't say for certain right now, in part because I obviously can't publicly spell out our anti spam tools (would be circumventable), whether or not any Techs have made lasting filters that would log every edit/account creation. Sirius (dog star) 22:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
I believe it has been misused and there is a privacy violation. Dysk has admitted to collecting private IP data on Smith's RationalWiki accounts. Various private data and logs were sent to Abd Lomax (Lomax is a mod on Dysk/EK's discord). How do we know other private data is not being leaked off this website? Johns (talk) 22:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
We need to hide IP's even from techs. AceModerator 23:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
There are untrue claims by Dysk I use VPNs or TOR. I've never used one or tried to conceal my home IP-address here or anywhere else and anyone who can check IPs will see I'm not using a VPN now. Also note if you go back years I used to edit here publicly on my home-IP. That wouldn't make any sense if I was a VPN/TOR user trying to hide it. As for listing incorrect reasons for why I was banned - I did that on another page and this has been mentioned above by The Crow - the block was outside of regular procedures by Dysk/EK/Ox on Discord. The account they banned was Tobias in May 2019 based on false allegations I doxed EK who Dysk has claimed is their sister. I never did dox, but linked to EK's public Wikipedia blocked account. According though to EK/Dysk the fact I posted a Wikipedia url is "malicious doxxing". I suggest mods who can look through striked (deleted) content see my edits. To summarise I was banned for no valid reason whatsoever. All the other accounts of mine Dysk has blocked such as Krom came after Tobias.Flight (talk) 23:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Are we burying the lede here? People have been using edit filter to gain IP Address information? This is about as anti-RW as it gets and you lot are just going to gloss over that? 203.54.149.190 (talk) 00:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I am with the BoN here. RW has been strictly and stridently opposed to IP checking since it's inception. Anyone doing so should be kick-banned immediately with prejudice. AceModerator 00:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Well it is too late now, it's been going on for about six months or so, maybe longer. I know this issue has been raised several times before on here but no action was taken. I have only just realized how bad this is. The geezers who run this website need to be informed. Johns (talk) 01:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I believe that we went over this issue before, separately with both D and Oxy, who both denied that it took place. If anyone has any evidence to the contrary, let's have it. Bongolian (talk) 01:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I looked through the edit filters. I don’t see anything that looks like a pseudo-checkuser. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 01:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
OK - cool. I'll take your word for it. AceModerator 02:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
D has admitted to using filter IP data to ban a number of alleged Smith accounts. I've seen the filters, and though I haven't gone through the log data to confirm any blocked IP addresses appear there, I'm not sure why I'd doubt his claim. Nutty Roux (talk) 02:29, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Mhm let's see;

- I blocked a lot of accounts and IP addresses as sockpuppets of Smith over a year or so following the doxing incidents. The vast majority of these were admitted accounts, with a few blocks based on obvious behavioural similarities.
- While at the time of blocking the relevant accounts I was unaware of the fact IP addresses were visible I later discovered this by accident, and mostly out of curiosity, used this feature to check the IP-Data on several accounts I'd blocked in the past.
- The IP-Data appears to remain recorded forever, I looked at some random edit filter events from the distant past and the IP-Data is still there.
- I considered this for a while to be a potentially useful stand-in for checkuser, although I never used it at such as it was unnecessary to do so, somewhat difficult to use, plus I felt that was likely to be not appreciated by others (despite not being technically against the rules).
- I later used the fact I'd seen several items of IP-Data, to tell Smith to fuck off and stop lying on Reddit during an argument. Smith's reaction was as if I had access to a Checkuser equivalent tool, and in the absence of any documentation explaining how limited this feature is, I encouraged that thought to wind him up.
- Despite John's claims, Abd has never seen any IP-Data, isn't a mod on any relevant Discord, and no IP-Data from this site has ever been externally recorded. Indeed except on a few occasions nobody has bothered to even look at it.
- While Oxyaena was a Tech here she became aware of the method to access IP-Data, and used it to check the IPs of Morris accounts to an unknown extent, I never asked for details on this.
- In some attempt to fix this edit filter loophole, I posted on David's talk page nearly four months on 18th June asking for this to be fixed, it has not been fixed at time of writing, IP-Data is visible to any Tech that wants to see it, although I haven't personally bothered for many months.
- Some months ago, when I'm not sure exactly, I discussed this on Discord and it was agreed to be a major site security flaw. Although only those with shell access can fix it, me and Ze later closed many edit filters to the bare minimum to avoid users tripping them unnecessarily. For example no Autoconfirmed, Autopatrolled, or Sysop flagged user will trip a filter.
- I have discussed the IP-Data concerns on Discord with numerous users, including The Crow, Nutty, Oxyaena, in addition to informing David who replied to my comment about it 4 months ago and is aware of the issue.

I believe this covers the main points of discussion, if I missed anything let me know, I'll reply when I get back here at a later date. — Dysk (contribs) 06:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I fucking knew Oxy was IP checking. I knew she was lying. AceModerator 06:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) I see that you raised such concerns around the same time that you admitted to checking IPs. I'll admit, I'm conflicted about all of this. On the one hand you're competent as a tech and seem to have a genuine interest in improving the site. However, abusing the trust of the community to see other users' IP addresses is a serious issue. I shall await to hear further arguments before throwing in any sort of judgement. It would help if you could 1. explain your relation to Abd and 2. explain why you've been banned by Wikipedia et al. Some may see this as irrelevant offsite drama but personally I feel that the more knowledge we have the better we'll be able to make decisions.--Hastur! (talk) 06:56, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
@Hastur Abd is a friend, I was banned from Wikipedia for trolling the admin pages. — Dysk (contribs) 21:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
It would be useful for @David Gerard confirm this information to the extant that he can, and to hear his opinion if he cares to give it. Bongolian (talk) 07:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I have no idea about any of this and haven't even verified that the edit filter method of IP checking works - David Gerard (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I never checked shit, you're all basing this off hearsay by Dysk. I never checked IPs, I don't even know how to for Christ's sake. Fuck you, @Ace McWicked. Oxyaena Harass 07:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Why are you angry at me? I'm going by Dysk. Be mad at him. AceModerator 07:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Okay so since I spend some amount of time yesterday looking at filters to see if there are any "strange" ones that might have the goal of blocking users randomly, I feel like I can step in here to point out a few things.
  • Oxy became aware of this while being a tech, by learning about it from Ze, who apparently learned it from you, who claimed at the time that you "showed me but its not that easy to use", although I cannot verify whether she figured it specifically how to do it. Unfortunately, whether or not she used it to check Morris' IP addresses, I am not sure (I will add that she vehemently rejects doing it, but also see my last bullet). The unfortunate part is that if you have access to the Filter, you have access to the IPs (again can and should be blocked). There is no rights elevation or anything needed to see this at the moment. I can at least ensure the following things:
  • There have not been any blanket filters designed to catch literally everyone, no matter what for more than 60 minutes. Some have existed, but looking at history and how they ended up, these appear more of a case of hitting submit too soon rather than deliberate right abuses. Basically, don't assume malice to that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
  • There are no logs for looking at filter logs themselves, which I suppose makes sense, but it means we cannot audit if someone looked at IPs by looking at the filter log.
  • There are a few strange filters, one of which appears to still be active today, which simply tag users with a specific tag, but don't do much else, which appears weird at first but on second thought appears to be based around the obsessions of certain users. To be clear, most of that filter appears to be fairly generic "this is likely vandalism" stuff, it's just that there are a couple of words which appear to be designed to catch certain types of blocked users, some of whom are related to the case at hand.
  • Did Dysk conclusively access user IPs? Well, I'll leave that up to the rest of the mob to decide. The filters history is mostly circumstantial evidence, I'll freely admit. On Reddit, he claimed that he did. Here, he claims that he didn't. I can't find any conclusive logs that he did. That said, being in a position where you can access this stuff, it usually is a bad idea to claim you did, so it's best to not go around parading that you accessed any users' IP, which arguably Dysk violated. YMMV.
Hope this answers some of the questions that a lot of people appear to be having. Sirius (dog star) 07:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
@D the discord I am talking about is called "The Treehouse" (also known as the Wikipediocracy discord) which you and ZE invited Abd to and made him a mod on. The original discord was made for banned Wikipedia editors or critics of that said website but it has since branched out for general discussions. Abd wrote in regard to yourself and this discord "I was invited to join the Wikipediocracy Discord, and that is where I was given mod status. Nice people!" (you can Google search this quote from Abd to find it as I don't wanna link to his hack website). In this discord server there a place called "The Smithery" you created, where ZE, yourself and your friend Abd do "researches" into Smith and his alleged RationalWiki accounts. I don't think we should deny these facts. Anyone can log in there and verify these things. Johns (talk) 18:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
@Johns I'd like to see evidence of what you wrote about this "Treehouse" if you don't mind, I don't recollect it, could be the LSD... — Dysk (contribs) 21:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── No I don't think we should hold a full vote. I wouldn't support a ban if I could vote, I can't as I'm new here, but I don't think we need a coop either. This isn't a case of HCM, this is a case of someone allegedly called Smith (a banned user) allegedly returning under a new identity to allegedly evade his ban, and avoid scrutiny. We just need a summary investigation of this allegation, and appropriate action taken. If this guy is Smith, he is a banned user, and he is returning to evade his ban, then we just need appropriate action taken. Otherwise no further action is necessary. As Bongolian claims to be sure that this guy is Smith, I would say that he can go ahead and take action himself, providing that he is sure i.e. satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that this guy is Smith, and that he is evading a ban. Kiko4564 (talk) 19:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

That guy claimed he was Smith. I have no other evidence. Bongolian (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Why not just proceed to ban him on that evidence alone? I don't see why we need any more. Kiko4564 (talk) 17:50, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Checkuser/IP checking

