RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive14

This is an archive page, last updated 23 October 2019. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <15>, <16>, <17>, < List>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>

, (back)

Prejudice plus power needs work[edit]

I went through the Prejudice plus power page today and noticed that it has a number of dead references, as well as multiple points of presenting an opinionated source as fact. I deleted one example of a dead source as well as reworded the statements of opinion as fact, but it was immediately reverted. Going through the page in general, it seems to rely on a number of sources with questionable validity (basically Daily Mail sources) as well as blogs. ^{— Unsigned, by: 170.76.231.161 / talk / contribs}

Generally that sort of thing is best discussed on the relevant Talk page, rather than involve moderators. Or, you can make edits yourself and leave a note explaining why on the Talk page. This page is really more for behavioural issues, prolonged conflicts, etc. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 19:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

BoN and Daily Mail article[edit]

I recently started cleaning up edits made by an IP editor that has bloated the Daily Mail article (though Daily Express article probably needs a clean up too). Please check the article from time to time for any edits made by 45.118.64.227 (talk · contribs · block · rights · rename) . @Bongolian, back in February, you have warned the BoN about reverting the user's edits if user continues adding improperly formatted references. The BoN has repeatedly ignored our warnings continued doing this so in May in the Daily Express article. --It's-a me, Lefty Green Mario! 03:49, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Good work, LeftyGreenMario. Maybe it would be better if one of our British editors took responsibility for monitoring those two pages (@AMassiveGay or @RWRW)? ^{— Unsigned, by: Bongolian / talk / contribs}

Maybe @Avida Dollars or @D. — Oxyaena ^Harass 04:12, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Hey, no problem. AMassiveGay has highlighted the problems in the Daily Mail article, though Daily Express still requires a cleanup. AMassiveGay isn't great with editing articles as I've learned earlier working with him on criminal transmission of HIV article months ago. It'll be a great opportunity for RWRW to do some mainspace edits as you've requested that user to do, however. If not, I can try to clean up. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 04:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I've watchlisted the two pages and I'll try and look over the Daily Express later this afternoon (though I'll admit that journalism isn't an area I'm particularly knowledgeable in). FWIW I do think I've improved my mainspace contributions in the last couple of months. --RWRW (talk) 13:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but you're not as active as I and @Bongolian are, you tend to stick to WIGO, which is fine tbh, since you're still contributing. — Oxyaena ^Harass 13:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

can I just say the 'not great at editing articles' thing was basically going to great length to justify every edit I made, only to be continually reverted with no reasoning, and when the chap in question finally deigned to reply, was with some snark bullshit. they had not even looked at my reasoning. the not great thing is because I now don't bother editing mainspace. in the space of a few days befoe that was occurring, I had lost my job and been diagonsed with an incurable disease. I just thought fuck this shit.

still wouldnt be great at editing articles now though for other reasons. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure i've never looked at my watchlist under this account. Maybe I should. Avida Dollars^{her again} 10:20, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Delete section?[edit]

Hi, This is my first time here. Your website looks like a great project. But I started to skim and found some poor work. I'm happy to make edits as I go along, but it seems your site limits the kinds of edits I can make and I can't figure out how to get permission for more significant edits. Here's the example I came across. You list as a scientific error that Deuteronomy says that the Canaanites were eliminated. It doesn't say that. Is says that they should be eliminated. The books of Joshua and Judges say that they weren't actually eliminated and sees this as a sin. So, this section should just be deleted, it makes the site look bad. So, what can I do when I come across such mistakes? ^{— Unsigned, by: ^{— Unsigned, by: Dbaras / talk / contribs}}

You haven't made any edits other than this one under this account name, so I'm not entirely sure what edits you're referring to. Other people may disagree with what you regard as erroneous. When this is the case, you can challenge them in the corresponding talk page. Bongolian (talk) 18:13, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

The page is probably locked for autoconfirmed only for reasons including excessive vandalism. To get the status, make 10 edits on unlocked pages and wait for roughly a day. Or, we can unlock the page for you. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 18:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I smell a concern troll ahead. — Oxyaena ^Harass 20:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Assume good faith, please. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 20:44, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Surely, in the Bible, if God says, "Do something", then it's as good as done. God says, "Kill the Canaanites" is virtually the same as saying that the Canaanites were killed. So there is no contradiction. Spud (talk) 15:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I think we need a link to the page in question so we can understand the point being made. Because I'm confused about what is claimed and what is being complained about. Did he want them killed and he failed? Did the Israelites fail? Did God almost get what he wanted?Hubert (talk) 07:33, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Problems with RationalWiki:Webshites[edit]

Many entries in our RationalWiki:Webshites pages violate our policy about living people: "if a claim is not solidly referenced, asserts something about the article's subject(s), and the article's subject(s) might object to it, it probably shouldn't be in the article at all."

