RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive13

Aeschylus

I have blocked Aeschylus and removed the sysop status I gave to their account three days ago in response mainly to their comments on RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Emil Kirkegaard. It would seem to me eminently obvious that it would be unwise for them to continue using that account, and that external persons may continue to pressure them to delete various articles. The situation would become disruptive, if indeed it hasn't already (in my opinion it has). This doesn't in any way prejudice their returning incognito, should they wish to do so. — Dysk (contribs) 20:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Technically, he hasn't made any legal threats. But he is dragging us into his legal affairs, so...eh? RoninMacbeth (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

It is entirely appropriate to ban and desysop. If anything, it provides him a degree of legal protection, because it explicitly makes it clear he has no responsibility for the state of those articles, though we cannot, of course, prevent any of his previous edits to those articles being deemed defamatory. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 21:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

There's socks everywhere. Socks of mike, socks of abd, socks of that other guy who hates abd. It might be a good idea to close the AfDs sometime because we already know the articles won't be deleted. — Dysk (contribs) 20:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, close all the Aeschylus AfDs. Socks of banned accounts should be permabanned when identifiable. Abd said that he had many socks just before he was permabanned. Bongolian (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Just noting that connected to this, both Abd ul-Rahman Lomax, Michael Coombs, and their talk pages have been protected with sysop only access. To be fair this is probably a good idea given the recent low-level disruption connected to this matter. Hopefully this conflict has mostly burned out by now anyway but I will keep an eye on it. — Dysk (contribs) 15:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I finally got round to blocking some of his old accounts, but by no means have I done all of them. They have returned, several times, since this incident. — Dysk (contribs) 22:04, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Update: Their tenure as User:Tobias did not go quite as well as I had hoped. :/ — Dysk (contribs) 18:15, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

So, Tobias and Aeschylus are all socks of Krom/ODS, right? Should we consider him persona non grata here? RoninMacbeth (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes. @RWRW and I discussed it. — Dr. Ox ^{quack specialist} 19:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

My guess is he has all these accounts to avoid scrutiny. God knows how many sleepers there are (but luckily he’s pretty easy to spot when he does pop up). —RWRW (talk) 20:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ If all Aeschylus did was write articles here, it would be absolutely fine. However, they have a long and storied history of disruption, plus behaving in a way to attract large amounts of reciprocal drama from various other banned trolls and Encyclopedia Dramatica. They have a nasty tendency to attack people who disagree with them, posting about their (real or perceived) mental illnesses to attack them and doxxing. I don't trust the fact they were an Admin on Metapedia before coming here, the legal threat shenanigans, the incident with RWW, and various other problems. And I would say given how they have been banned/sysoprevoked half a dozen times already they have definitely become persona non grata as far as I am concerned. — Dysk (contribs) 19:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, if that user doesn't like us banning him, he should stop that petty feud and stop registering on bazillion socks designed to confuse everyone. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Straw poll for moderators on trolls

@DuceMoosolini @LeftyGreenMario @RoninMacbeth @RWRW @Spud Should a chronic troll be allowed to have sysop privileges? Is chronic trolling sufficient reason for demopping? Could it be a contributory reason for demopping?

FYI, here is our current definition of trolling characteristics:

• Deliberately angering people.
• Making people act or say things that are considered obvious causing the individual to appear stupid to others witnessing the discussion.
• Breaking the normal flow of debate/discussion.
• Disrupting the “smooth” operation of the site.
• Deliberately being annoying for the sake of being obnoxious. For instance, using abusive names to refer to all the members on the site.
• Pretending to be profoundly ignorant or stupid, gleaning some weird sense of having "won" when other users subsequently come to believe this.
• Making itself the main topic of interest or discussion. (Rarely a troll may do small amounts of productive work to disguise its true intentions.)

Bongolian (talk) 05:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I know why you are asking us this. If you want to demop him, bring it to the coop. RoninMacbeth (talk) 05:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Is this about Nobs by any chance? --RWRW (talk) 12:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

With all due disrespect to the trolls, being a sysop has absolutely zero bearing on any of those issues. — Dysk (contribs) 13:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Of course a chronic troll should not be a sysop. And I have to agree with RoninMacbeth. Start a coop case. And I wish you luck. Spud (talk) 13:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

All of this should be obvious. I will bide my time. Bongolian (talk) 17:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Bongo. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 18:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Other than trolling, I know of two things things that he did recently that I consider worthy of Sysoprevoke. I only want to do this once, so I want to make sure that it's a solid case before bringing it to the Coop. That's why I was asking for your opinions about trolling. Bongolian (talk) 18:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Hard position: Sysoprevoke sucks and should be used iff someone abuses sysop powers. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

That position opens us up to chronic troll infestations. Bongolian (talk) 19:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

We've already got those and they're respected members of the community. I guess? ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I take a wait and see approach, but I also see little reason to give Rob any sysop tools. First, give me some backstory, why was Rob given sysop tools? Is it for the shits and giggles? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:40, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

nobs was originally given the mob by @PolarBearInTheJungle (now inactive) in 2009. Between then and 2013 he was desysoped about 30 times, but each time he was given it back. People stopped desysoping him in 2013. — Dysk (contribs) 02:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Seems to me more like he's just overdue. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 02:40, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I think the real question is why did people stop desysopping him. One guess is that because it was before sysoprevoke existed, people just got tired of constantly desysopping him. Bongolian (talk) 03:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Since when has nobs abused sysop powers? — Palaeonictis ^{Fossil beds} 05:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think he has. I think Bongolian just wants to sanction him for being, in his words, "a chronic troll." For some reason, however, he is opting for promotion over banning. RoninMacbeth (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

No, it really does go beyond trolling. I don't want to lay out my case until I'm ready though. Bongolian (talk) 07:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

And we eagerly wait for it. Don't fuck it up. RoninMacbeth (talk) 08:06, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Then just ignore him. He hasn't abused his powers in such a way that we should revoke them, hell he barely uses them at all. He's a harmless old fool, don't let him get to you. — Palaeonictis ^{Fossil beds} 11:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I am pretty sure the idea is to put nobs in sysoprevoke so he can't become a mod. — Dysk (contribs) 13:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

We had a near-miss last election, if I recall correctly. If we had gone with FPTP, he might have been a mod instead of me. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 13:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Then maybe we should create protocol wherein a mod can be stripped of their power. I don't support putting Nobs into sysoprevoke because of potential future issues when he hasn't abused his powers as a sysop. In fact this whole thing is simply preposterous, I like Nobs just as much as the next guy, but I don't support sysoprevoking him when he's done nothing wrong, and that is putting it lightly. — Palaeonictis ^{Fossil beds} 14:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