Dysk has said he used it and Oxy used it. Oxy denied it however we have this exchange where Oxy was very vague about it. Plus Oxy's frequent blocks of Morris as ban evasion which she did on multiple occasions. It doesn't look good. AceModerator 07:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't see what's "vague" about it, I was grasping at straws there. I never used checkuser. Oxyaena Harass 08:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I’m not talking about checkuser - I’m asking about using the edit filters to match IP’s which a) can be done b) you alluded to during an exchange and c) Dysk claims you have used it. AceModerator 08:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I never used it. I lied about using it. LGM saw that clearly. Oxyaena Harass 08:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
So it’s possible, you knew it was possible, said you had used then said you lied about it, now Dysk says you have used. A lot of conflicting claims and circumstances...this filter needs to be closed at once and I don’t think Oxy, Dysk or EK should be techs again. AceModerator 08:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
@Spud, @RWRW, @Bongolian - some more mod input would be good here. I think we need these edit filters closed and new techs appointed. It just ain’t good enough as it stands. AceModerator 08:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it looks almost certain that Dysk and Ze know how to use the edit filter to view IPs. I'll say that Oxy's version is difficult to believe given that Dysk claims she knew how to do it and she herself once said she knew how to do it. To his credit Dysk did inform David, but this is many months after these IP checking accusations started floating around.
Crow's post above mentions that a suspicious edit filter is still active, it seems to have no useful purpose and should be closed right away. --RWRW (talk) 10:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Man, I’ve been poking around this issue for a whole fucking year. It’s the whole reason I came back because something didn’t seem right. AceModerator 10:29, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── It's not possible to access the edit filter details page without seeing the IP it's on the same page and you need to check the details page to check for false positives. The problem isn't that techs see the IP address as every tech who worked on the edit filter will have done that, the problem is whether that information was used to identify who owned various vandal accounts, or whether that's a conspiracy theory started by Dysk and Oxy playing troll games with Smith and Morris. Also new techs won't change anything because the information is still there and peeps will still see it. As for closing the edit filters, I can if you want but you will have to deal with the 15k spam bots posting ads everywhere. — Z 09:28, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

So when Oxy (Or any other tech) says they don’t know how to view IPs that is incorrect and they see them as a matter of course? It’s what you do with the info - I.e IP matching - that is the issue? And what do you mean about a conspiracy re: troll games? I’m just trying to understand how this works. AceModerator 09:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
The only way to not see the IP address is to not visit the details page, which would imply not bothering to check if the filter is working or not. A tech could avoid seeing the IP address if they weren't doing anything new with the edit filter tho because then they don't have to check.
What I mean by troll games is that Dysk has always said his reddit posts are just to annoy people so aren't necessarily accurate imo, meanwhile oxy openly admitted above to lying in her comments about the edit filter and morris so that's probably not accurate either
the vast majority of the time troll accounts don't trip the filter so imho it's not actually possible to use it as a checkuser type tool anyway and anyone claiming they have is vastly exaggerating what they can do with it. I've used checkuser on other wikis and it gives a lot more information including browser and device and cross referencing with other accounts by IP and metadata and without that you cant do anything useful. An IP address on its own is basically useless, so unless someone collected a lot of them, which would need a broad filter we dont have, there is no checkuser like capability.
the IP addresses shouldn't be visible tho this needs to be fixed asap and the fact it's been brought up several times before and nothing happened is cringe. — Z 10:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Right - what I’m trying to establish is in what way tech rights can be abused given we have techs guilty of rights abuse in the past (Oxy is one of these - she has been put in sysoprevoke for such issues). Yes - this IP issue needs cleaning up immediately and I think Oxy and Dysk should never hold those positions again. AceModerator 10:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
My point is that nobody has abused the tech rights in relation to this. One of the root users at some point granted techs the ability to see private IP data, but no techs have collected or published it so the point is moot. If the point is that seeing the IP data is abuse then the blame lies with the root user who enabled it (probably trent) not with the techs doing their appointed task subsequently. — Z 10:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
OK, well I’ll be careful around accusations of abuse - I just wanted to know if it could be abused. And it has annoyed me that subsequent techs (in particular Oxy) have been very... murky and vague, when asked direct questions. AceModerator 10:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I think there is the potential for the tech access to IP addresses to be abused and at various points Dysk and Oxy did intend to use it as a checkuser but this didn't happen mostly because it doesn't give enough information to be useful. The lack of information on the filter is mostly because nobody talks about it openly as people would read it and circumvent it if they knew exactly how it worked. — Z 10:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Well, if Dysk and Oxy discussed using it in this manner then they would have been actively tried to subvert one of RW strongest codes of ethics. If true - it’s no fucking joke... AceModerator 10:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Is there any evidence you can provide that Dysk and Oxy discussed using an edit filter or something similar to create a checkuser type of ability? AceModerator 10:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Yes I can prove it, Dysk posted it on this page even:

I considered this for a while to be a potentially useful stand-in for checkuser, although I never used it at such as it was unnecessary to do so, somewhat difficult to use, plus I felt that was likely to be not appreciated by others (despite not being technically against the rules).

In this post. — Z 11:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

And Oxy? You said at various points - you mean away from the community eye I take it and without the communities knowledge? I’m finally putting some pieces of a puzzle together that I started putting together a year ago - this is why I am interested. I may be brusque, drunk, swear all the time but I have RWs rich history and traditions at heart - and IP matching/checkuser/anonymity is a huge deal. AceModerator 11:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I have uploaded File:FilterDetailView.png and File:FilterLogView.png for clarity. I recognize that this is a conversation that a lot of non-techs will be looking into, and as a result they might not be aware on how the interface looks (for reference, clicking details in the LogView image sends you to the DetailView image in the actual interface, and examine lets you run other filters against certain edits for testing). I've censored as much identifying information as possible to prevent this from getting tied back to any user in particular (the only visible thing is the specific filter they triggered, which uh... this is one of our public filters although it got disabled earlier today). One thing not really visible here is that you can filter the Log view specific to the user on whom an action was taken, on what page they attempted something and what filter might have been triggered. I hope this helps clarify a thing or two for any non-techs poking in. I've marked relevant information to this situation with a red background. Before anyone jumps my gun, I used a BON edit for this example, so y'all don't have to be scared I'm looking at your IPs or whatever. Sirius (dog star) 11:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
OK - as it stand I think @Oxyaena and @D have to answer some questions here. AceModerator 11:28, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
There are Discord channels with combined nearly 3 million posts dedicated to this site that you never really got involved in. All the existing mods and techs hang out on Discord and routinely talk about the site, even new techs like Crow are heavy discord users. So if you define the community as just the wiki then yes 90% or more of the decisions and talk are happening elsewhere. — Z 11:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I joined Discord a few months back because I heard rumours about what was being said behind closed doors. This has always happened in one form or another of course but it seems Discord had a shadow “steering committee”. So I joined. Note for the community - I have talked about this issue, the techs and IP matching in Discord, and have strenuously advised that all discussion about this be made on wiki for the sake of transparency. AceModerator 11:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
You joined the support chat and maybe the old main chat(?) there are multiple channels that you aren't on where as much or more disscussion happens. — Z 11:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Well, shit man. I can’t be every where at once. Either way - my position is the same - all RW business should be discussed here. You wanna bitch about a user on Discord? Go for it. But policy reminds on RW always. AceModerator 11:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Anyway - midnight here and I have work tomorrow. I’m sure there’ll be plenty for me to read tomorrow. AceModerator 11:59, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I was interested in it and thought it may be worthwhile, I wasn't aware such a thing was that big of a deal. I never actually went through with it however. Oxyaena Harass 13:28, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
So what I've said is still true. Oxyaena Harass 13:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Oxy, you're full of shit - I don't think you should ever hold tech again and this will be the reason. Can someone, anyone, actually address getting the edit filter fixed? @Ze, @David Gerard, @Spud. Fucking anyone? AceModerator 21:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
That's the thing, isn't it? You don't know for sure, there's no hard proof one way or the other. Don't be so hard to reach for conclusions when there is no hard evidence available. Oxyaena Harass 23:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
What we do know for sure is that you lie. AceModerator 08:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
What’s ironic is that you used say you blocked for ban evasion which I thought was based on some kind of basic checkuser but you said it was by picking up patterns of behaviour. Now it’s your own patterns of behaviour which cause people to not trust you regarding the use of extensions to fashion a rudimentary checkuser. AceModerator 08:41, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Only root users can change the site configuration to hide the IP address details, @The Crow is more knowledgeable on the subject than me, he could perhaps assist David with the required changes. — Dysk (contribs) 21:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Look, I don't think Oxy should have her tech rights back. Certainly not any time soon. But that isn't even being discussed right now...or wouldn't be at least if Ace hadn't brought it up. Tech is a special user right that only few people have here (someone who knows, feel free to provide the actual number of people who are techs). I voted to give Oxy the sysop back, because we give sysop to basically everyone who isn't serious trouble. Hell, even an asshole like Nobs has a mop. I understand that Oxy got hers taken away because she was seriously abusing it, but she has demonstrated more decency recently and thus got it returned.
But Tech rights are, as I said, a very special user right. And I don't think Oxy needs one to feel equal to the rest of us. CoigreachAnnoySpySilence 23:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Sorry to be late to this. I had a very early night last night because I haven't been feeling well. I can't disable the edit filter because I don't know anything about that technical stuff. All I can really say is that I share Ace's concerns. And it still looks to me like the best thing to do is disable the edit filter and appoint all new techs. Spud (talk) 00:13, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Are techs an elected position? Maybe they should be, but I'm under the impression that basically anyone can become one if they meet the requirements (knowing how to code and what not). We need a certain minimum number of techs anyhow. Removing tech rights from Dysk and Ze should be resolved in the coop. As far as I understand, none of the other current techs are at the moment under suspicion of abusing the edit filter as an improvised checkuser. CoigreachAnnoySpySilence 00:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
No techs are not an elected position. And yes, they should be. But yeah, you're right. Removing tech rights from D and Ze should solve this. Spud (talk) 00:31, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
They're a partially elected position, but Dysk and Ze were both grandfathered in under the old non-rules (aka "promoted cuz another mod/tech liked you, and nothing else"). To be a tech, you just need a mod/tech/operations manager to say "yeah, you're competent" and then win a simple majority vote from the community. There's no term limit. This got updated in the CS recently. Sirius (dog star) 08:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay so I don’t really know what this edit filter thing is but I’m very concerned bc I’m pretty serious about my privacy and shit. Does this mean anyone who is tech can see my IP, or only if I make some type of “Filtered” edit??? And would I know if I had made such an edit? If so, how? Should I use a VPN to edit from now on? And finally, I would like to ask that if any tech has seen my IP for ANY reason, please let me know. I know it might sound paranoid but I’ve put a lot of info about myself here and there and I’d rather nobody is able to connect those dots. Thanks. DAMN that's FUNNY B R O 00:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, sorry I went to bed yesterday right as this exploded it seems. Okay, so fixing this is pretty easy. @David Gerard all you need to do is go to LocalSettings.php on the server, find the line that looks like this: $wgGroupPermissions['tech']['abusefilter-privatedetails'] = true; and change the true to false. This would prevent techs from accessing "private details" (reference my screenshot up above, "private details" is just the "Originating IP" field, so no other data ends up being lost over this that techs could need for testing the Edit Filters). Sirius (dog star) 08:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Crow - you have been a big help here. And so nearly ends a year long campaign (of sorts) of mine. AceModerator 08:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Dysk has been repeatedly making claims like this across Reddit and other websites:

I can see the IP addresses Smith used on RationalWiki due to the fact I'm a tech there. Every single IP on a Smith account that I checked going back to 2016 or so was a VPN.