Look at how many entries on RationalWiki:Webshites/Politics have at least one of the following issues:

No explanation
Unsourced explanation
Explanation that doesn't justify why they are listed

Frankly, entries should be removed if there isn't an accurate, sourced and justifiable explanation for why they are listed, but I don't want to perform such an action unilaterally. I acknowledge that there are people who deserve to be there but that is no excuse for users being lazy with adding entries. We need to improve quality control instead of just adding a template to low-quality pages. Other users and I have mentioned these issues to @Historybuff (a repeat offender) but they have never responded to comments on their talk page and have continued to add entries without an explanation. For example, @Oxyaena asked Historybuff to justify the following unsourced entry but they have not yet responded:

hbomberguy^(link): Male feminist, comedy slant on videos. Known for the "A measured response" videos. Recently, however, he's started becoming very... deplorable in his approach. Specifically, he made a post on Twitter where he made fun of a sexual assault survivor for not having enough sex.

CowHouse (talk) 06:49, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I support removing unsourced entries for living people especially. People who make unsupported statements anywhere other than perhaps talk pages and the Saloon should not be surprised when their edits are removed/reverted/rewritten. It's just sloppiness on their part. Bongolian (talk) 06:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Bongo. Purge webshites.

DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 07:10, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, and it's really just a matter of policy, unsourced claims can get us into legal trouble, which we definitely do not want. — Oxyaena ^Harass 07:42, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. — Dysk (contribs) 09:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Culling this page is long overdue. Cosmikdebris (talk) 13:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Let's wait a bit to give @Historybuff a chance to defend themselves. — Oxyaena ^Harass 14:05, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

@Oxyaena I doubt @Historybuff, who has continued editing since being pinged, will respond if they haven't by now. CowHouse (talk) 11:02, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Yes, I would just go ahead and remove as appropriate at this point, CowHouse. Bongolian (talk) 16:49, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry that I've been away for a while. I agree with Bongolian, any policy violations should be removed as appropriate. Be bold. RoninMacbeth (talk) 22:06, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I do love a good purge! Purge away! Spud (talk) 13:18, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Moderation[edit]

In light of just how many eternal flame wars, often being disruptive, occur on this wiki, I think it's worth considering to revise wiki rules to have a somewhat stricter moderation policy. Thoughts? — Oxyaena ^Harass 11:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@Oxyaena I don't really understand what you're suggesting here. It would be really helpful if you could provide some examples of how the current moderation policy has failed, and what changes to the policy would have helped these situations. Cosmikdebris (talk) 16:44, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

If you mean add a section to the moderation policy which says "ban nobs and the UnlicensedThinker" then I think maybe that would be a big change. — Dysk (contribs) 16:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Changing policy will be difficult, particularly if you can't convince a majority that there's a problem to be solved. The issue you seem to be referring to seems to be largely confined to talk pages and the Saloon, so it doesn't seem to be that big a problem. Bongolian (talk) 18:21, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

They won't learn anything from getting banned. Continued insult-flinging is the way to go. $₽ℛ₶₲₲₶₦₳ (₮₳£Q) (₡¤₦₮ℛ₶฿$) @ 18:51, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree that weirdly divergent opinions are not a big problem in the saloon or talk pages. I don't particularly care for gratuitous insults, and they certainly have not been effective in any useful way. An alternative might be removal of problematic saloon posts to other spaces, e.g., the posters talk page, or WIGO. They could be moved around quite a bit. Some could be posted on the talk page for "just asking questions." We could also create a new article, "Things I would not have said on RationalWiki' and put them there. I tire of pointless outrage.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