It's not like we're banning him. Nobs can live just fine without sysop. He doesn't need it, and we don't need him to have it. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 14:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• The next mod election is going to be a joyous occasion. I can picture it now. This is so totally not sarcasm. Regardless, for future reference the coop case is now at RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive80. — Dysk (contribs) 10:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Election Preparations

@DuceMoosolini @LeftyGreenMario @Bongolian @RWRW @Spud

So, I think I mentioned this earlier, but I believe that this election cycle (particularly the Democratic primary) will bring a lot of edit conflicts, possibly along the lines of the I/P Clusterfuck. Ergo, we should probably think about what topics of discussion will be likely to provoke HCM and monitor discussions closely. Let's just take some precaution. RoninMacbeth (talk) 06:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@RoninMacbeth, sorry if I'm being dense. What is "I/P" here? Bongolian (talk) 07:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Israel-Palestine. It was a huge deal before I came here, and apparently it sort of got absorbed and/or morphed into a huge Sanders vs. Clinton conflict here, which was only just dying down when I joined. But it drove a lot of users away, such as Paravant and AgingHippie. Fuzzy would know more. The point is, we should be prepared if something similar happens this time. RoninMacbeth (talk) 07:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Should we watch the Cortez person's page? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 07:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh yeah. I guess I didn't connect it with the US election cycle. Bongolian (talk) 07:24, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Now that I remember, the graph posted of our edit history suggested that spikes in activity coincided with the election cycles as well (spikes in 2008, 2012, and 2016, with dropoffs soon after). RoninMacbeth (talk) 07:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Was there any pages that experienced conflict during the last election? (other than the obvious)--RWRW (talk) 09:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

WIGO World was a big one, I think. There was a lot of argument about whether or not Glenn Greenwald was a reliable source, and a similar argument about the New York Times. Bernie Sanders was another one. I'll see if I can find more examples, the archives for ATIM and the coop ought to have more information. RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

And yes, we should monitor the page for AOC. Just to be sure. RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

If you could all just realize ikanreed is always on the totally right side of any upcoming arguments you'd realize how much easier moderation could be. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, moderating a wiki consisting solely of you would be very easy indeed. RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

So, you don't think he would be hard on himself. eh?Ariel31459 (talk) 18:12, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

The Israel/Palestine conflict metastasized around one particularly prolific and opinionated editor. I don't remember Sanders/Clinton being as big of a deal as the I/P debate was here. There were other shit storms involving loud editors, for example, Gamergate and Ryulong. With respect to the 2020 elections, it is important, I think, to keep RationalWiki focused on missional topics and not let it overly devolve into politics. Cosmikdebris (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Bongolian (talk) 00:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, but in spite of his tendentious obsession(or maybe because of it?), RyuLong was pretty much spot on in his analysis and facts about GamerGate. I still feel bad about how that one ended. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh... I remember that. I regret starting the Coop case in question that led to Ryulong giving up his sysopship and leaving in disgust. I think it's best if we left it in the past, all things considered. — Palaeonictis ^{Fossil beds} 16:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

The point of this discussion is how to keep it in the past. Any bad blood from I/P should be left in the past, and we should try to avert making any new grudges. RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

i got no good advice sorry dude Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 04:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for thinking about this, though. RoninMacbeth (talk) 04:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario Yes, I think we should watch "the Cortez person's page." (LOL!) I'm currently one of the main contributors of that page. I can always use an extra hand keeping up the quality. Nerd (talk) 05:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I was afraid to flub up the name, and it's a pain navigating in mobile. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 07:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario This is where her initials AOC come in handy. (Is it wrong if we were to refer to her as simply Ms. Cortez?) Nerd (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Nerd If by wrong you mean imperfectly polite, then yes. Use Ocasio Cortez unless you mean the conquistador.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ariel31459 I suspected that this was a rather common surname. Apparently, I'm not that far off. Anyway, context should make it clear whom we are referring to. Nerd (talk) 18:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

BREAKING NEWS: Hernan Cortez rises from grave, declares candidacy for Republican nomination! RoninMacbeth (talk) 19:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Logicnsuch Sockpuppets

We've been seeing a rise in the number of Logicnsuch sockpuppets who are all "asking" who he is. The questions, of course, are a)Are these sockpuppets in fact sockpuppets and b)How to respond? Should we, perhaps, institute a prohibition in new accounts mentioning Logicnsuch? Such as, perhaps, getting the techs to add his name to the edit filter? Please discuss. RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Repurposed an old filter. Should do the job. — Palaeonictis ^{Fossil beds} 17:02, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Glad to see someone else noticed. I am reasonably sure everyone mentioning Logicnsuch is them. I am also rapidly coming to the conclusion the same thing is happening with Mike/Abd/Smith, whom are equally annoying. I turned on Special:AbuseFilter/2 now. :) — Dysk (contribs) 19:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

roll back

is there a way to tag a revision when you roll back indicating the reason? i just did and i didnt see an option for that, and it didnt really warrant having to engage with the fucknut to explain myself AMassiveGay (talk) 22:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

You have to "undo" rather than rollback, if you want to add an edit summary. — Dysk (contribs) 23:10, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Bongolian, again

The Conservapedia:RobSmith page is about a living person. Bongolian made at least two totally ficticious claims today:

1. That RobSmith is a birther.
2. That RobSmith relies on Brietbart and WND.

Both claims are demonstrably without merit.

RobSmith removed the birther movement bullshit from at least a half dozen CP articles, no easy task. This can be seen in these two edits before and after on 8 August 2018. That's only one page. I would have removed them earlier, but most occurred over a period of time when I was banned. August 2018 was the first opportunity I had to correct them.

As to Brietbart & WND, if I've used WND three times in 15 years I'd be amazed. I don't read it. Brietbart I rarely use. The claim Bongolian makes that I cited Brietbart for a birther claim is false. There are Brietbart citations on other subjects in the edit Bongolian provides, but those citations were made by others. I was organizing and rearranging the page.