Smith routinely uses VPNs to the extent that he has on occasion used multiple ranges from different countries on the same day. It's a pointless waste of time to even try and block IP addresses he uses.

I've posted evidence of what I said here on previous occasions. I can clearly see the IP addresses Smith used on his accounts don't match his public IP address he used separately without an account. Furthermore, Smith has been recently editing RationalWiki using different IP addresses, for example on the Emil Kirkegaard article. So obviously you are lying.

These are comments he posted on Reddit and there's dozens of similar posts he made. The allegation I use VPNs and have used VPNs from different countries is completely false and he's lying. I've never used a VPN here and I've even edited as my public IP on numerous occasions - so it makes no sense I would try to mask my real IP when I've publicly posted on my IP for years and never tried to conceal it. But Dysk was feeding lies I use VPNs to Emil Kirkegaard who shows up in that thread and that is who he was responding to.

Anyway, my complaint is Dysk has been claiming and even boasting he IP-checks people's data and passes this on to other people including Emil Kirkegaard - shouldn't he be Cooped? In my opinion he has broken multiple rules. Take also into account the fact I exposed all this a year ago which is one of the reasons why Dysk and Ze teamed up to ban me without any vote or correct procedure - since I had raised these concerns about IPs a long time ago.Flight (talk) 21:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

With this new information in light, Dysk should be immediately banned from RationalWiki for violation of privacy. I have started a coop case. [2] Johns (talk) 21:45, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I disagree, we should have a vote on the matter. That said I would still vote Aye, but I can't vote as I'm not an eligible voter. Kiko4564 (talk) 22:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

The page I created was deleted

@Jeh2ow deleted the page I created:

(Deletion log) 11:25, 15 September 2020 Jeh2ow (talk | contribs) deleted page Draft:Very fine people Hoax (Hopelessly off-mission: Extremely false)

It doesn't seem to me that the rules about deletion were followed, and anyway I dispute the deletion. I have a partial backup of the page, missing the last section.

Also, I cannot write in the Saloon Bar anymore, I don't know if it is related to this matter.Pam (talk) 12:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Pam Even if Trump never said that Nazis were fine people (which he did, mind you), this still is a hopelessly off-mission topic and isn't really helpful to RationalWiki. I just had to deal with a regressive leftist who compared Stephen Fry to Osama bin Laden, and I need a break to focus on my classwork. Don't even think about restoring this page.Jeh2ow Damn son! 13:19, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
@Pam Saloon Bar was protected by LGM yesterday due to excessive spamming. Only Autoconfirmed users can edit for the next few days. Apologies for the inconvenience. CoigreachAnnoySpySilence 13:31, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
User doesn't have sysop or any other rights, so they can't recreate the page. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 13:33, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
@Jeh2ow Trump did not say that Nazis were fine people. The page you deleted had a detailed analysis proving so, by showing the video and transcript of the conference. But of course it is impossible to have a discussion about that if you literally delete the arguments of one interlocutor. What you had to deal with Stephen Fry and your classwork is unrelated and you should not bring it to this thread.
Anyway, there are rules about pages deletion and I think there have not been respected. Also, I should be allowed to dispute a deletion by showing to other users and moderators the actual content of the page, while now I cannot. Pam (talk) 14:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
The article makes a fair point about something the media has gotten wrong for obvious reasons, and frankly I think it's at least as tangentially missional as stuff people have gotten in big fights over here, but it will likely stay deleted for reasons. Nutty Roux (talk) 14:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
The material in the deleted draft warrants no more than a brief mention in Donald Trump or Rhetoric of Donald Trump, and certainly not a standalone article. As written, the draft made partisan, contentious and controversial statements. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 15:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
@Nutty Roux@Cosmikdebris How can you see the deleted page? Is there some backup on RW? I ask because I cannot see how any discussion about the deletion of the page can be done if people cannot see the page that was deleted.
@Nutty Roux What reasons?
@Cosmikdebris What "partisan, contentious and controversial statements" did I make? Quote some of them.Pam (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
@Pam Sysops can check "deleted user contributions". Even suppressed contributions can be seen by mods or techs. CoigreachAnnoySpySilence 15:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Pam, everyone but you can see the page because they're sysops. Cosmikdebris' assertion is it contained partisan, contentious, and controversial statements. No point in arguing with facts or asking him to demonstrate his claims because you're a new user and he's not. Nutty Roux (talk) 15:54, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
All right, so at least sysops can see the deleted page.
@Nutty Roux I know Cosmikdebris' assertion is that the page contained partisan, contentious, and controversial statements, why are you repeating that to me? I asked Cosmikdebris to quote statements that she/he believe to be "partisan, contentious, and controversial statements". I doubt new users cannot ask to argue with facts. Also, you did not answered my question: "What reasons?" Pam (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I hear this one a lot so I don’t wanna spend a long time refuting it. If you wanna watch a YouTube video this one does that for me pretty well. Otherwise, I’ll just outline the arguments quickly and then not participate any further in the discussion bc it’s been done to death. 1) The “very fine people” thing was not the first thing trump said about the protestors — he previously gave a speech in which he didn’t identify or specifically condemn the nazi types at all, and only gave the “fine people” speech where he did condemn them several days later. 2) I can’t see the deleted article so idk what (if any) news sources it cites, but the ones from reputable sources (eg NYT, NPR, whatever) that did call him out do, in fact, mention that he said “I don’t mean the nazis” and quote him saying so. 3) The UtR rally was explicitly organised as a far-right/neo-nazi/neo-confederate rally — take a look at the guest speakers, organisers, and advertisements for it for evidence. 4) There were no “fine people”/non-racists there, because non-racists don’t show up to protect a confederate statue and then march along with huge quantities of nazi symbols, slogans, confederate flags, Richard Spencer, David Duke, and so on. 5) Drawing any kind of equivalence between that kind of rally and the people protesting them is egregious and fucked. 6) The news sources calling out trump’s bullshit mention these things and these are the specific problems they have with him. So put simply, the media didn’t get it wrong, Trump only condemned the racists after previously refusing to, the rally was explicitly and inherently racist, and the news organisations were rightly calling out Trump’s attempts to whitewash an openly fascist rally attended by a domestic terrorist, as well as his drawing of a false equivalence between that and people protesting against that. You’ll can do what you want I guess but I would very strongly advise against restoring an article that’s further propagating a bullshit myth designed to further rehabilitate the image of a fascist rally and a president who attempted to obfuscate its true nature. 49.182.47.130 (talk) 16:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I think 49.182 above has summarized very nicely the issues I have with the draft article, and in a broader sense, the "partisan, contentious, and controversial" components of this issue. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 16:31, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
@Cosmikdebris 49.182.47.130 cannot see the deleted page since he is not a sysop, and anyway she/he did not commented about it. I ask you for a third time: Please quote which parts of the deleted page are "partisan, contentious, and controversial statements"Pam (talk) 16:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
It's right there in the name. Calling it a hoax. It's not hard to insinuate the rest of the page from there. In fact, I'll point out that even in your deleted quotes, all Trump has been doing is deflecting the question, and instead just says they should be condemned and his "very fine people on both sides" comment is the closest he gets to actually expressing a real moral judgement he can make, which... not a good look in the slightest, so it's not a hoax to claim that this is his most direct value judgement on the neonazis on UtR. Anyway, this is a blatant PragerU talking point and we can debunk this into infinity if we really wanted to, but the BoN did it better than I ever could and that's without them even having to see the page. Get a bit more creative than repeating points made by hacks like Dennis Prager. Sirius (dog star) 17:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
@The Crow Did you actually see the deleted page?Pam (talk) 17:51, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I would personally have left the page in draft space. I saw it, I don't think it would have been worth keeping. While Trump did not directly call neo-nazis fine people and claimed that not everybody at the rally was a white supremacist (a hell of a stretch, because I can't imagine a cause where I'd be willing to attend the same demonstration as neo-nazis), we don't need an entire article dedicated to semantic arguments proving it. If you want to add a clarification to the Trump article or even Unite the Right, you may do so- assuming the information isn't already there.--Hastur! (talk) 17:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
The problem with the page was two-fold. 1) It is not a hoax: Trump factually said it. At best, one could argue that it was quote mining by the media. 2) The reason that it was not even quote mining is that the UTR rally was created expressly to unite a diverse group of Nazi-aligned Arschlöcher. So, Trump said there were some fine people among this group. It's not even quote mining because even The Daily Stormer called the whole bunch of groups Nazis. Bongolian (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
@Bongolian If Trump factually said that neo-Nazis included "very fine people" then give me the quote. You can't because he never did. He condemned neo-Nazis and explicitly said he was not talking about them before, after, and during the "very fine people" sentence. Also, not all people against the removal of the statue were neo-Nazis. That was very well explained (with sources) in the deleted page.Pam (talk) 08:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Okay, jfc, so you’re saying someone could be anti-nazi but still show up and be okay associating with a rally that included, amongst various other things. 1) Flags/banners primarily consisting of swastikas, confederate flags, and various nazi symbols. 2) Richard fucking Spencer as a guest speaker. 3) Marching columns chanting “Jews will not replace us” and “blood and soil”. 4) Massive groups chanting “sieg heil” and “gas the [anti-Jewish slur], race war now”. And so on and so forth. Have you seen any footage of the rally? How could you show up, see the kind of shit that was going on, and think “I’m okay associating with this” unless you were okay with fascism? Either you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about, or you’re gullible enough to believe someone who showed up to the rally then said “I promise I’m not a fascist”, or you are trying to justify an openly racist rally — which, I think it bears repeating, was also attended and supported by a fascist terrorist who drove a fucking car into people because they were anti fascist. Either way, I’m sorry, but anyone making this argument is either misinformed, wilfully ignorant, or actively lying. BON 49. and others in this thread have gone into detail describing how you are wrong, and yet you have not responded to these arguments. Put simply, you have been spoon fed the actual facts and chosen to ignore them. For this reason, I do not think there is any further reason for anyone to try and argue with you. You want people to think there were non-nazis there? Show me some fucking proof. Post it here, in this thread. Otherwise, not to be rude, but I would encourage you to shut the fuck off, and I would encourage everyone else to ignore this person and stop acting like their bullshit is worth debating. I’m sorry if this sounds rude or aggressive, but defending the UtR rally — one of the most brazen displays of fascism I’ve seen in the 21st century — is something that just makes me very mad. DAMN that's FUNNY B R O 08:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
@Penguinsfunnylolhaha You want people to think there were non-nazis there? No. You did not even understand my claim. Probably you are another one who is commenting without having read the deleted page.Pam (talk) 13:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
My shithouse browser keeps fucking up so I’ll keep this short. 1) Your article does claim that there were non-nazis there. Your first source is someone saying “I was there and I’m not a white supremacist”. Bull Shit. I’m sorry but if you associate with a rally consisting of that much open nazism, fascism, etc., then you are a racist. End of story. Your second source says “62% of Americans don’t want to take down statues”. That is almost completely irrelevant. 1) We’re talking about people attending the rally with all the swastikas, David Duke, Richard Spencer, etc., not just people who personally like confederate statues. 2) 62% of Americans supporting something doesn’t make it not racist. Tell me why it’s so inconceivable to you that 62% of Americans might have at least one racist belief. Finally, I’m just going to point out that you 1) don’t quote the news sources you mention, because they actually DO quote him “condemning” neo-nazis. They just point out, correctly, that there were NOT very fine people at the fucking White Supremacist Rally. As well as that, 2) you don’t mention Trump’s first press conference where he did NOT condemn neo-nazis etc. Now I can’t imagine why you might not choose to mention it, especially after being told about it a billion times — real mystery there. But it is maybe something worth mentioning? These points have been made to you a thousand times now, so I’m getting the impression that you are either being wilfully ignorant or just straight up lying. Again, I’m trying to say this politely but honestly? I would appreciate it if you could please stop repeating your bullshit over and over and respond to people’s criticisms, or just admit that you’re not going to listen to anyone else and then shut the fuck up. Thank you. DAMN that's FUNNY B R O 14:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
@Penguinsfunnylolhaha 1) Your article does claim that there were non-nazis there. Yes, but that's not the main claim of the page. The main claim of the page is that Trump did not call neo-Nazis very fine people. If there were or there were not only neo-Nazis is irrelevant, but just further information (see explanation later).
Your first source is someone saying “I was there and I’m not a white supremacist”. Bullshit. I’m sorry but if you associate with a rally consisting of that much open nazism, fascism, etc., then you are a racist.
What you are missing is that "being there" is different from "associating with neo-Nazis." One can protest the removal of the Confederate statue without being a neo-Nazis, white supremacists, or white nationalist.
62% of Americans supporting something doesn’t make it not racist. Tell me why it’s so inconceivable to you that 62% of Americans might have at least one racist belief.
Where are not talking about people with at least one racist belief. We are talking about neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and white nationalists; and, no, 62% of Americans do not belong to such categories.
Anyway, who was at the event is not the point. See the part: "Furthermore, even assuming that all the people at Charlottesville who were against..."
They just point out, correctly, that there were NOT very fine people
As above.
2) you don’t mention Trump’s first press conference where he did NOT condemn neo-nazis etc.
The hoax is that Trump called neo-Nazis very fine people at the Trump Tower press conference. What is said on the previous conference has zero relevance.Pam (talk) 15:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I’m going to say one thing and then stop responding because debating at all is very stressful for me and I don’t think we’re getting anywhere. All I’ll say is that, “assuming everyone there was a white supremacist” (which is pretty close to a correct assumption), it should be extremely obvious that calling any of them fine people is calling white supremacists fine people. Saying he doesn’t mean the racists when the racists are all there were just means he was lying about who was and wasn’t racist. If you’re going to respond, please do not ping me or expect me to participate. I do not want to. Thank you. DAMN that's FUNNY B R O 15:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Read before commenting