IDK, if people wanna engage with UnlicensedThinker, entertaining themselves and knowing well that UnlicensedThinker is intellectually dishonest, let them be. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 20:55, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

i'd rather not engage with the twat at all, but it doesn't sit right leaving some his shit laying unquestioned for all the world to see. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

and why exactly was I pinged (now removed)? AMassiveGay (talk) 00:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘@AMassiveGay, some BoN made an ad hominem attack on Oxyaena and thought you wanted to join in. Their edit got reverted twice. That's why you were pinged. Bongolian (talk) 02:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

That "BoN" is our old friend David Morris btw, @Bongolian. — Oxyaena ^Harass 03:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@AMassiveGay well, if you must engage, again, don't spend too much time making a response. I mean, I think in the end, this wiki would benefit when UnlicensedThinker is banned, Wikipedia:Ignore the rules or something. --It's-a me, Lefty Green Mario! 19:27, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

UT did something worthy of banning in my view, advocating violence. See: User talk:UnlicensedThinker#Block #107602. Bongolian (talk) 19:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

It looks to me like his comment was just a joke. --RWRW (talk) 19:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Nah. Not a reason to ban. Unlike everything else. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 19:58, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Violence isn't funny, RWRW. What if troll #1 actually did kill someone and they managed to trace him to that post. How would you feel about troll #2 (UT)'s "joke" then? So you want to ban UnlicensedThinker for JAQing or for no reason at all then, LeftyGreenMario? Bongolian (talk) 20:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I quite agree, and I don't think it was a joke that I would have made. But it's just some throwaway account that decided to stir the pot and UT took that bait. I think if anyone else had said it everyone would see it as a (bad tasted) joke. --RWRW (talk) 20:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with RWRW here. UT's comment was tasteless, but he said it in jest.

DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 22:18, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, but honestly, UnlicensedThinker built that reputation. Whatever misunderstanding or not that happens is entirely his fault. Even if he gets banned for a "wrong" reason, I don't particularly care whatever unfortunate and unjust fate befalls him.. Call it "ends justify means" but he exhausted my patience a long time ago, and if he gets it eat it, so be it. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 02:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, much ado about nothing. Cosmikdebris (talk) 04:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Mods do have the power to take unilateral action like this y'know. — Oxyaena ^Harass 05:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Mods may take unilateral action to promote a user at any time, i.e. place the offender in sysop revoke, but per the community standards this should normally be done after discussion in the coop. Cosmikdebris (talk) 15:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

No one wants to ban UnlicensedThinker out of concern this sort of concern troll intellectual dishonesty isn't covered in the rules. But beyond that, I need to have people think beyond these rules. What do we ultimately gain from having a token intellectually dishonest troll who also just posts crap in Saloon Bar and is just a useless piece of work? If no one in the mob wants him around, why do we bother keeping him for the sake of being consistent with the rules? Will we honestly set some imagined dangerous precedent of banning anyone we don't like? "Ignore him" is totally useless and possibly counterproductive as his comments should be challenged, especially the underhanded concern troll nature of them. I think we have to take action, he is just drama central and I am inching closer to the ban button every time UnlicensedThinker gets brought up to the moderation team and gets tolerated because he didn't blatantly break the rules. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 16:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Take him to the COOP if you think you have the votes to promote him. I would point out that, to me he is not as annoying as nobs, who has no redeeming value. I understand that some people think the saloon should be protected from right-wing insinuations. It is instructive to have a a pet troll around for users to sharpen their critical discourse. Most can do it well now. Still, some need to hone their skills, e.g.. Some truly require a reminder of what the world is really like.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Nobs at least is entertaining, UT is just a bore. — Oxyaena ^Harass 18:49, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I'd vote to promote, but I'm not taking him to the coop. He's not the only intellectually dishonest Sysop. Bongolian (talk) 18:16, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

As a matter of principle I would not vote to promote given the clear absence of abusing the tools, but that's not to say I wouldn't vote to ban him from posting on the saloon bar or some other imaginative remedy. — Dysk (contribs) 20:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