I don't mind criticism, I welcome it. But false and baseless statements are not appreciated. Please, somebody call your attack dog off. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 23:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

@Bongolian If nobs' claims are true, then you should edit the article accordingly. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 01:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Should we take @Bongolian to the Coop, then? This continued harassment is uncalled for, and will only get worse and cause another case of HCM if left untreated. — Übermensch ^{Pierce through the wonder of amazement at the ubermensch} 02:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd be happy if he just takes out the uncited junk he put in today. It's an opportunity to mitigate a coop case. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 03:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Nobs: I quoted exactly what you said on the Conservapedia:RobSmith page. You engaged in Birtherism in two instances (November 2018 and February 2019), one of which is still present on the Conservapedia page. 1) If you changed your mind about Birtherism, that's admirable, but this false statement made by you is still on the Conservapedia Barack Obama page, "The Birther movement was started by Obama himself." 2) Conservapedian user "Timber" removed your birth certificate watermark bullshit, not you.[1] Bongolian (talk) 03:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Show my supposed citation to Brietbart. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 05:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘While it is true that you did not cite Breitbart, you put that text as a caption under an image that came originally via Breitbart. This is as per Snopes, as I cited it.[2] I don't see why you find Breitbart objectionable but The Daily Caller is not. Is there a hierarchy of acceptable crankery on Conservapedia? Bongolian (talk) 05:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Bongolian, did nobs cite Breitbart in the text of an article? If not, you saying that he does is stretching the truth a little, right? RoninMacbeth (talk) 06:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The caption did not "originally" come from Brietbart. The caption came from Obama's publisher. Remove the Brietbart reference. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 06:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Nobs did not cite Breitbart in the text of the article and I did not claim that he did. What I said was, "Nobs' claim was based on Breitbart.com reprinting in 2012 of a 1991 promotional booklet written by Obama's literary agency, which stated that he was born in Kenya. Neither Andrew Breitbart, nor Breitbart.com were birthers, and the literary agent who wrote the information stated that it was an error and did not come from information provided by Obama." This is true on it's face because Nobs inserted both the image and the caption, and the caption that he inserted has the Breitbart watermark. Scroll down and look at the image for the text ("The Birther movement was started by Obama himself.") at this citation that I provided.[3] Bongolian (talk) 06:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Brietbart has nothing to do with this.

I don't see what the controversy is. A 'birther' is one who denies Obama is a U.S. natural born citizen. Obama contracted with a publisher who promoted Obama as foreign born. I reported facts. Nowhere did I question if indeed Obama was foreign born.

You are reading things (again) into the text that simply are not there . nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 06:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

You stated two falsehoods — according to reputable fact-checking organizations — that feed directly into birtherism and that you yourself did not correct. 1) "The Birther movement was started by Obama himself." and 2) "The document bares^[sic] a watermark; watermarks were not available in 1961. An original has never been produced." Bongolian (talk) 06:55, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Here's another CP page I cleaned up of birtherism. There were at least six, as I recall. Writing on the birther movement is not being a birther. By that standard, Snopes are birthers. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 06:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Here's one that goes back to 2011, before I was banned. I consolidated material written by others, what I added I don't remember. Nowherre do I express an editorial stance on the issue. It's fine writing, in keeping with Wikipedia NPOV. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 07:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

And some of these claims are ridiculous, like the insertion of "president" in unrelated articles. It's been a constant ongoing battle. I'v done more to cleanup CP of birtherism than anybody else, and it is not something I am proud to boast about. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 07:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Again Bongolian misrepresents facts. The full statement he cites is: "The alleged forged document on the White House website. Birth certificate The document bares a watermark; watermarks were not available in 1961. An original has never been produced." I am reverting your edits. You can start over. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 07:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

And if what Snopes says is true, Obama should sue his publisher and get his money back. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 07:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

In 2004, I personally heard Gloria Borger say on PBS's Washington Week in Review say that Obama was born in Kenya. Why don't you go post up all your crap on Gloria Borger's and PBS's pages? nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 07:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I would like to call upon the other moderators (@DuceMoosolini, @LeftyGreenMario, @RoninMacbeth, @RWRW and @Spud) to adjudicate this issue. Nobs has edited his own page (Conservapedia:RobSmith); this is highly frowned upon for obvious reasons, and there is precedent for not allowing people to edit pages about themselves other than their own home pages. Rather than jump into an immediate coop again, I'm calling upon you to evaluate the evidence text and the evidence that I presented:

Nobs engaged in Obama citizenship denial, a form of racism, by falsely claiming that Obama's birth certificate was fake because, "The document bares^[sic] a watermark; watermarks were not available in 1961. An original has never been produced." Nobs' claim was presumably based on conspiracy theorist Jerome Corsi's claim and was debunked by FactCheck.org.

Nobs also falsely claimed that Obama himself started the birther movement, "The birther movement was started by Obama himself." Nobs' claim was based on Breitbart.com reprinting in 2012 of a 1991 promotional booklet written by Obama's literary agency, which stated that he was born in Kenya. Neither Andrew Breitbart, nor Breitbart.com were birthers, and the literary agent who wrote the information stated that it was an error and did not come from information provided by Obama.

References

Really, I would have preferred to ignore Nobs and Conservapedia as I had done for years. Since he tried to get elected moderator, people need to understand who he really is, that he holds views that are not just eccentric but that are in opposition to the foundational purposes of RationalWiki. Bongolian (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Is there a specific instance where a person added content to their own page that was then reverted on those grounds? If so, could you please provide links to such a case? RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

It sounds an awful lot like an attempt to import Wikipedias COI policy to me. However if we were to suddenly apply that policy, both Bongolian and nobs would be prohibited from editing the page. Making the issue moot. — Dysk (contribs) 20:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The problem with that analysis is that RW has, generally, avoided strict policy, deciding issues via the mob votes that are (very lightly) advised by precedent. If we WERE to import the COI policy from Wikipedia, that would require a full community vote. RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Generally we remove content if it's crap, it has nothing to do with who wrote it. That said, people often try and whitewash their articles an we generally undo their changes. But I contend this is because the changes are crap, not because they were made by the subject. — Dysk (contribs) 20:50, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

But the specific reason Bongolian summoned the other moderators here was because nobs was editing his own article, not because the edits were shitty. If that was the main issue, then this discussion would be taking place at Conservapedia talk:RobSmith, not here. So if the main problem is that nobs's edits were just shitty, then, well, why isn't this being discussed at Conservapedia talk:RobSmith? RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Probably because nobs feels that the edits by Bongolian are directly connected to the fact they still having a tiff. Therefore it's a conduct issue, and not so much a content issue. — Dysk (contribs) 21:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Nobs is trying to whitewash his own page, as other have done before and were reverted for the attempted whitewashing, e.g., Emil Emil_Kirkegaard[4]

So nobs is just a low quality editor but I don't see how this is concerning right now, like hasn't he done this sort of crap already? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

If the consensus is moderators are unimpressed by what Nobs has had to say here, then I'll reinstate my edits, and lock the page if he persists on editing it. As I've stated before, I'm happy to correct factual errors, and I previously went so far as to invite Dysklyver to edit my edits on that page. Bongolian (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, Bongolian's previous edits to the page were mostly fine (I changed some minor details). I haven't looked into the more recent edits yet, beyond noting the fact nobs is clearly upset. — Dysk (contribs) 23:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

If that is the case, then I think this is settled. RoninMacbeth (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm all for taking the discussion to Conservapedia talk:RobSmith, where it can be ignored. Mind you, these false and slanders edits are about a living person - additionally made by a Moderator. And a Mod's job is to mediate and resolve disputes, not slander living persons on Rationalwiki with false information and bring the project into disrepute. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 00:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Will someone please remove the false information Bongolian admitted to in this discussion

He locked the page, and continues to insert false and slanderous information - that he admitted was false in this thread, about a living person. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 04:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore, he posted "Nobs engaged in Obama citizenship denial, a form of racism," which clearly is disproven by these three edits. before and after and here (more available).