This is the page that was deleted by Jeh2ow. Do not comment unless you have actually read it. The last section is missing because I did not backup it before Jeh2ow deleted the page. Moderators should be able to restore it.Pam (talk) 13:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I've read it, and Jeh was absolutely right to delete it. That dreck is anti-missional and intellectually dishonest.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 16:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
The last section in your reposted essay is exactly the same as the last section in the last edit recorded in the deletion logs. So, in the name of transparency, the essay is identical to the last revision posted to the now-deleted main space article on RationalWiki.
I don't have any problem with posting the article in the essay space, but I do not believe it belongs in the main space in its present form. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 16:10, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I copied the last section to the essays talk page after Pams post here and they deleted it from there after adding it to the essay because the talk page comment was messing up the references[3]. That's why it's currently identical to the last version of the deleted draft. I personally don't have a problem with the deletion of my post, even if it goes against the rule about deleting talk page comments. CoigreachAnnoySpySilence 16:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Violation of block policy

To the attention of the moderators @Ace McWicked, @Bongolian, @RWRW, @Scream!!, and @Spud

I was blocked by Coigreach:

(Block log) 09:34, 16 September 2020 Coigreach (talk | contribs) blocked Pam (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 3 hours (account creation disabled) (A very fine person)

This is a clear violation of RationalWiki's blocking policy:

Blocking should never occur if somebody is attempting to discuss an issue in a reasonable manner. Blocking is not to censor alternate opinions, but to prevent disorder. For instance, if someone makes an edit that is not that bad but you personally disagree with it, then you should not block them, as you will most certainly be promoted for doing so...

Blocking should only be used if somebody is maliciously editing a page or pages, as explained below.

What are you going to do about it?Pam (talk) 12:57, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I've left a message on his talkpage officially giving him a slap on the wrist. Spud (talk) 13:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough. My apologies Pam, won't do it again. CoigreachAnnoySpySilence 13:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Apologies accepted.Pam (talk) 13:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Violation of rules about Essays

To the attention of the moderators @Ace McWicked, @Bongolian, @RWRW, @Scream!!, and @Spud

DuceMoosolini edited my essay without my invitation to do so. This is a clear violation of the rules about Essays:

Discussion is encouraged on the talk page of each essay but the essay itself should not be edited without express invitation by the original author.

I ask my essay is restored in its original form, removing DuceMoosolini's edit.Pam (talk) 16:52, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

That is ridiculous. The "drive-by" template is completely appropriate to use when some proto-fascist bootlicker decides to spew lies on this website. In fact, that's why it was created.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 17:00, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
The content of your essay was unmolested. We merely gave it an appropriate label. You may, of course, contest said label and try to hold a vote but I guarantee you you'll be disappointed with the results--Hastur! (talk) 17:01, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Not a Mod - but templates, categories and such like have always been considered to be separate from the words of the essay itself.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
This is a non-issue. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 17:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Agree - this is not an issue. Your essay remains - all that was added was a template to let the reader know it does not represent RW. Move to strike. AceModerator 17:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
@Ace McWicked Your essay remains - all that was added was a template to let the reader know it does not represent RW. False. It was added the template 'drive-by' that says that my essay is "spam". Every essay has by default the template 'essay' that says that the content is the author's opinion and do not represent RW. I'm fine with the template 'essay'. What I am asking to remove is the template 'drive-by'. I checked the first 20 essays and none of them has the template 'drive-by'.
As already mentioned, editing another user essay without its permission is a violation of the rules about essays. Also, putting the label "spam" above another user essay is obviously against constructive dialogue, since suggests to other users that the should not read it.Pam (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Oh, bugger off! If you want it totally 'unedited', stick it on your home page (User:Pam); that's what it's there for. Bongolian (talk) 20:41, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Fuck off Pam. Put it in your userspace. AceModerator 21:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Troll, please be civil. Kiko4564 (talk) 22:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Please don't ever tell me to 'be civil'. I'll do and say as I please. AceModerator 22:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Fuck off Kiko. Beat it to your safe space. CoigreachAnnoySpySilence 22:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
@Ace McWicked User space is not for essays. If it is such a 'non-issue' I wonder why it is so important that my essay is labeled as "spam". I also wonder how this fit into the RW constructive dialogue.Pam (talk) 08:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Your user space is whatever you want it to be (within the bounds of reason). You are not going to get your way so, you know, either develop your essay within your user space and when complete ask someone to look it over (who knows, maybe you'll make a convincing argument) or stop complaining. This is a battle you can't win. AceModerator 08:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

lol just ignore the essay and this discussion. why put a drive-by template when you can just ignore it lmao rofl --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 18:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

D and tech rights

I have unilaterally, as a mod, removed Dysk's tech rights as per his admission of going over private IP addresses. I think the claims in the chicken coop as serious enough for immediate action pending further discussion. AceModerator 22:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC) @RWRW, @Spud, @Bongolian, @Scream!! AceModerator 22:30, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I concur. Bongolian (talk) 22:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Yup! Scream!! (talk) 22:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I also approve. --RWRW (talk) 22:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes. That was absolutely the right thing to do. Spud (talk) 00:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I'd recommend removing Ze's tech bit, too. At a minimum, "they're" acting in concert. More likely, though, "they're" the same person. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 01:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