A possible remedy might be people choosing not to respond to posts they consider concern trolling until they disappear into the archives. Just saying. 142․124․55․236 (talk) 20:44, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Abject failure. We're past ignoring UnlicensedThinker. Time to rethink strategy. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 20:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps limit the number of threads UT may start on any saloon board. This may force him to actually think. I mean, posting concern about the political censorship on a site dedicated to knitting and crocheting? Really?..Really? Nobody seemed to find that as hilarious as it seemed to me. Ariel31459 (talk) 21:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @LeftyGreenMario Done. — Oxyaena ^Harass 21:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

So does anyone care enough to bring this to the coop? Or is everyone pretty chill with this probably long time coming indef and desysop? Questions, questions. :) — Dysk (contribs) 21:28, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Let's see how much people care about UnlicensedThinker. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 21:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I implemented sysoprevoke, but if anyone thinks I'm abusing tools, fine. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 21:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, LGM! Bongolian (talk) 22:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

And thanks Oxyaena for taking initiative. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 23:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

No problem, I got tired of the bystander effect. — Oxyaena ^Harass 01:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I was timid because people might accuse me of abusing moderator credentials. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 02:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario Even if no one here wants him around we can't ban him without a rule infraction. Banning someone for being unpopular sets a dangerous president. Now changing the rules and giving UT fair warning that concern trolling won't be tolerated would be a fair action. Commie Lib (talk) 02:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Guy had far too many chances and warnings, long overstayed his welcome. User hasn't changed behavior at all, just dug in heels and continued JAQing off. What will warnings accomplish? Beyond the rules, what do we gain from having an intellectually dishonest user here? There's dissent and there's just arguing in bad faith. Dissent is useful, intellectual dishonesty wastes time, which is the goal of polite intellectual dishonesty. I get the concern about coming off as just banning people we just dislike, and I get that this might set precedent to ban whoever else we don't like. But I also weigh the negatives of keeping UnlicensedThinker and I feel the negatives outweigh the positives for the outcome of the wiki and community. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 02:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I have a reputation for saying fuck all to the consequences and doing what I think should be done, and I think that should be a philosophy followed more often on here tbh, screw the rules, I`m doing what's right! — Oxyaena ^Harass 03:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

"Screw the rules" hardly qualifies as a philosophy. You promoted UT without authority. Fine. I would not demote him. But LeftyGreenMario took away my right to do so. That is also fine if that is the consensus judgement, which should have preceded the execution. Ariel31459 (talk) 04:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Sysoprevoke was to prevent promotion/demotion wars. I can demote tools once a consensus has been reached. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 04:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

As for the "screw the rules" philosophy, I just want to say that if there is a rule (or lack of) that prevents the wiki from improving, ignore it. That's the anarchy-like philosophy of Wikipedia, and since we rely on mob opinion, I feel that guideline is also worth discussing about. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 04:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@Oxyaena but how can you be sure you are right? We have always gone to the coop before a promotion and prem ban. Commie Lib (talk) 04:26, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

It's fine to change the rules, even by executive acts, but they have to be validated. The so-called mob is run by majorities. Lefty, you are evidently concerned that some people would give UT his tools back. All the more reason a COOP vote should have preceded excommunication.Ariel31459 (talk) 04:35, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘If anyone thinks LGM's action was unwarranted, nothing is stopping them from going to the coop. That was stated by LGM in the action itself. People who do not act in good faith, who are trolls or are consistently intellectually dishonest, do not deserve the benefit of the doubt in my view. Bongolian (talk) 07:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Hooray! Hooray! The fucker's gone! Good fucking riddance! Spud (talk) 07:26, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

It's now at the Coop, everyone grab the pitchforks and assemble post haste for the execution! — Dysk (contribs) 11:29, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

RationalWikiman2718[edit]

Hey all: you mods might want to weigh in on this, I blocked RationalWikiman2718 for an hour for repeatedly deleting the same section but then noticed Spud had already blocked this user earlier today and they just came back and kept edit-warring. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 03:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The edits that @RationalWikiman2718 made actually seemed to be correct to me. @Spud, the edits made were deleting information that claimed that facilitated communication was valid and/or that someone with extreme autism (Sue Rubin) could communicate using that method. Bongolian (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I just fought a big battle to get this psudoscience taken off Wikipedia. I hope that RationalWiki won't fight too hard to keep it. --RationalWikiman2718 (talk) 04:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I was verging on the side of caution. The user removed text from two very different articles and gave the same reason both times. I'm also highly suspicious of anyone who has "Rational" or "RationalWiki" in their user name. If I made a mistake, I'm sorry. Spud (talk) 04:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