Bongolian's claim he cites to Dr. Corsi leaves out my reference to an "alleged forgery." nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 04:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Nowhere do I express an opinion pro or con. I mediated a dispute between warring factions with neutral language based on available evidence from both sides. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 04:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@RobSmith "I'm all for taking the discussion to Conservapedia talk:RobSmith, where it can be ignored." Too fucking bad, we're going there. Pick a difflink of the article that you prefer, and try to convince the mob to implement your version. I dislike discussing editorial content on the mod noticeboard when Bongolian starts it, and I sure as hell dislike doing it when you do so. I'll set up a vote. RoninMacbeth (talk) 06:28, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@DuceMoosolini @LeftyGreenMario @RoninMacbeth @RWRW @Spud You may want to vote on this since Nobs is trying to enshrine his views on his webpage that I view as being highly problematic, as I detailed there: Conservapedia talk:RobSmith#Edit War, RobSmith v. Bongolian. Bongolian (talk) 23:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Patience, grasshopper. I will vote when I feel like I can confidently make the best choice for the Wiki. RoninMacbeth (talk) 00:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Why do we put up with constant trolling by unlicensed thinker?

He doesn't believe a goddamn word he says. He just wants to shit stir on the bar. Is there some grounds for it? ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

For clarity of archives this is answered in the section below. My best summary of the conclusion is "We tolerate it as long as it doesn't violate any guidelines on disruptive". I weep for the subjective. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:35, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Should we make a policy to ban sealioning trolls? — Dr. Oxyaena ^{quack specialist} 08:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Accusation of racism

To the moderators: @Bongolian, @DuceMoosolini, @LeftyGreenMario, @RWRW, @RoninMacbeth, @Spud

Besides the usual "dumbass", "shut the fuck up", "You're a dumb fuck", "shut the fuck" coming from @Ikanreed, he recently accused me of being of a racist. Precisely, he replied to one of my posts with:

"wow they obviously qualified a different word in the sentence to defray legal risk of alleging a crime, that must mean they're bigoted against racist morons like me" You're a dumb fuck, and I reiterate you should shut the fuck up, and stop pretending like you've got a point. You don't. You do actually know you're full of shit. You know you're putting on a show. Take those crocodile tears and use them to lube up your shitty opinion and shove it back up your ass where it came from.

If on the one hand I find insults like "dumbass" quite childish and I think they do not make any damage to me (although I do not see how the reiteration of "shut the fuck up" conciliates with RW standard "We welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue"); On the other hand I find an accusation of racism quite serious and damaging, because other users (not having the time to dig into my all contributions) could think I really expressed racist thoughts in the past, which of course I didn't (I don't even remember if I ever talked about race on RW).

So I ask ikanreed to prove his accusations of me being a racist or to retrieve them, and I ask the moderators to settle this situation once for all, so that in his next post ikanreed will not come up with another accusation like that. Thinker^(unlicensed) 17:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Ban this whiner. Seriously, just fucking do it. This is like the tenth time they've pitched a fit at being called on their bullshit, while flagrantly trolling. Has this user ever contributed anything of value to this wiki? Has this user ever posted something to the saloon bar that wasn't at least a little trolling? Why the fuck are we putting up with this shit? ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Good gods in Asgard, this is the Lankaster thing all over again. What the fuck is going on between you two? RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

You know what? No. Fuck that. It's not personal. I don't have some hate boner for the guy. Just every single goddamn time they post at the bar it's some dishonest-as-hell bullshit. And when I treat it as such, they run here whining "it's so unfair, they called me a racist because I said racist shit". ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ikanreed, get back to me when and if UT violates Community Standards in some meaningful way. @UnlicensedThinker I haven't gone through all of your edits yet, but I'm far more inclined to trust Ikanreed when it comes to your subtext than you. Now both of you, clear off of here until something actually important happens. RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

"I haven't gone through all of your edits yet, but I'm far more inclined to trust Ikanreed when it comes to your subtext than you."

@RoninMacbeth That's exactly the problem I mentioned: users don't have time to read all my contributions, so they are gonna assume that I really said something racist because ikanreed is claiming so -although he gave no proofs- and I'll be effectively labeled as racist.

"And when I treat it as such, they run here whining "it's so unfair, they called me a racist because I said racist shit"".

@Ikanreed So you are reiterating you accusation. Show me one instance when I made a racist statement. Thinker^(unlicensed) 17:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

What part of "both of you clear off of here until something actually important happens" do you fail to understand? If you have a problem with Ikanreed, take this to the Bar or his talkpage. I AM NOT ADJUDICATING THIS ISSUE. RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm seeing ikanreed and AMassiveGay trying their hardest to reason with you and you're coming off as obtuse, IMO. It's infuriating to argue that way. Maybe ikanreed should've approached this better, just maybe, but I don't see why I should be taking any action. You guys should just try to resolve this and do not sealion. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with LeftyGreenMario. This does not (as yet) require moderation. Bongolian (talk) 21:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the above comments, this doesn't need Moderator mediation yet. Its best to try and talk things out on a talk page and not let things flare into a larger-scale community issue. --RWRW (talk) 15:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario"I'm seeing ikanreed and AMassiveGay trying their hardest to reason with you and you're coming off as obtuse"

Let's say that you are completely right: That doesn't mean that ikanreed accusing me of being a racist is OK. Can a user call another user "racist" in a thread that has nothing to do with race? Can he make again the same accusation without giving any proof? This is the issue here, and you are ignoring it. Thinker^(unlicensed) 21:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

New account trolls

It might be worth disabling account creation for one week. I have spent a lot of time on this Wiki creating articles, I try to avoid talk-pages but now new accounts are targeting me. I now seem to be a target from Mikemikev/Abd Lomax/ Smith drama. Now when I create an article Mikemikev turns up trolling the talk-page on a different account pretending to be a different identity. Yesterday I was up through the night debating this troll. A total waste of my time. He had never read up on the topic of statin denialism before yesterday, so he had no idea what he was talking about, it was just a way to provoke me. I like this Wiki but there is far too much trolling here from new accounts. People can put hard time in creating decent articles here and then are trolled by a series of ridiculous sock-puppets, it is not really fair. I am not sure if account disable has done before, but just a suggestion. The typical response will be ignore the trolls, yeh I understand but this trolling is tiresome and is messing up this Wiki. Something better should be done about it. John66 (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Umm. First of all, I don't even know if it can be done. Second of all, hell no. Mods closing account creation for a week seems pretty "mod-overreachy" to me. RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Completely infringes upon the rights of the Educated Proletariat. Request denied. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