OK - removed it from Ze also - if any other mods have thoughts on this let me know here. AceModerator 01:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
They're not the same person, both dysk and ze are good friends of mine. Oxyaena Harass 14:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Disgraceful, could one of y'all remove the mod protection from my userpage in the meantime. — Dysk (contribs) 11:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Done @D. --RWRW (talk) 11:43, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Formal votes on removals

Yeah uh, still kinda required, see the CS. Ace did a speedy removal, but that doesn't mean he gets to completely sidestep the mob. So here's a formal vote I guess. Regular voting rules apply (3 months, 75 edits). Removal of techs requires a simple majority, but if someone wants to block either Dysk or Ze, this requires a supermajority (at least 66%). I haven't listed block lengths, I think we can do a separate vote on those, should it come to needing a block. Vote lasts for 7 days from 14:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC) onwards. Sirius (dog star) 14:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Dysk

Revoke tech
  1. Seems obvious to me. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 15:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  2. CoigreachAnnoySpySilence 15:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  3. Definitely Scream!! (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  4. Anyonewho spends this much time engaging in such epic online shittery needs psychological help and yes...based on the case presented he certainly should not have these tools. ShabiDOO 16:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  5. Shouldn't be a trustee, either. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 16:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  6. Fully deserved.-Flandres (talk) 16:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  7. I’m speechless that 2 people have already voted against this one. A couple of weeks back Dysk suppressed the chicken coop (nuking some 20,000 edits) and the link posted on the coop now shows Dysk admitting to using tech rights to view people’s IPs. Quite possibly the most abusive tech in RatWiki history. —RWRW (talk) 19:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  8. AceModerator 00:44, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  9. Bongolian (talk) 00:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  10. Spud (talk) 01:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  11. Judge Dredd (talk) 01:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
    Dysks own damn bot. You can still unblock yourself and vote with your actual profile. Your bot doesn't have enough verifiable edits anyway.CoigreachAnnoySpySilence 02:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)Striking my protest and restoring the vote based on discussion here. CoigreachAnnoySpySilence 20:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Block
  1. Per the privacy violation. Johns (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Do nothing
  1. Ditto. Oxyaena Harass 14:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  2. I don't see why we should just allow enemies of this wiki such as Smith to get people's rights curtailed.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 18:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
    This is about quite a bit more than the Smith drama. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 19:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
    Isn't it just.Spud (talk) 01:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
    This was about me looking at private data via the edit filter interface, the Smith crap is largely to try and de-tech Ze by association, because he's got nothing else to take her down with. Judge Dredd (talk) 19:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Ze

Revoke tech
  1. Ze can, not saying will, allow Dysk to edit as tech. Scream!! (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  2. "Her" claims of being doxxed as "EK" are complete and utter shite. Likely a sock of Dysk. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 16:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
    You have no clue what the hell you're talking about. EK is not a sock of Dysk, they're two completely separate people. Oxyaena Harass 18:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
    There are no birth records in the UK or any public records for this imaginary EK person existing but you can find them for D. It's a sock-puppet of his, he admitted himself there is no evidence it is a different person and he cannot prove it to anyone. Conveniently both these accounts never edit at the same time on here. Johns (talk) 19:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
    Because they're from separate countries. Oxyaena Harass 07:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  3. While I do not like the idea of punishing someone for their sibling's actions. I think this is a reasonable exception because there is reasonable evidence that D and Ze have at a minimum been acting in congress, and there is no way to monitor Ze to confirm that tech rights are being abused in the manner that they have been with D. Bongolian (talk) 01:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  4. I share Bongolian's concerns about guilt by association. But I also have serious doubts about the existence of D's sister. If Ze does exist as a separate person, she has allowed herself to be used as a meatpuppet before. I think this is the only option. Spud (talk) 01:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
    They're completely separate people, their linguistic patterns, editing interests, and personal styles all reflect this. They may be closely associated, but sameness they're not. Oxyaena Harass 07:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  5. Flandres (talk) 02:41, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Block
  1. Privacy violation and sock-puppet of D. Johns (talk) 19:34, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Do nothing
  1. Sirius (dog star) 14:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  2. Ze is not Dysk, and should not be punished for the sins of her sibling. Oxyaena Harass 14:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
    "both dysk and ze are good friends of mine" quoth Oxy (who I wouldn't trust If she told me water was wet). Scream!! (talk) 16:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
    Thank you, scream, for the unnecessary put-down. It really reflects well on your character as a mod. Oxyaena Harass 18:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
    So mods have to be friends with everyone? You’re a liar, Oxy - that’s well established. AceModerator 00:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  3. None of the above options for her seem necessary. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 15:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  4. Ze is hardly a party who doesn't get up to some pointless mischief but the case against Ze isn't as clear (even if they very well might be the same person). The two should definitely get a hobby like gardening, learning a language or anything other than obsessive online shittery. ShabiDOO 16:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  5. I reread that whole part of this page, and seems I may have been mistaken about Ze. She was clearly aware of the loophole, but there's no evidence of her using it to identify users. CoigreachAnnoySpySilence 16:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  6. This whole thing seems to be a plot by our enemies to incapacitate this great wiki by having our competent techs banned on false charges.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 22:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  7. Moot since she's not coming back, voting out of principle. Judge Dredd (talk) 01:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Goat

  • Not sure about Dysk just yet, so I'm holding my vote for now on this. Let me be clear, Dysk has done a lot of writing for the Edit Filter, which appears to be mostly competent. His looking at IPs is unacceptable however. Ze on the other hand hasn't ever really admitted to collecting user IPs, only that she knows that it can be done, which makes me believe she shouldn't lose tech over this, especially since she's been on a hard agree that this loophole should be closed. Finally, I want to make it abundantly clear that Dysk and Ze are clearly different people. Dysk tends to have a far more stand-offish approach to conversation (that "I don't really care what's going on attitude), whereas Ze can occasionally talk in circles but is otherwise clearly invested in things, that I really just don't get from Dysk. If they're the same person, I would be very suprised to learn this, given certain interactions I've had with them and people close to them. Sirius (dog star) 14:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
@The Crow I can tell you for certain that the EK initials / real name "doxxing" story is bullshit with bells on, as are Dysk's claims that his RL identity has been compromised. Given how invested he's been in using both stories as a cudgel against various internet eejits, I think extreme scepticism is warranted re. them being two distinct RL people. I'll also point out that running an alt character sock is pretty easy if you have a modicum of writing skill and the necessary focus and discipline.
Has anyone reliable ever had a simultaneous voice conversation with Dysk and Ze over Discord, prior to this kicking off? I'd take that as solid evidence I'm mistaken. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I have raised this before. There's no evidence Dysk/Ze are different people - it's indeed easy to run an alt character sock. But I don't think it matters since they claim to be siblings, plus they claimed to have used the same IP address on Wikipedia. And yes, the dubious claim I doxxed Ze by linking to their public Wikipedia account is total BS (Dysk has discussed and posted links to his Wikipedia accounts on RationalWiki before, and Ze's is connected on the same sockpuppet archive... yet I'm an "evil doxxer"??) The BS about I doxxed Ze was to cover up the fact I was exposing many of their bad behaviours including abusing tech rights (Dysk has had his recently removed) and numerous other things. I have also complained for about a year now Dysk/Ze have been fabricating and lying about multiple persons sending them death threats. Of course they never provide any evidence and multiple people I've contacted they said did this, deny doing it. Flight (talk) 16:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
@Helena Bonham Carter I have. Oxyaena Harass 09:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
@Oxyaena Effectively, "reliable" can be read as "not you". I'm confident you'd not only lie about this if Dysk asked you to, but you'd be equally motivated to lie to try & protect your daft posturing as someone with superior sock / troll "pattern recognition" skills.
I'll also note these claims about Dysk / Ze have been flying around for days, and not once did you volunteer this most obvious defence, which - if true - would've been pretty much the first thing you'd have said in support of your "friends". Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
HBC, I'll be honest, but asking Ze to "prove" that they aren't a sock is basically asking Ze for negative evidence. Dysk has freely admitted to playing confusion mindgames with his identity and Ze's, I won't deny that, but keep in mind that he's doing that to clearly unstable people who otherwise seem to have it out for both of them over some pathetic internet feud. Ze has implicitly denied that she's a Dysk sock and again, there are some very extreme personality differences between the two that are apparent upon a conversation that lasts for longer than 5 seconds. I want more solid proof of "Ze is a Dysk sock" than Dysk saying "I intentionally am making it ambigious whether or not she's a sock or a real person". Give me solid hard evidence from her that she could be a Dysk sock, but really this isn't it. Also, due to things I know from Oxy, I can assure you that she's likely not lying about this. Sirius (dog star) 15:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
There is no evidence that EK and D are different people. Both were banned on the same IP address on Wikipedia in 2017 for creating many sock-puppet accounts. If you look at the EK account and go through the edits the account uses perfect and sophisticated grammar and language. The account was also editing some academic political subjects. This was several years ago when EK was supposedly 10 years old. Its total BS. When I was 10 I was out playing football with the lads and nicking sweets from the local shop. A 10 year wouldn't be editing this sort of thing on Wikipedia. D posted on Reddit he had a sex change operation and he now identifies as trans. It's likely hes got some warped fantasy and likes to pretend to be a young girl online. The EK/Ze thing is all part of his alternate personality. Shame on RationalWiki for being duped by his games... If he is going to continue here he doesn't need both accounts. BTW no birth records or public records exist for EK because she is apparently from another country... more BS. You couldn't make this shit up. Johns (talk) 16:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Sirius I'm not sure what rabbit you're expecting me to pull out of the hat here. It would probably help if you could give me a rough outline of how Dysk and Ze presented "themselves" to you online. Ballpark ages, relationship to each other, etc. If there's anything I can directly contradict, then I'll give it a bash within the confines of not revealing any readily traceable real info about Dysk. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 23:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, here's what I know I guess. Ze is 14-15 (not sure about the specifics), went through a phase a few years ago where she was a fascist of some sorts, which got her banned from the RW Discord but seems to have grown out of it since. She's recently become friends with internet necrophilia punchline Socdem/Godless Raven who she has meatpuppetted for on RW in the past (and appears to mimic the same obnoxious behavior that Raven displays about his political ideology) and has been friends with currently-formally-getting-the-boot crank Abd Lomax. She's generally not all that impulsive and is easy to cooperate with, even though I have had clashing disagreements with her on the wiki (mostly to do with Raven). As a tech, she's competent and does in general what needs to be done and tends to agree that RW needs fixing and can be reasoned with. From what I can gather, she's Icelandic, both self identified and has used Iceland repeatedly as an example of her own home country for Social Democracy working on the RatWiki Support Chat.
As for Dysk, I know far less about him. He's in his early to mid 20s from what I can tell based on behavior, and appears to live in either Iceland or England. Dysks attitude is noticably stand-offish, basically a version of internet nihilism that seems to be copied from places like 4chan and 8chan (which is in and of itself a crappy version of SAs nihilism). While he's not incompetent as a tech, a lot of Dysks attitude results in him being near impossible to work with and frankly, I've had severe issues reasoning with him in a way that I don't have with Ze. He runs more with preconceived notions than Ze does, isn't above doing some really stupid impulsive decisions (which Ze doesn't really do) and seems to be rather protective of his sister (Dysk literally seems to have come out of a retirement to defend Raven who is a friend of Ze, although he appears to not be close to Raven in the same way Ze is). Unlike Ze who seems to just have a cranky friend or two, Dysk appears to run an actual fucking crank board related to "criticizing Wikipedia", but in reality attracts people like Abd Lomax, Graaf (sole dutch WP editor who got a global block across all Wikipedia instances) and such.
Likely in order to prevent those cranks from doxxing or harassing his sister, Dysk claims that she both is and isn't a sock of his (which Smith and his friends seem to believe, hook, line and sinker), although Ze has never admitted or claimed any of the sort and implicitly opposes it in regular conversations. As for relationships, to me it appears Ze is the younger sister of Dysk, although they don't appear to live together anymore at the current time that I'm writing this. All if this information isn't new, you can find it on RW expressed in various forms, and the crank board is linked in the complaint about Dysk using user IPs. I also have other reasons which due to privacy for the people involved I won't share here that for me make it decisive they're separate people. Sirius (dog star) 11:22, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
@Sirius OK. Dysk is much older than that, as is his RL sister. Neither of them are Icelandic. Occam's razor favours one lying liar over two, especially when that one lying liar takes obvious pride in running socks and generally fucking around with people on the internet.
If you insist on believing there's a distinct second person behind the Ze account, then she's also a lying liar who lies. Here she alludes to being doxxed as Emblyn Kerensa and editing Wikipedia under that name. Firstly, the name itself is as fictitious as Arthur Kerensa, so she's lying about being doxxed, and secondly, if you think these 2017 edits are the work of an 11-12 year old, then I've got some very reasonably priced magic beans that I'm very keen to sell you.
Back in the real world, of course, EK was b& as a Dysk sock, of which there are plenty. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 01:04, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Excellent Scream!! (talk) 01:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
I really find this multi-wiki shitshow that D is perpetrating to be quite tiresome: the shitshow appears to be the goal rather than a side-effect. I would like to see D/Ze banned just for fucking around with us. It makes me yearn for the days of not being a moderator. Bongolian (talk) 01:27, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
@Helena Bonham Carter, @Bongolian- so why the hell was Smith banned for doxing? A clearly false allegation. Emblyn Kerensa isn't Ze's real name who has also lied about being icelandic on various websites, as well as lying about her age. Whether Ze/D are the same person or different - you still end up with the conclusion they're deceptive and habitually lying. Smith was banned for merely posted those Wikipedia links posted above.Last Castle (talk) 01:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Please, dear mods, shut down this shit show now. It's gone on far too long, and no one fucking cares any more.cosmikdebris talk stalk 02:05, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
As a mod I agree. This bullshit has gone on too long. AceModerator 02:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Thank you @Helena Bonham Carter, for your detailed and informative comments, which conclusively prove that both myself and Ze are fictitious sockpuppets of an unknown person. Perhaps we are socks of Paul Kerensa and this is all a big joke. I don't think there is any doubt at this point that Ze is my sockpuppet; so there, I admit it, everything you said is true and your undisclosed evidence is completely and totally accurate. In fact everything that Smith/Johns is saying is also 100% accurate, he definitely never lied about anything here. Oh yeah, you can let Smith off the hook for the doxing and threats, it's totally fine because the people he was doxing and threatening weren't real. Facetious as it might appear, fictitious persons have no rights and no say. Smith was always completely justified in every way and never ever wrong. He's also not actually a pedophile, that affair definitely never happened. By the way HBC, if you could make sure that you send this to as many people as possible, that would be great, I wouldn't want to upset your Kiwi Farms peanut gallery now, would I? Thanks for everything. Judge Dredd (talk) 16:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