These were all related changes and made those pages consistent with our having already placed "facilitated communication" within parapsychology. I think you're good to go, @RationalWikiman2718. Bongolian (talk) 04:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. And @Spud, I apologize to you also. --RationalWikiman2718 (talk) 05:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Glad this all worked out in the end. Sorry for the brief ban, Wikiman. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 05:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Andy Ngo edit warring[edit]

Sorry to bug you again, mods, but the Andy Ngo main and talk page seem to be a magnet for edit warring, false balance, and even an appeal to CJ Werleman of all people to dismiss claims of Islamophobia, despite the page having previously been protected. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 17:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't seem that bad to me at this point, but any Sysop has the capacity to protect a page if necessary. This should be done judiciously and preferably on a temporary basis. Any comments on this, @Cosmikdebris? You've been involved in the reverts. Bongolian (talk) 17:44, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

OK, looks like @LeftyGreenMario has her eye on it too. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 18:39, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

The page definitely seems to be attracting some attention. I've only reverted statements added without citations thus far, and the page doesn't seem to have devolved into an edit war situation requiring that the page be protected...yet. Cosmikdebris (talk) 18:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Rename please?[edit]

MattLongCT (talk · contribs · block · rights · rename)
MJL (talk · contribs · block · rights · rename)

Hey there. Can I get renamed to MJL? It isn't registered, and I would prefer my name being gender-neutral since my pronouns are they/them. Cheers, MJL (talk) 23:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Sure. It's been renamed. Enjoy. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 23:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast. Thank you! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:59, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

WTF gives Bongolian the right to prevent two people from pursuing a board position?[edit]

@Pbfreespace3 and @-Mona- have been blocked to prevent them from accepting their nominations. WTF is this shit? What gives him or anyone else the right to stop an eligible person from being on the board, regardless of how much they may be disliked? (BTW, I probably wouldn't have nominated them now that I review their contributions... but I still think they should have the right to accept or decline the original nominations. 71.3.195.138 (talk) 02:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Mona has straight up lancbed, last time she came back (in April) she said she wanted nothing to do with this site ever again, and Pb, yeah, no. Also Bongolian's a mod, you're a BoN. You say you were an old timer, I want an account name.

— Oxyaena ^Harass 03:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm an old timer who LANCB'd over five years ago for good reason. Too damn many trolls. I care not to get back into that shit. 71.3.195.138 (talk) 03:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

You really think those same trolls are still here? What is your username?

— Oxyaena ^Harass 05:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ > Left because there were too damn many trolls
> Nominates two massive trolls to the board election
Lol ok mate, but if either of them actually care they can simply complain. — Dysk (contribs) 11:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Aloysius and AMassiveGay[edit]

Can someone tell them to knock this shit off in WIGOs, especially when a stunt like this is pulled. — Oxyaena ^Harass 10:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I have restricted all my responses to the talk page as is proper. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I noticed the brunt of the bullshit was coming from @Aloysius the Gaul, I'd tell him to knock this shit off but I`m not a mod, just a tech. — Oxyaena ^Harass 11:33, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

This belongs here. Chicken Bones (talk) 13:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

no it doesn't AMassiveGay (talk) 13:52, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Floridian Pest Strikes Again![edit]

Vandalsim on User:RobSmith[edit]

Ikanreed vandalised RobSmiths user page. I reverted it now Oxyaena restored the vandalism. Since when does rationalwiki allow user page vandalism? Noober (talk) 22:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Who cares what happens to RobSmith's page honestly. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 22:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't. — Oxyaena ^Harass 23:18, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Me neither. But I am curious about in what weird alternate universe Rob Smith has been described as a "self-hating ant-white". Spud (talk) 13:53, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to all for expressing their biases so clearly. We'll consider this a repudiation of "equal rights under law" by RW officials. nobs ^{I'm all yea'res} 17:08, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘A deep state was secretly implanted into Nob's brain by a team of Hillary stooges. The deep state assassinated Nobs' ego, thus adding to the Clinton body count and causing the self-critical supergo to gain the upper hand within his hot mess of a brain, causing Nobs to be self-hating.