There does seem to be an increase in sock related nonsense lately, but I don't even think preventing account creation is possible. Even if it is it will only impact genuine new users. --RWRW (talk) 18:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@John66 Try ignoring the trolls. If that proves too taxing, ping ikanreed and ask him to apply his usual diplomatic balm to the problem. Ariel31459 (talk) 18:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, if the trolling gets bad on a particular page, moderators can protect it so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it. You are welcome to ask for that here if that is ever the case. Bongolian (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Easily reverted and blocked stuff might be annoying but they're incapable of any lasting damage. Mikemikev can only accomplish wasting your time but you also learn how to deal with him better. Actual damage would be locking account creation, though. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I would vastly prefer we just banned everyone involved than closed account creation (which isn't an option even worth considering, to be clear). RationalWiki is an open wiki, meaning anybody can contribute, and by it's nature this includes the fact there will be trolls. It doesn't even matter if all the trolls are one person, because there are unlimited numbers of mad cranks out there who could appear at any time and start behaving in the same way. If you really can't handle some trolls, then spend a week away from the Wiki or something and have a nice break. — Dysk (contribs) 19:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Rate limit sysop actions

Per @Ikanreed who mentioned that someone could cause havoc with automated tools on a sysop account, I propose that a rate limit to how fast admin actions could be completed. The rate limit would not apply to bot flagged accounts, techs, or mods. As an example, the following approximate restrictions.

• each sysop can only make 25 actions of each type an hour (except blocks)
• each sysop can only make 1 promotion/demotion to sysop per half hour
• an account must be a month old before promoting another account to sysop

Restrictions would be enabled using an edit filter, anyone breaking the limit would be warned, and failure to observe the warning would trigger automatic desysoping of that account.

This would obviously prevent significant automated damage by a runaway crazy sysop. — Dysk (contribs) 16:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

This technical solution to a social problem is not an easy one to implement. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

It's a hard limit to the number of general sysop actions and a general fix to prevent circumvention through creating new accounts and sysoping them. Therefore it would be impossible to cause significant disruption to the wiki, even with a sysop account. In other words, it's a bot to stop a bot. (I have been assured that the technical aspect of this is possible). — Dysk (contribs) 16:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and you're demanding an extremely complex technical system to implement. Have you looked over the mediawiki sourcecode? It's gigantically complicated and each sysop function is a completely separate module. Rate limiting "Actions" in a broad sense is all but impossible and would require a month or more of full-time software engineer and QA effort to develop. We don't have the funds or volunteers for that. I know it's tempting to say "let the software handle this problem" with an arbitrary set of requirements that you think might fix the issue. But the truth is "soft" solutions are so much better in 99% of cases than hard solutions. It's the same thing as with the edit filters you tried to put in, you're trying to automate a human job.

I don't think we've ever had a malicious sysop who wasn't also demoted with too-few quality mainspace edits. It's such an easy restriction to abide by, but you want to do some chat room power broking shit. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Well I am a bit of a mediawiki dev myself and already have written the filters, if you ever change your mind. — Dysk (contribs) 18:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

While this all sounds fascinating, why is it being discussed here? RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Because I promised ikanreed not to embark on any hare-brained schemes of wiki domination without getting some input on why it is definitely not a good idea which will never happen first. — Dysk (contribs) 19:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

PSA about User:Anti-Authoritarian

@Anti-Authoritarian All sysops should be careful when patrolling the edits of this user. They regularly make mistakes that are not immediately obvious in the diffs such as adding links that do not work (see their coop case, contributions, their talk page where they have been repeatedly notified about this, and my recent edit fixing their mistakes). CowHouse (talk) 04:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Reddit Reclamation Project

@LeftyGreenMario @RWRW @Spud @DuceMoosolini @Bongolian @FuzzyCatPotato @David Gerard I would like to propose the Reddit Reclamation Project, an attempt to reclaim r/RationalWiki from the trolls who ruined it and restore it to its glory. Here is my plan:

1. Ask for three RationalWiki volunteers to use their Reddit accounts to subscribe to r/RationalWiki or sign up with new Reddit accounts.
2. Ask David and Fuzzy to grant these volunteers modding rights, and to allow them to step down if they do not wish to have anything to do with it anymore.
3. Amend the rules to also ban users who are banned here, as well as disallowing harassment, unconstructive trolling, etc.
4. Invite more RationalWikians to repopulate the subreddit.
5. Once this is done, slowly allow more users to post until a state of normalcy may resume.
6. Once this is done, allow the subreddit more autonomy.

Thoughts? RoninMacbeth (talk) 03:03, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not on Reddit, but it sounds reasonable to me. Bongolian (talk) 03:08, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I second this motion. Nerd (talk) 03:18, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I created an account several months ago but never use it. I don't mind keeping an eye on it if no one else wants to. --RWRW (talk) 03:24, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

All I can say is that I have zero experience with Reddit. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 04:40, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I also have zero experience with Reddit. And, since pretty much all I know about is what I've read here on RW, I don't think very highly of it. However, if the community here wants me to go there and try to clean things up, I'd be prepared to give it a go. Spud (talk) 05:02, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I also have very little experience with it, but I believe that it would be a useful platform, just like the Discord. RoninMacbeth (talk) 05:03, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

• ex-mod waves hand* this looks like a good plan, but I'm not on reddit enough to be an effective mod there. Good luck with this though. Avida Dollars^{her again} 08:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Main thing is having enough people who give a shit. Nobody really posted there, like, for years. Then the obsessive banned trolls showed up, then 100% of the effort was kicking them, then I went "this is rubbish" and closed it. If you think you can revive it to something useful, let me know your Reddit username and I'll add you as a mod - but I'm not sanguine it has potential, really - David Gerard (talk) 09:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, I've just created an account, just in case. Spud (talk) 09:17, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Well I am on Reddit as u/Dysklyver, (not to be confused with u/TheDysklyver which is actually Mikemikev trolling me), but don't use it regularly or anything. — Dysk (contribs) 10:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I am on Reddit as u/RoninMacbeth. RoninMacbeth (talk) 14:33, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

added the three of you, now it's your job to post content and fend off the banned trolls! - David Gerard (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

@David Gerard What about the other social media platforms?