By "pedophile affair" do you mean the lies you made up and blatent libel? Someone has a disagreement with you online and you run around like a psychotic troll defaming them on the internet as a child abuser and pedo. Get mental help you sick freak. Last Castle (talk) 17:28, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
I very clearly said it wasn't true, in the post directly above. Can you read? Judge Dredd (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
@Judge Dredd You're totally rocking this graceful exit thing, man. In other news, sort out your social media privacy settings, you dick. (Your boner for family history was very helpful, too. Cheers!) Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 17:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Why would I do that? Are you threatening me? Gee nice move mate, goes to show that you are the heart and soul of this wiki. Judge Dredd (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
At ease, Cornholio. Good advice, plus gentle teasing. Nothing more. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 18:49, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Righto then HBC. I took your "advice" and shut down the privacy settings on my socials. Nevertheless I don't personally think that it's appropriate for users here such as you, to be digging around in the personal lives of other users looking for personal information, for obvious privacy reasons. Indeed I could argue, threats to engage in off-wiki doxing for the purpose of coercing a particular on-wiki result, is about as clear an adverse threat as you can make. Furthermore, I could argue that and persons engaging in such behaviour, are a danger to the wiki, and its users at large. Just a thought mate. Judge Dredd (talk) 10:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Judge Dredd Man, I wish my thoughts and stories were as cool as yours. Since your FB is still wide open, I can only assume you're fishing to determine your degree of exposure. And since I can't be arsed to go round in circles on this, not readily traceable mockery as follows: unlucky on the trading down since Connie. At least you'll always have the memories, eh?

I'll also note how odd it is that Smith hasn't been jumping all over this. All the old AK/EK stuff has been regurgitated here, but not one solitary sock has shown the slightest interest in your real identity. It's like he's suddenly disinclined to find out who you really are. There's also been fuck all activity on Reddit, and what there is on Kiwi Farms seems to be doing its best to actively obscure the situation.

The thought occurs, in fact, that this represents a remarkable de-escalation of your feud at precisely the moment when it's your actual head on the block. Strange, that, isn't it?

As for your bluster about "threats", I've been clear I have no intention of doing anything absent a request from the mod team, and they've declined the offer to date. Pipe the fuck down for a bit, and maybe it will stay declined. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 01:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

  • I suggest you all read here before voting: Dysk and Ze are falsely accusing people of sending them death and rape threats. Anyone with sense would ban them. They're both (if they aren't same person, but siblings) an online menace and extremely malicious.Flight (talk) 15:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I have very little interest in what either of you are saying except the parties involved, Smith, Dysk, Abd, and whoever else are too much trouble and I resent knowing even a bit about this stupid feud. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 17:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Good post! Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 18:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Do you think it is acceptable behaviour for someone to falsely accuse someone else of sending death or rape threats? Yes or no? I provided evidence Dysk and Ze have done this on this wiki on multiple occasions to at least 4 different people - most recently, today to Emil Kirkegaard who Dysk claimed threatened to murder his family. They also have fabricated claims and lied about at least 3 other people doing this. A sane person would acknowledge their behaviour as malicious and vote to ban them.Flight (talk) 18:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
You fail to understand that I don't care. I could not give one single fuck about any of this. Your drama has been going on for so fucking long and has caused so many problems that I've become numb to all of it. I couldn't give a shit even if I wanted to at this point. I just want to take Rationalwiki out of this shitstorm, and that basically means banning you. You're theoretically an adult. Maybe try solving your own problems or stepping away from the computer for a little while. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 18:34, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
agree --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 18:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
This is a really stupid and weird response because you are allowing RationalWiki to be potentially sued. I'm not making any legal threats myself, but what happens if the people Ze/Dysk claimed (with zero evidence) they sent him/her threats to murder their family, decides to sue for libel? The comments were posted on here so the wiki would be massively implicated. Furthermore, isn't it a criminal offence to lie about death or rape threats? Flight (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
@Flight That's a scenario that we are not going to comment on here. Sorry. As for your other question, all I can say is that it is something that I'm not willing to give advice on. If you believe that a criminal offence has been committed by anyone on this wiki, then I'd suggest that you contact the Police. Kiko4564 (talk) 19:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I would prefer it if Dysk and Ze voluntarily surrendered their tech status as a show of good faith. I'm sure they must understand that there is a great deal of uncertainty about them now and for the sake of the community's trust, they should back down from any sort of fight.--Hastur! (talk) 22:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
    I personally strongly object to promoting Ze. She's a good tech who has been nothing but honest and transparent over this all, which I greatly appreciate and she's not too incompetent as a tech in general either from what I've seen. The push for demoting her comes from basically unfounded allegations that she's a Dysk sock from either Smith or people who have a bone to pick with Dysk over other things. She has issues as a tech, but this isn't worth losing tech rights over, because she never to my knowledge looked at user IPs to make a point, but merely knew how to do it from Dysk (who I personally haven't made up my mind over yet). Should proof come to light she did, my opinions would change, but right now I don't believe this is the case. Sirius (dog star) 22:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
    Note that I am not voting for or against promotion. Promotion/demotion here implies involuntary action.--Hastur! (talk) 23:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
    Dysk is lying about having been doxxed. Arthur Kerensa is a successful cutout he's used to play all & sundry, presumably for the purposes of having a shitload of fun instigating a shitload of drama. And it stands to reason that, if A. Kerensa is a figment of Dysk's imagination, then so is E. Kerensa / Ze.
    I obviously can't substantiate this without actually doxxing Dysk, but I'll provide receipts to the mod team if required. Personally, I'd be happy if he resigned from the board of trustees, relinquished tech rights on both accounts, and committed to only using one of them in future votes. I'm actually quite impressed how many people have been played in all this. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 23:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
    I would like for the moderators to pursue this matter, assuming procuring such proof isn't verboten @Ace McWicked, @Spud, @Bongolian, @RWRW--Hastur! (talk) 00:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
    I am again travelling for work purposes so can’t give this my attention until later. AceModerator 00:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, I'd like to say that I completely agree with what @LeftyGreenMario and @DuceMoosolini said. It's impossible to take sides in the Smith drama because the people on both sides are vile. I don't want any of its participants using this wiki to play out their petty, childish drama any longer. I'd also like to say that I'm now glad that RationalWikiWiki got deleted by Wikia when it did because that put an end to the unpleasant dealings I had with the unpleasant Smith and his equally unpleasant enemies.