Nobs is complaining that we don't like him even though we restored his user page. His superego is angry about the competition for hating on him. No, I'm not a Freudian; I'm just trying to describe a possible alt-universe in which Nobs lives. Bongolian (talk) 17:48, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

No. Actually I was rewriting my resume to pander to leftist voters when I ran in Rationalwiki elections. It seems to work for all other leftist candidates (Kamala Harris and Joe Biden being recent examples), but not being a bona fide leftist, it didn't work for me. The scientific findings of my social experiment: Leftists have an uncanny ability to lie to themselves when confronted with facts. nobs ^{I'm all yea'res} 18:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

So when do I get to express my equal rights and run for office at Conservapedia — oops I forgot it's a dictatorship. Nobs, you only come to spread your bile at RW because CP got sick of your un-self-censored screeds and banned your ass over there until you conformed to their party line. Bongolian (talk) 18:12, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

And thus resumes the feud. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 18:39, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Long before Twitter, Facebook and Google censorship, CP declared its terms of service. RW pretends to respect opposing views, but we see RW functionaries have the same Gestapo-like tendencies.

Damn. I vowed to myself not get into these nonsense arguments, but in 2019, it's become increasingly impossible to find any leftist to carry on a rational discussion with. To bad. The world is full of problems. And these so-called "rationalists" appear to be motivated by hate and only want to silence and destroy anyone who opposes their agenda.

Ridicule and satire doesn't work for you anymore. That should be your first clue that you've become increasingly irrational. nobs ^{I'm all yea'res} 19:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

(Insert obligatory drink game meme) 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:BD5D:3C9F:496E:B17 (talk) 19:03, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

1) Repeat: we did not alter your page; it was quickly restored after one editor chose to snark your ass. You are complaining about nothing. 2) You yourself are one of the problems in the world that you describe because you are a conspiracy theorist. Bongolian (talk) 19:11, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I ain't no conspiracy theorist. You yourself put at least three false allegations alleging that in my bio page with no factual evidence. nobs ^{I'm all yea'res} 19:15, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘1) Deep state 2) Clinton body count. You owned them. Why don't you just leave and we'll just call it a graceful retirement? Bongolian (talk) 19:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

What the hell is this supposed to mean? I think you abused your Mod powers in the edit summary and denigrate holocaust victims. The edit summary should be revised or deleted. nobs ^{I'm all yea'res} 19:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

1) You're rather thin skinned. 2) That had nothing to do with my mod abilities: as you should have learned by now, any Sysop can block or unblock any other user including themselves. Bongolian (talk) 19:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh, you mean a sysop can undo a Mod block? But that wasn't my question. I maintain that you should modify the wording in your "joke" block edit summary. nobs ^{I'm all yea'res} 20:15, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ikanreed, stop vandalizing nobs' talkpage. You're better than this. RoninMacbeth (talk) 01:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@RoninMacbeth, Ikanreed only did it once. Nobs, the eternal victim, is trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. Bongolian (talk) 02:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Nonchalantly telling a person to "stop it" before returning to regular business seems pretty molhilly on my part. RoninMacbeth (talk) 05:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not actually better than this. It's super frustrating to deal with nobs. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Yah well if you used reason and rational argument, you wouldn't have that problem. Look at the bullshit and lies you just posted up about me in the Saloon Bar. nobs ^{I'm all yea'res} 15:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Please please please please, I'm begging you[edit]

Don't unblock nobso until he admits it. Please. Please let him confess that he outright completely fabricated an assertion in on of his random topic changes. Pleeeeeeeeease. I know it's good not to indef block users for small things, but just getting rob, even once to admit that this page says nothing about reparations or slavery. Please? With cherry on top. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

This is rather pointless since 1) Nobs already unblocked himself 2) Nobs is a font of conspiracist bullshittery so even if he did apologize, he will be back to bearing false witness before long. Bongolian (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Ambition of Truth[edit]

I see that NekoDysk has banned Ambition of Truth for 3.14 months. While I do not disagree with this action, it is a fact that this user was given sysop rights back in April, and protocol indicates that they deserve a chance to defend themselves. There appears to be a disagreement over their banning since Tabula Rasa unbanned them just yesterday. I hate bringing up yet another coop, but I think a discussion is in order to come to a consensus about if and how this user should be treated, whether it's no punishment or a short to long term ban, possibly including being placed in sysoprevoke. We should be careful about unilateral sysop actions. Cosmikdebris (talk) 14:42, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