@Spud It's a platform used mainly by young people, so don't keep your expectations high. Usage drops with age. Nerd (talk) 14:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

still need someone who will post on-topic links on the RW Facebook - email me with your Facebook timeline page and I'll add you - David Gerard (talk) 16:33, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

WIGO integration might be a good idea (i.e. WIGO stories with more than *n* upvotes get posted on Reddit). That might bring some life in to the sub. Personally I much prefer using Reddit over MediaWiki for conversations/discussions. Martin (talk) 03:58, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

A Problem With Two Cows?

On the intertubes section (specifically the Reddit subsection) has a description of /r/The_Donald that is a bit disconcerting to me as it describes an opposing candidate as "the enemy". I'm not sure if it's for taking the piss out of TD users or not, I just thought I'd alert the mods. If it's not a problem then I apologize for the bother. Towards-the Unknown (talk) 00:54, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

re read that entire section again or indeed take another look at that page. even if there was some intentional message of hate or whatever, directed at any group, its lost in a sea on nonsense. if there is any problem on that page its that people are still adding to it AMassiveGay (talk) 01:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

This is not a moderator issue. We're here mainly as a last resort to resolve disputes, not as the first place to go to fix pages: that's an editor/Sysop task. Bongolian (talk) 02:06, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't see anything offensive at all in that section. It should be quite obvious that the whole thing is a parody. Also, this isn't anything that the moderators need to be notified about. Cosmikdebris (talk) 02:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @Towards-the Unknown There's an amazing new feature that allows you to solve conundrums such as these, check it out, it's called "editing." Big shock I know, has only been around ever since writing was first invented. Cutting edge technology if I may say so myself. — Oxyaena ^Harass 02:48, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@Oxyaena I did edit it before but it was reverted. Regardless, it seems I shouldn't have written here and I need to tune my online joke detector... again. x_x Towards-the Unknown (talk) 03:29, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Bongolian's block

19:56, 5 May 2019 Bongolian (talk | contribs | block) blocked UnlicensedThinker (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 3141 seconds (about 1 hour) (account creation disabled) (Trolling talk pages) (unblock | change block) (Special:Log)

@Bongolian Why? I was not even editing talk pages.

I remind you RationalWiki:Blocking_policy. Thinker^(unlicensed) 20:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

He means the Saloon Bar, and do I need to give you a few more lessons on how to unblock yourself? DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 21:01, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Do I need to give you a lesson about the facts that: (1) Blocking against RW rules is against RW rules, even if the blocked user can unblock himself (2) If I have started this thread it means that I have already unblocked myself, hence I need no lesson about how to do it? Thinker^(unlicensed) 21:13, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, there ya go. If you can unblock yourself, then don't be a fucking baby and come whining to mommy and daddy because Bongolian was being a meanie-pants. I'm not your babysitter, and neither are the other mods. If things every get truly out of hand, we're there to handle it. But otherwise, we do rely on this site's users to be able to manage their problems on their own like functional people. Finally, going to the blocking policy page at every excuse makes you look like a child: "Mommy, he broke the rules, aren't you gonna punish him?" The block policy is a general set of guidelines to give people an idea of how they should use their sysop powers, not the freaking Nuremberg Laws. If you notice, this site's regular users don't exactly follow it to the letter either. So again, in short, try handling the little things yourself, yeah? DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 21:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

More power to us if you can't unblock yourself. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:47, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I also blocked you for being a moron. It is not against rules to block morons for being morons. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Do they allow us to do so? That's the question we should be asking. RoninMacbeth (talk) 22:47, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

And the answer to that question is yes. There’s a provision allowing for joke blocks, and blocking someone who can unblock themselves is just an extension of that. It’s called the “largely defensive weapon of wasting your time to unblock yourself.” DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 23:35, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Point of Order: I used to be "joke blocked" everytime I logged in. In recent litigation, Bongolian brought up a ten year old block where the edit summary wasn't even related to whatever lame point Bongolian was trying to make. If you don't have a clear policy on blocking, I suggest trying to use the block log as evidence in the Chicken Coop might be considered a form of trolling or harassment. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 02:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@DuceMoosolini ... largely defensive weapon ... When are people ever going to forget about that damn fail. :-\ BlackWhite Speak 21:38, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposed New Mod Guideline

In order to keep off-site drama off-site, perhaps we should consider a policy where mods (or even sysops) are allowed to collapse, even revert, discussions of interuser drama going on at other sites, such as the RW Discord server or r/rationalwiki (not much goes on there, granted, but still). Basically, two main points.

1. (for all users) Off-site drama belongs off-site. Please keep it there.
2. (for mods) Off-site drama being brought onto RW may be freely collapsed or reverted.

Thoughts? RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Currently anybody can collapse SB sections, are you suggesting this should be mod-only? Avida Dollars^{her again} 15:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

No, I suggest that we should encourage people to collapse those sections more quickly. RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:18, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I'd go along with that. Since this is something that anybody can and should do, you'd be better off bringing it up in the Saloon Bar than here. Spud (talk) 16:25, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

It's not every day that the Discord loses a founding member, a co-owner with 50k posts. So y'know, It might not happen that often. — Dysk (contribs) 16:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, I hope not. But sooner or later drama from some other website, any other website, will get imported from there again. Spud (talk) 05:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Don't we already do this? — Dr. Oxyaena ^{quack specialist} 08:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Spud (talk) 13:21, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Then why even discuss it? — Dr. Ox ^{quack specialist} 23:37, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

India/Pakistan

should we do something about User:Bkpsusmitaa/Violence in the Quran? — Dysk (contribs) 14:26, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

So, just the page, or is the user causing problems? RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Well I was specifically concerned about the page, but also what might happen with the user if I engaged, given their comments so far, for example on Talk:Islam. — Dysk (contribs) 15:12, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I would recommend engaging with him nonetheless Well, shit. Yet another accusation of taking money from someone. Haven't seen an accusation of PetroDollar funding, though, that's new. The way that article is written (particularly the "Note to the Editors") that is never going to make it to mainspace. RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