@Helena Bonham Carter Wait. Are you saying you know for a fact that Arthur Kerensa is not D's real name? I suppose that as a member of the Board of Trustees that's something that I could check.

And I suppose I'll have to declare an interest in saying that I was an admin on another wiki, Wikilivres, that D volunteered to take over the technical running of and then allowed to die. But again, I was actually quite happy when that site disappeared and I don't hold its demise against D.

Much as I hate to say it, I think D should resign from the Board of Trustees. I don't think being at the centre of such a scandal is compatible with being a Board member. Spud (talk) 02:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Spud Yup, that's what I'm saying. Arthur Kerensa doesn't trace back to any RL person, bar Dysk's minimal investment in creating a cutout in official records. His actual name, however, traces back to a bona fide human being. I'm still hoping he'll do the right thing and resign, etc., but if it comes to it, nominate one of the mod team for me to deal with, and I'll send the receipts. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 03:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
The drama itself (as well as Dysk's record judgement of things such as impulse deleting the coop, impulse deleting the original Support Chat, the feuding, makes me wary of having Dysk be a trustee. We need to hold a vote for this, I don't see any vote to remove that position. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 04:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── For the last time, stop conflating Dysk with Ze. They're two completely separate people. And, @Ace McWicked, mods need to show an amount of restraint, not throwing out unnecessary put-downs. I'd use stronger language, but I`m proscribed from doing so. I know more than HBC does about who Dysk and Ze are, they're not the same people. Oxyaena Harass 07:08, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

mods need to show an amount of restraint, not throwing out unnecessary put-downs. No, mods are just users like any other except when donning their mod hats. Mods can be anyone as long as they do the right shit when it needs doing such as streamlining the voting process, exerting pressure on troublesome users, blocking and protecting pages when needed to avoid problems by using their initiative. Aside from that - a mod is just a user. AceModerator 07:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
You know what. I'll declare that I am now officially not interested in whether or not Arthur Kerensa is D's real name. It was a juicy bit of gossip but it's not going to make any difference to what I think. Ditto for if Ze really is his sister or just him. Like I said before, I don't like guilt by association but Ze allowed herself to be used as GR's meatpuppet and I'd really like to see a clean break with the past as far as this tech busiiness is concerned. I also don't care who D's friends are or care about his drug use. Spud (talk) 07:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree, Spud. We need to fix the problem (I already asked @David Gerard about it and look at the role of tech again. AceModerator 07:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario That isn't on the purview of the mob afaik, that has to be handled internally by the board if I understand the way the board works correctly. Sirius (dog star) 07:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Sirius, you are correct. The removal of a member of the Board of Trustees of the Foundation is explicitly referenced in the foundation bylaws, Article IV, Section 8, "Removal." —cosmikdebris talk stalk 15:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

it is not true it has been said or the very least assumed, RW has been strictly and stridently opposed to IP checking since it's inception. you'd think something like that would be in some policy document or guideline. cant find anything. it is true we ave been opposed to the implementation checkuser. there have been votes. there has not been any discussion on the usage of already implemented tools it seems unfair to condemn the usage of tools where there has been guidelines or prohibition of their use. those not involved in the impassioned argument against checkuser when its been suggested, might be unaware of the strength of feeling around it, not connect opposition to implement something with the tools already available, that exposes you to ip address when legitimately used, and you can a legitimate reason to compare the ips of a suspicious user. nothing in guidelines saying you cant. personal informtion should have clear guidelines on its access, by who, what use is made of it. our privacy policy is not fit for purpose here. where personal data - ip address has been shared with a third party, or used in for off wiki personal business - some kind feud in this case - is misuse of personal data and a breach of privacy in most locales regardless of how piss poor our specific guidelines might be, and in my view actionable. even if no wrong doing has occurred, a loss of tech rights should occur for those involved because of the uncertainty of who they really are, if they multiple people, a single person, and the nature of their personal relationship. why would one trust ones personal information and privacy with people who have been deliberately opaque with their identity, even without whats been disputed. Privacy policy needs sorting. how we appoint tech users needs to be looked (how is that exactly? i dont know), as does their tool kit, with procedures in place for best practice where tools can be used in ways that are contentious. and more oversight. we all want to be able to exercise personal judgement, but this is an area where adherance to an agreed procedure is clearly necessary as what little scope for overreach seems too much to resist. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

speaking of policy and guidelines, i always have to hunt for they are located that i'm uncertain if theres some document that answers all ive said and ive missed it or ive seen all there is to see.AMassiveGay (talk) 19:08, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
RW:CS is a good place to start for basically our conduct rules and basically outlines around... 90% of what we deem as "required reading". RW:BLOCK has the blocking policy. RW:WHAT holds what our articles are about, as well as our BLP policy. RW:TECH holds the role of techs. We also have a ton of style guides and other things that need work but don't hold huge amounts of policy. Tech appointment process can be found in the CS at the moment and was reformed back when Oxy went on a crusade against GR.
Toolkitwise, we have near full access to the MW interface. This means we can do basically everything that isn't a historymerge (got disabled after someone threatened to histmerge the coop and the bar) or that would need edits to the MediaWiki settings file (basically we can't add or remove right permissions, only add people to existing rights groups). Ultimately, we can do everything mods can do (but are only allowed to stuff above sysop rights if the mob allows it through vote, anything else is acting like a moderator and is a big no-no), and then a little more since we can also access the edit filter. Our tasks are to maintain the filter and to make sure the MW interface keeps working and looking properly (one of the first things I did as a tech was patch up some broken CSS on a WIGO page). Functionally, we also tend to be the ones to put up the sitenotices that you sometimes see (like Trents donation banner right now, but also the notices for CS votes), which doesn't really need mob consent to put up. Some techs also tend to rename permablocked users with extremely offensive usernames to something not as offensive, which is technically a mod right, but nobody is complaining that they're doing it (rhey users are banned anyways), so it's not an issue.
The role is kept on a basis of "trust that you won't misuse it or start doing mod-only actions without mob consent, or else you'll fucking lose it". What is visible here is a case of... fairly clear abuse of this right, even if we don't explicitly mention it as being broken (basically, just because it's not explicitly forbidden doesn't make it a genius idea to do it). I hope that answers your questions.
I hope that answers your questions. Sirius (dog star) 19:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Ignore this rant

I was simultaneously active, at the same time as Ze, on the same Discord server for hundreds of hours, over many months. This was the RationalWiki Discord server, and anyone can go take a look at the conversations there. Furthermore, both of us chatted to various people in voip on that server, and other servers users here may be familiar with. I can't say I revealed anything of note about myself publicly at that time or subsequently. Nevertheless, this may have given the impression to users here, that there are two distinct people involved here. That ain't my fault, nor related to this wiki in any substantial way. I have absolutely no intention, of providing evidence to HBC, or any other irrelevant fuckwit here, regarding the existence or non-existence of myself, my friends, and family. This is largely because I don't give a shite. This site has no lasting impact on me, I can delink any pages I'm mentioned on from Google easily enough under the right to be forgotten. If that impacts your SEO, well should have thought about it beforehand, right? Hint: Do noindex on the archives.
Smith and his self-admitted and confirmed sockpuppet Johns, have posted a lot of information here, with the intention of drawing attention to the real life identity of anonymous users. He's been posting links to this discussion, on Reddit and other troll sites, to provide authority to his past claims there, and to continue various off-wiki dramas. In short, you are all willing pawns in his game of internet drama 4D Chess. I suppose it is far to much to ask, for the members of this site to stop empowering a troll, who has been feeding here seven years. After all it's far more important to publicly speculate about my family background, while continuing throughout the discussion to reveal more of my personal life, under the guise of "proving I'm real" as if that fucking matters. Because getting hold of my birth certificate, is a very important moderation matter now, and of great relevance to everyone. Of course, if you find my own personal details, such as the birth certificate Smith posts on Reddit and elsewhere on a regular basis to annoy me, it stands to reason that would prove all this rubbish is true or not, right? Nope. It doesn't actually make a difference, you still ain't getting hold of anything related to the person suspected to be Ze.
Now you might ask, what about the board? Well as a member of the board and privy to the internal board communications and archives, it became very clear to me that the board is a nothing, the reason the board doesn't do anything is because; the board doesn't talk, doesn't organise tasks, doesn't have a strategy, doesn't have any internal privacy, doesn't have any meaningful workflow, it's no more functional than the rest of this wiki. Nevertheless, to remove me from the board, you must hold a board vote which requires the board to meet, and I will be attending that meeting, and will say my piece on the subject during that meeting. Alternatively, if someone installs the site software updates I requested in 2019, I'll resign as promised.
Peace. Judge Dredd (talk) 02:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
I've already said I've decided I'm not interested in the real life identities of D and Ze because that's not important to me. And I haven't seen any other moderators say the opposite. You do not have to attempt to prove your existence or your sister's existence to the moderators or anyone else. Spud (talk) 02:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

For the record RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive87 is relevant to the above, it features Smith both admitting to being on Discord, and Smith doxing Ze. Judge Dredd (talk) 10:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Promote Kiko