For the record 3.14 months is just the longest block that I could really impose unilaterally as a sysop (although anyone could unblock if they wanted too). I would definitely support something more permanent if someone wants to make a coop on it. — Dysk (contribs) 15:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@Dysklyver Wish granted. AoT opted for war instead of peace. I don't fight wars outside of scorched earth tactics. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@D Thank you for your quick response; we are in agreement here. Cosmikdebris (talk) 15:30, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Who are they? — Oxyaena ^Harass 15:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@Oxyaena Oh, just a local Manosphereian who advocated the enslavement/genocide of all cis women on the planet... ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:38, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

User:JackoFlasho[edit]

While we're on the topic of recent bans, what's the evidence that User:JackoFlasho is banned user User:Aeschylus, @D? Bongolian (talk) 16:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@Bongolian The obvious link of the article subject Bo Winegard (compare Draft:Bo and Ben Winegard), and the writing style and way the article was later edited is consistent with his distinctive style. If you look further there is interaction on Talk:Bo Winegard, notably this edit, again matching his past comments and feud with Mikemikev. Plus if you look at the technical logs on Special:AbuseLog/40599 and Special:AbuseLog/40598 and compare it to past accounts it's a match. Even contacting John66 by email is consistent with a pattern of past behavior where Aeschylus and others have tried to drag him into their petty feud. Aeschylus has on multiple occasions gained information from emails to use in doxing later on and has a vested interest in proving John66's identity connected to a dispute on WPO. I could go into more detail but that's the basics. — Dysk (contribs) 17:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

So you're saying that @John66 was duped into giving his attempted-doxer Sysop privilege? Bongolian (talk) 17:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah it's a theory as to why he would email a supposedly uninvolved and mostly inactive sysop instead of following the instructions given by the edit filter. Plus, he has done it before. And for the record I sysoped him before myself, as have others on multiple occasions, and he has always ended up abusing it somehow. Aeschylus's articles are great, everything else about him is a PITA. — Dysk (contribs) 18:44, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Makes me miss Rationalwikiwiki, since I have no idea who these three people who keep spockputting the site are. Revolverman (talk) 18:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Well Aeschylus in a past incarnation was responsible for getting RWW shutdown, so ironically you can blame him for that. I'm not going to talk about him here because he is after all a private person. But you may be interested in the article on his buddy turned arch-nemesis Mikemikev. They were admins on Metapedia together, and wherever you see one the other will be there too, screaming absurd crap. :/ — Dysk (contribs) 20:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

JackoFlasho originally emailed me claiming he wanted to debunk racists on quillette. I have no idea who he is, but I never heard from his again after he was banned here. He was using the name "Jack Frost", (that is the name from a 1998 movie... so could well be a hoaxer!). I have since been emailed by someone else, saying he is in his 70s and wants to put several fascists on RationalWiki and can I create an account for him because he doesn't know much about Wiki editing. I turned him down. John66 (talk) 17:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

That would be Aeschylus then, probably anyways. Sorry to see you're still getting dragged into this shit, John. — Oxyaena ^Harass 18:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Facilitated communication[edit]

This page has been taken over by pseudoscience advocates. Does anyone here have the power to revert to this version when the article was good? --RationalWikiman2718 (talk) 23:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

That’s a discussion for the article talk page, not the mod page.

DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 23:47, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I have stated my case on the matter. Suffice to say that you are not the sole arbiter of what is and is not pseudoscience. --Logos (talk) 00:52, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Possible surrogacy spam[edit]

I was looking at User:Surrogacycentreg and wondered if it was spam advertising a surrogacy center, and I wasn't sure what the policy is on advertising on user pages. --Annanoon (talk) 09:29, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a clear policy, so we have been left with if it looks like spam, it is spam. A notable exception to commercial promotion is that we have tacitly allowed for some modest individual self-promotion on user home pages with regard to publications (e.g., David Gerard's book on blockchain). Bongolian (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

A pretty safe policy for spambots, in my opinion, is to wait until they clearly insert spam of some kind. RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2019 (UTC)