If I may, I recommend a "wait and see" approach, at least for the present. The article in question is in Draftspace, and is thus not viewable to the public unless they deliberately went looking for it. Further, both the Quran and Islam have content worth criticizing, though tact may be required. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:29, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Definitely wait and see for now. Seeing what that user has done so far, I've already said, "This isn't going to end well", to myself a few times. In fact, I fear this will end with us having to take action against the creation of increasingly Islamophobic content. Then when we do, we'll be accused of being dupes of the International Muslim Conspiracy who don't realize we're laying the groundwork for the establishment of the worldwide caliphate. With, of course, plenty of, "But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki" thrown in. But I hope I'm wrong. Spud (talk) 16:41, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘As long as it's not advocating violence, which it doesn't seem to be, it would be acceptable for Essayspace. Bongolian (talk) 19:09, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Moderators have all received emails from @Bkpsusmitaa with his assurance that he's not advocating violence. That's fine. The main problem with what is possibly intended as a Mainspace article (User:Bkpsusmitaa/Violence in the Quran) is that it is very long and does not conform very well with other RationalWiki articles. E.g., excessive links to Wikipedia, lots opinionated text without references to confirm it. As I said early, it's fine in Essayspace. As other have indicated, it's very problematic for Mainspace though. Bongolian (talk) 04:19, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, I'm changing my mind about Bkpsusmitaa. He got auto-blocked by a filter. I'm not sure that the filter was for the right reason, but some of the writing is getting within the realm of hate speech. Bongolian (talk) 05:18, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I didn't get no email! I just looked in my junk folder and saw I had one message. From Pottermore. Maybe he saw the Ramadan greetings picture on my user page, decided that the Muslims had got to me already and I was beyond saving. Spud (talk) 05:52, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I just permabanned him btw. — Dr. Ox ^{quack specialist} 05:57, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, that's probably saved us a solid three months of drama. Spud (talk) 06:12, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Sometimes you just gotta nip the problem in the bud early before it grows out of control. — Dr. Ox ^{quack specialist} 08:41, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Someone involved in this just sent me a long email detailing how RationalWiki isn't rational, and linking to this discussion - David Gerard (talk) 07:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Drink! — Dr. Ox ^{quack specialist} 07:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ For reference, the edit they were trying to make. — Dysk (contribs) 09:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Avida Dollars

@Avida Dollars Please, stop deleting my comments. Thinker^(unlicensed) 20:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@UnlicensedThinker I'm going to give you the best and friendliest advice I can. If you don't want everything you ever write to be dismissed as trollery, then abandon this UnlicensedThinker account, which has become nothing but a toxic brand, and start again under a completely different user name. Then stop the constant "IT'S POLITICAL CORRECTNESS GONE MAD!!!" and "fat black gay woman says something stupid" posts in the Saloon Bar and do something useful. You're obviously an intelligent person. You could be an asset to this wiki, instead of a blight on it, if that's what you chose to do. You have a very good command of English, which you say is not your first language. Why don't you translate some of our articles into your first language or any other languages you speak? I urge you to give up your UnlicensedThinker account and make a fresh start with another one while you still can. That is before any new accounts you create get blocked on sight for being sockpuppets of a banned user. Because if you carry on the way you have been carrying on, it won't be very long before you cross the line in your attempts to shock us and get banned permanently. Spud (talk) 05:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Seconded. I know this all too well given my experiences with the Discord. — Dr. Ox ^{quack specialist} 06:09, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

"If you don't want everything you ever write to be dismissed as trollery, then abandon this UnlicensedThinker account, which has become nothing but a toxic brand, and start again under a completely different user name."

@Spud Isn't that sock puppetry? Anyway, some users have already started to see that the continuous accusations of concern trolling are ridiculous, which makes other users angry, but that's their problem, I'm not going to change my account because of them.

"Why don't you translate some of our articles into your first language or any other languages you speak?"

If there's something I like about the internet is that I can use English instead of a language spoken by a strict minority whose majority is too lazy to learn English... so no, they don't deserve English to be translated in their own language.

"it won't be very long before you cross the line in your attempts to shock us and get banned permanently."

I don't think so, as I said I think the trend is going in the opposite direction, more people are starting to see that accusations against me were unjust. Anyway, we'll see. Thinker^(unlicensed) 06:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@UnlicensedThinker What I just suggested would not be seen as serious sockpuppetry if you did it right now, while you are not a banned user. And it's nothing that hasn't happened here before, normally when teenagers grow up and regret the dunb way they acted on the wiki when they were younger. I will make it perfectly clear that I was suggesting that you give up your former trollery and start anew. Not that you just do the same shit under a new name. I didn't think you'd go for my suggestion. But I had to try. I gave you a much fairer chance than you deserve.

I have seen zero support for you from anyone else. You removed the templates above that video you posted. No one else did. In fact, I think what I just wrote will be the friendliest words directed towards you that you will ever see here again.

Right, well I see the way it's going to be. Things are going to get worse before they get better. But you will eventually go too far in your attempts to shock us and then you will be permabanned. Spud (talk) 07:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@UnlicensedThinker Well wikipedia has a similar policy called clean start. Basically if you have no outstanding bans or vandal binning you can make a new account to get a fresh start. I honestly think this would be best for you your account is not going to be taken seriously here. Begin again. Commie Lib (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @UnlicensedThinker starting with a new account is a trick. u can rename ur account if u need a new brand, or stop posting on the saloon bar EK (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Guys, I'm not going to start a new account. Thinker^(unlicensed) 19:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

She's right, it would be a bad idea to make a new account. It might be a good idea not to post stuff on the Saloon Bar though. — Dysk (contribs) 19:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Snuff? — Dr. Ox ^{quack specialist} 19:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, let's not put snuff films on the Saloon. Attracts the wrong brand of crazy. RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:00, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Well what about scat? — Dr. Ox ^{quack specialist} 20:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I will unironically permaban anyone posting scat on this wiki. They can then have fun explaining why they though it was a good idea to the mob. :/ — Dysk (contribs) 20:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Aww, no fair. — Dr. Ox ^{quack specialist} 20:54, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

philistinesAMassiveGay (talk) 22:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Haha, so owned. — Dysk (contribs) 23:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@AMassiveGay I thought too of posting a scat singing video immediately after I read Dysklyver's post, too bad you have preceded me. Thinker^(unlicensed) 08:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@AMassiveGay: I think Oxyaena meant scatology.   — Jeff G. ツ 17:56, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@Jeff G. No shit, Sherlock? Spud (talk)

@UnlicensedThinker Come over to the Dark Side. Stop bathing in the Light; it'll give you cancer, you know. (This user doesn't know how colons work) BlackWhite Speak 21:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Soph

As a general rule, should we have pages on this website about children? It doesn't feel right to me. CowHouse (talk) 06:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

If she were a relative unknown, then I could see a problem. She's got nearly a million followers, she's been on Alex Jones, and she presumably has been either pushed into this or been allowed to do it by her fashy parents. I don't see a problem with the page because of all that. Bongolian (talk) 07:17, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I guess Bongolian is right. In some ways, I'm pleased that today's internet wasn't around when I was a teenager because I probably would have made some "comedy" YouTube videos that I'd regret now. And I just hope that she changes her mind as she grows up. Spud (talk) 07:27, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I would only be comfortable with the article if we came up with some kind of policy similar to the living persons one, pertaining to minors. RoninMacbeth (talk) 13:27, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

the article doesnt mention her full name or use her photo, her channel is widely covered in mainstream media and is missional, and even wikipedia has no specific blp policy for minors EK (talk) 13:38, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

If you want a policy, I suggest that you propose one. Bongolian (talk) 18:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