Why was this proven vandal, who has been constantly tone policing, has abused his mop at least twice since gaining it, was permanently exiled from WP, given a mop? We know he is trouble, and he's admitted to vandalizing this wiki while logged out of his account. It seems utterly irresponsible to give him a mop in light of all that. Oxyaena Harass 19:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, whilst I cannot speak for Ace (who demoted me to sysop), to be fair I don't see any reason for him not to demote me. My response to your question is the following: 1) I admit that I am a "proven vandal", but I fail to see how this prevents me being demoted, 2) if by "constantly tone policing" you mean that when someones been blatantly uncivil to me, that I have reasonably stood my ground, then I guess we can't disagree, if you do mean something else then please do clarify as this interests me greatly, 3) I strongly disagree, also you have failed to give any specific examples, I assume that by "abusing (my) mop" you are referring to the occasion in which I banned you for as little as one hour for telling me to "fuck off" on a Discord room (on one of those two alleged occasions). I disagree that this is an "abuse" of my mop, it was perfectly justified. However another sysop was within their rights to remove that block, and I respected that decision. That was no more than a warning to you, and nothing more. Please do explain what other occasion you are referring to, as this interests me greatly, 4) I fail to see how me being "permanently exiled from WP" is a relevant consideration here, please do feel free elaborate on it if you disagree, 5) I can confirm that I've admitted to that. Are there any other reasons that you are referring to me as "trouble"? 6) I disagree, there are sysops on here who definitely shouldn't have been given a mop, who constantly got away with way worse. I'm not naming names, but I'm sure that anyone can figure out who I mean. Kiko4564 (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Kiko's been promoted by Ace, the same person who demoted him to Sysop in the first place. Situation resolved, suggest archiving this section. CoigreachAnnoySpySilence 22:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking Dysk during the middle of a coop

Great work following your own guidelines. Oxyaena Harass 03:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

D blocked himself. However, since he's not a banned user, I completely agree that there's no reason to block his bot Judge Dredd. I have unblocked that account. Spud (talk) 03:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. Judge Dredd (talk) 10:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

A smelly pair of socks

Unjustifiably vandalbinned

Can someone please take me out of the vandal bin? Bongolian put me in there for reasons, which whilst obviously well intended, are in fact invalid. This was based on three vandalistic edits I made, including two to a page in Duce's userspace. Whilst my edits were misguided, they don't constitute sufficiently bad enough to warrant vandal binning, nor are they "mindless generic vandalism". Thank you. Kiko4564 (talk) 20:47, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Mario Smacks Luigi.gif --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 20:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Issues with User:Nutty Roux

I keep finding User:Nutty Roux unpleasant to be around, especially as he has contacted me repeatedly (both here and on Discord), then told me to leave him alone when I responded. I propose a two way interaction ban to resolve this issue, would anyone be willing to accept this, and make us aware please? Kiko4564 (talk) 08:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Kiko - you’ve been a nonstop twit since you arrived. You’ve had issues with everyone suggesting the problem is you. And don’t bring up Discord. Discord has no bearing on the wiki and if you’re going to complain please bring the diff links because no one is going to be bothered to go look at the history. AceModerator 11:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
This diff is Nutty removing my messages from his talk page, which was wrong in my opinion, this diff is Nutty communicating with me on Oxy's talk page, and this diff shows him calling me a pest, and accusing my talk page of being "already irritating". Given that this guy has been very rude to me multiple times, and wants me to leave him alone. I am more than happy to accept a two way interaction ban, as I am more than happy to leave him alone, however I also want him to leave me alone. Kiko4564 (talk) 12:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
This is bullshit. Mildly irritating to you but nothing really worth kicking up a fuss over. Case dismissed. Kiko - grow a fucking spine. If you can’t handle Nutty calling you a pest then you sure as shit aren’t going to handle me calling you an annoying prick with this constant bitching about nothing. AceModerator 12:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
OK thank you for your response. I will try and avoid Nutty in the future, if he does cause me any further issues then I will not respond. Instead I will either ignore it or report the matter to the appropriate venue i.e. either here or the coop. Kiko4564 (talk) 14:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
No offence intended Kiko, but, you are fucking terrible at understanding the situation, and fucking terrible at interactions. Step back, don't feel the need to comment on every single teeny tiny thing, that's what batshit crazy people like me do. Judge Dredd (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I can see your point, but I can still comment on this matter if I want to. Please do not tell me what to do. I might be fucking terrible at understanding situations, and fucking terrible at interactions, but at least I'm trying to improve myself. There no need to be "batshit crazy" here thank you very much. Kiko4564 (talk) 21:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
You're not just fucking terrible at interactions and understanding situations. You're fucking terrible at not being a pain in the ass troll. So let's see if you can understand this: Pretty please, with a sugar on top and a candy cane up your arsehole, fuck off! Try to understand it in your minuscule brain that nobody wants you here. I'm pretty sure that you've by now burned all the bridges there ever were. CoigreachAnnoySpySilence 21:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't go that far but I will go as far as telling you not a single mod case you have raised or complaint you have voiced is valid. So either stay, edit stuff and engage in banter or go away. AceModerator 22:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Ace I can see where you're coming from, and I appreciate your feedback. I'll stay and edit stuff, and engage in banter, thank you.
Coigreach Don't tell me to fuck off, that is very rude, especially telling me to fuck off in the way that you just did. Ace doesn't mind me being there, so your statement is false. Kiko4564 (talk) 14:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Rules on voting

I'm making this section to clarify the Community Standards section on voting rights.

In order to vote in policy votes, which seek to change the Community Standards or similar official policy documents, or penalty votes, which seek to penalize (or change existing penalties for) a user, you must have at least 75 total edits and a registration date at least three months prior to the conclusion of the vote.

The point of contention is whether this applies to a person across several accounts if they start using a new one. Additionally, whether a user can vote by asking another user to post the vote for them, essentially voting by proxy. Both of these have happened in multiple previous votes. Judge Dredd (talk) 10:17, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Definition of "user"

User is a person, can use any account

  1. Sirius (dog star) 12:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oxyaena Harass 13:05, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  3. Judge Dredd (talk) 13:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

User is an account, each account must independently be eligible

Proxy voting

A user may vote by proxy if verification is possible

Proxy voting is forbidden

  1. Incredibly terrible idea to allow this. The one time it happened recently, I clamped on it and I will clamp on it again. Sirius (dog star) 12:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  2. It is indeed an awful idea because there is no clear way to confirm proxies (puppets) in general. Bongolian (talk) 18:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
    You guys don't seem to understand what proxy voting is. Sockpuppetry is less a concern because a proxy is a disclosed agent of the voter who is placing a vote on the principal's behalf according to his instructions. The default rule of a vote belong to a person rather than an account necessarily entails that proxy votes are permitted, and either way doesn't present any greater security threat than pretending you know all the alts of a sneak's main account. Nutty Roux (talk) 18:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
    The problem is that we fundamentally have no way to verify proxy voters reliably. For instance, I could pretend that some old guard member who isn't active here anymore agrees with me, and you'd have no way of verifying it. That is my concern with proxy voting. Our existing voting guidelines (75 edits + 3 months) mostly prevent people from socking to stuff votes. Proxy voting throws a massive wrench in that by allowing people to claim that old guard members are agreeing with their statements and asked for a proxy vote for some reason. A fairly recent confusion I recall happening was someone pretending to be Kazitor to rile up folks. With proxy voting, someone could have claimed that Kazitor asked them to vote against it, and we'd have no way to verify it, yet we'd have to accept it. Sirius (dog star) 19:10, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
    If no verification is possible it goes without saying they could not vote by proxy. This is a possibility relevant for those with external social media, although posting on the wiki in advance is of course required. Judge Dredd (talk) 19:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Disscussion

It was already decided it was okay for Raven, so I don't see why it shouldn't be okay for Dysk. Oxyaena Harass 10:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

This wiki has a short memory. Judge Dredd (talk) 10:58, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm with Oxy on this one. We ruled it was okay for Raven, and as long as you don't sock to stuff the vote by voting multiple times, I don't have any issues with it. Your votes honestly shouldn't have been struck. Sirius (dog star) 12:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

This is not an appropriate vote; it's a matter of interpretation of an ambiguous franchise rule that's historically been resolved in favor of people, not accounts, having the right. At most, it's now an issue for moderators to resist partisans attempting to disenfranchise their enemies in contentious votes. Nutty Roux (talk) 12:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I didn't strike the votes due to politics or difference of opinion, but due to a strict interpretation of the voting rules. Hell, Dysk voted the same way as I did in all the cases. However, If he's genuinely lost access to his main account, I've no objection to the vote being unstruck. In general proxy voting should only be allowed through bots or socks that are clearly identified as being handled by specific eligible user. CoigreachAnnoySpySilence 12:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
If you could restore my votes that would be great... I think for the sake of future clarity, it is best to let this vote run it's course irregardless, for future reference in similar circumstances. Judge Dredd (talk) 13:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
If someone else hasn't restored the votes by then, I'll do it once I get back home in about 5.5 hours. Too much effort to do it with cellphone and fat fingers on a lunch break. CoigreachAnnoySpySilence 14:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
What specifically is "proxy voting" referring to? Person A convincing Person B to agree with them on a particular issue that Person B hadn't been interested in, resulting in Person B voting in support of Person A's position? Or Person B casting a vote (perhaps in addition to their own) attributed to Person A, who is ineligible to vote or has not voted for some reason? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 18:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Coigreach, your interpretation wasn't strict, it was just incorrect. As written, the rule refers to "person", not "account", so the "strict" interpretation, and the one that this site has always abided by, is that a person may vote once with any account they wish. At most, the rule is ambiguous, but I don't think that's even really true the more I think about it. The language is clear. People vote. Accounts don't. Nutty Roux (talk) 18:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough. I was wrong and I apologize.
In any case, the strikes have been removed and the votes restored in coop as well as Dyx's tech removal vote here. Apparently someone else fixed Dysks vote on Ze already. CoigreachAnnoySpySilence 20:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Just to be clear, by "proxy votes" you do not mean voting in another's stead? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:05, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
That's exactly what it means. A user would appoint someone to vote for them. Judge Dredd (talk) 19:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)