DigitalWasteland

This user was registered only 24 hours ago and was speedily made a sysop, and now appears to be inserting gibberish into articles. See Kent Hovind and Eric Hovind. Cheers, Cosmikdebris (talk) 19:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I've removed sysop rights for DigitalWasteland and given the person a short block. If @D has a problem with this, then he can state his case here. Bongolian (talk) 20:05, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response. I'm still not sure what this person's purpose is here; their responses thus far confuse me even more. Cosmikdebris (talk) 20:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Contributions are consistent with an Uncyclopedian and yeah I don't mind in the slightest. — Dysk (contribs) 20:54, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring and violation of RW policy on living persons

User is violating our policy on living persons. The identification he is edit warring for is without any substance. Check the fake references the paragraph uses to bolster its claim. Tintin (talk) 06:04, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Try to work this out with @TheUmbilicalCordGuy on the talk page for this article, @Tintin and not bother moderators at the drop of a hat. You lack specifics, Tintin. Bongolian (talk) 06:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Can't force TheUmbilicalCordGuy to read the footnotes for himself. As I wrote on talk page all one needs is to look at footnote seven and see how it does NOT at all prove what it claims to. Neither do the other footnotes. Tintin (talk) 21:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@Tintin If that's the only problem in the whole paragraph that you deleted then you should have only deleted that sentence and explained why on that talk page (not here). Bongolian (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Patrolling New Pages that got Moved Before they were Patrolled

So there are currently two pages that got moved before they got patrolled -- Cometan and Pittsburgh Synagogue Shooting -- meaning they're stuck in the List of pages that are unpatrolled but don't actually have links to patrol them. I've tried following the instructions on the bottom of the linked page, but I've no idea how to submit a POST request to the RW API, and the URL method is throwing me a "We think there's something up with your login session so we're not letting you do that" error. Would it be possible to get some help on clearing these, or are they just stuck? Thanks! ℕoir LeSable (talk) 22:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Cleared both. :) — Dysk (contribs) 22:33, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Sweet, thanks! ℕoir LeSable (talk) 22:35, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Brxbrx

Given that @Brxbrx, one of the Great Old Ones, has been awaken from his slumber, can we undo sysoprevoke on him? — Oxyaena ^Harass 01:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Why was he given sysop revoke? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 02:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

From what I recall during that time period, various disruptions and personality conflicts. Also, libel.--Sophie (talk) 02:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Libel is bad. Brxbrx should make the appeal themselves after a period of good behavior if so desired. Bongolian (talk) 03:02, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, I was accused of libel because I included in an article some crank's accusation that one of his critics was a pedophile. So I was reposting libel, whilst calling it out as libel, in order to criticize some crank, and the powers that be saw fit to ban me for it, although there was a litany of other offenses, imagined or otherwise, that bolstered the decision. I don't have strong feelings about being a sysop either way. I don't see myself as having the time or patience to produce anymore mainspace content, I only pop in every now and then because 1)sometimes I have time to kill, and 2)I see my continued presence on this website as a great way to spite the assholes that got me b& in the first place--"Shut up, Brx." 03:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome to continue your edits here, Brxbrx. I don't see much point in making you a sysop at this time though. You're welcome to make an appeal for reinstatment at a later date if you decide that you want to be more active here. Bongolian (talk) 03:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

For Britain

Ahoy, matey! Beware, for there be a great sea of Concern Troll Bullshit ahead!

Would someone with a neutral POV and/or critical thinking please look at the article on For Britain, and the associated Talk page? I have tried to move the more contentious claims from the lede into the appropriate section. My edits have been reverted, usually without discussion, and I have been called a vandal and blocked, in addition to being insulted on the Talk page. GrammarCommie says on the article Talk page that he does this to people every week, and vows to revert automatically any future edits by me, in addition to placing my account in the "vandal bin"; his behavior appears to be an abuse of power. (He has also called me a single issue editor, but how many issues can one person start with on the first day? The experience has given me a really hostile "welcome" to RationalWiki.) The article did briefly achieve something like NPOV and rational critical thinking, but then GrammarCommie reverted to a prior sloganeering version and protected that. Curious (talk) 03:42, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

We are not NPOV. We are SPOV. Get over it or go to WP. Bongolian (talk) 03:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Knock off with your pretenses, it's not fooling anyone. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Actually, you have been neither banned nor blocked (Obviously, otherwise you would be unable to edit this page, or any page for that matter.) Rather, due your repeated edit warring over multiple articles you have been vandal binned. This mean you are only able to edit every thirty minutes. I did this rather than deal with your edit warring across multiple articles over tone. Further neutrality is giving everyone the same chance and not picking a position or side, which is not the same thing as critical thinking or rationalism, both of which come to conclusions and state them based on evidence and data. Example, from a neutral POV, Creationism is just an alternate theory. From a critical,objective, and rational POV, it's not even Hypothesis, let alone something as advanced as a theory, merely whining and bitching by those who wish to treat a work of fiction as if it were fact, and are upset that others do not. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 03:56, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@Bongolian@LeftyGreenMario I think we should give this individual the benefit of the doubt, at least for the time being. It is very easy for people to fall into the trap of conflating Islamophobia (conspiracy theories about Muslims) with legitimate criticism of Islam (the ideology), partly because the bigots and cranks try to use the existence of legitimate criticism as a shield when they get caught. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 04:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh god another one of these types, can't we just ban em? — Oxyaena ^Harass 04:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

My concern is the constant tone changes based on the idea that the leader of the movement leans left several places despite beliefs on Islam that echo far-right sentiment. I get that one far-right view doesn't necessarily mean it's far right. But, I think it's still accurate to characterize as far-right due to the Islamophobia being the first and foremost issue of this party, how this party attracted far-right figures, and there's the possibility that the LGBT and feminist beliefs originate from the Islamophobic framework (as it does in the For Britain about page). The page itself is giving me far-right jibes too by welcoming Donald Trump and supposed left-wing indoctrination by universities. If it looks like a duck...

Oxyaena: grits teeth that's my problem with these kinds of people.... --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 04:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Returning to the original point, the article contains a combination of verifiable statements and contentious claims. I tried to move the contentious claims into the appropriate section. For my efforts, I was rewarded with automatic reversion and a one-way ticket to the "vandal bin." Would someone who can look objectively at the article please put the slogans where they belong? Feel free to add snark, e.g. about not winning any seats. Curious (talk) 04:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

It's a duck. Bongolian (talk) 04:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

--It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 04:40, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Done. — Oxyaena ^Harass 04:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm here mulling if the indef ban was worthy or not, whenever some other mod is going to dispute that, but ultimately, I don't care for this user. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 06:38, 5 June 2019 (UTC)