RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive15

This is an archive page, last updated 30 November 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>, <14>, <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)

Major disagreements over controversial AAC[edit]

I would encourage the mods to look at the edit history of Facilitated communication and Rapid prompting method. I'm not going to share my own opinion because I have complex PTSD and would get too stressed if people called me names or made accusations. Someone who is less conflict-averse can handle it.

I recommend the mods look at this issue and determine whether RationalWiki's articles will present a black-and-white view or one that goes into a gray zone. Luna Rose ^{Say hi} 19:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I should probably add that scientific sources are being deleted when they don't agree with a certain point of view. I thought I'd mention it here rather than start an edit war. Luna Rose ^{Say hi} 18:18, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

You should engage with Logos and RationalWikiman instead of rallying moderation. Remember, keep it cool and good faith! They probably can make their own case and you two hopefully can reach a mutual understanding. Edit warring is bad, but you shouldn't be timid about inquiring changes to a page you disagree with. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 18:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

And then if that doesn't work, then you can bring it to moderators or the coop. Bongolian (talk) 18:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for being patient with my cluelessness around social skills. The user's page seems to be deleted and maybe they left or were banned or something? I don't know the unwritten social rules. Is it okay to revert the edits to what I think is logical? (I promise I'm aiming for a balanced view that makes the risks clear.) Luna Rose ^{Say hi} 17:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think either ever have a userpage? I generally check how active they are based on the most recent contributions. Again I'd contact those that reverted your page. I know you responded to one of them complementing your work but maybe that user didn't see your message. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 17:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Karlin again?[edit]

Should User:Ethanbas be banned as a probable sock of AKarlin? Please see Talk:Anatoly Karlin and the edit warring on the page history. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 16:52, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and infinity-blocked him since my rollback and questions coincided with a wave of several AKarlin accounts and wandalism of my Talk page. Ethanbas' claim to be the same person as the Wikipedia editor, moreover, rests solely on one assertion here, and in any case is irrelevant. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Misuse of the Vandal Bin[edit]

I have been on RW for nearly 12 years now - probably the earliest user still around. I helped craft many of the Community Standards (mainly through breaking things first), was an original member of the Loya Jirga and was one of the first batches of Mods, elected twice in a row (or might have been three times). I helped mediate and create many of the early issues RW had and in particular dealing with troublesome users. The ethos of this site is written directly on the front page

We welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue.

RW has always had a soft touch when it comes to banning (rarely happens) and vandals (repeat vandals/obvious vandalism go in the vandal bin. Everyone else has nearly free reign. Every time I login these days I find someone being vandal binned who is clearly not a vandal. The vandal rules say,

If somebody is persistent, but not clearly a vandal, it may be useful to restrict their edit rate, but not block them

However the people being vandal binned sometimes made 2 - 4 edits before being vandal binned without any attempt to take things to talk first so I had a look at the first 50 vandal logs and have found it is being used persistently to silence or restrict users who have done nothing wrong. As if people are too lazy to engage with people and shoot first. And the same names pop up over and over again. Here are the logs

George111s 1 edit, not vandalism - binned by Oxyaena
Nightwave 1 edit, not vandalism - binned by Oxyaena
Cindybic no edits - binned by Oxyaena
Noober 2 edits removing vandalism - Oxyaena
Kotterdlae314 legitimate edits - binned by GrammarCommie
Chuckrr 1 edit, legitimately reverted but vandal binned with no attempt at discussion - Oxyaena
Sadistic666 1 edit, editor made an error when signing a post to a mainpage, no discussion - Oxyaena
YuriV 2 edits, legitimate edits - binned by Oxyaena
Nomionly 1 edit, commented on the article age, rather than a talkpage (easy enough mistake to make if you don't know how to use a wiki), no discussion - vandal binned by - Oxyaena
St3ph3nall3n 8 edits, slightly controversial but no vandalism, no discussion with user - binned by GrammarCommie
Garbageboy, 2 edits, both legitimate - binned by Oxyaena
Frankiie, 4 edits, all legit - binned by CogitoNotStirred
TheReturnofDickyBoy! 1 edit, legit - binned by GrammarCommie
Iacentem Omissio 9 edits, all legit - binned by CogitoNotStirred
Steve Bonnell 1 edit, probably legit - binned by Oxyaena
Snorlax Hunter 2 edits, both legit - binned by GrammarCommie
Bruhbruh42069 1 edit, border-line but binned by Oxyaena
Mike logo 3 edits, unknown veracity - binned by Oxyaena

Seeing a pattern? None of the above meet the bar for vandal binning and this is only the first page of logs. This is clearly a misuse of the vandal bin with Oxyaena being far and away the worst offender. This is not how the vandal bin should be used firstly and secondly no attempt was made to ask these users what the were doing, advised of RW policy - just straight to the bin. This activity needs attention as it is right against our community standards and a pretty piss poor way to conduct things. Ace ⁱ⁹ 07:29, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

None of those are legitimate users, "DickyBoy" in particular is a repeat vandal. — Oxyaena ^Harass 07:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Based on what? We can't do IP checks and many of these edits are legit. Stop fucking around with the vandal bin. Ace ⁱ⁹ 08:25, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

You fucking vandal binned Noober who reverted vandalism then complained when someone put it back then you banned him/her. Asshole. Ace ⁱ⁹ 08:28, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Based on the fact I've had to ban several DickyBoy accounts, you fuck. — Oxyaena ^Harass 08:46, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

One of 17. There is no way all of the above are vandals so stop fucking doing it. You vandal binned someone for reverting vandalism. Stop fucking doing it. Ace ⁱ⁹ 08:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

It's a compromise over permabanning vandals. Everyone interprets the guidelines differently, they're not set in stone. — Oxyaena ^Harass 10:47, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Frankie has horrible grammar and spelling and introduces new errors. I suppose there may be better ways to deal with that than vandal binning. Iacentem Omissio is a Deus Vult–type Catholic far-right concern troll who keeps accusing RW of lying by omission, and if vandal binning is not the appropriate response to such characters, I don't think I want to be a part of RW. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 12:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Exactly, Ace is just shit-stirring here. We do not platform Nazis. Things have changed since the old days. Mike logo is yet another sock of Mikemikev, Garbageboy is another troll, Bruhbruh was your standard run of the mill vandal, and I don't remember much of the others. You're making a mountain out of a molehill, Ace, stop it. — Oxyaena ^Harass 13:04, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Some of your decisions Ace listed were improper. Noober should not have been binned. Garbageboy seemed to be trying to make jokes about a band that he liked. I don't know why you binned someone who hadn't made any edits, and I don't see how Mike logo was a sock of Mikemikev. Nightwave seemed to genuinely misunderstand that we are an intentionally biased wiki, but they only made one edit and should've been approached about this issue. A few people signed on mainspace pages, but that seems to have been a mistake that should've been discussed before using the bin. And I have no idea why Kotterdlae3 was binned by GC.

Other decisions were legitimate. The first user on the list seemed to be spamming, although I think you should've taken more time to see if that was really the case. Dicky boy was a troll who made multiple sockpuppet accounts. Yuri V seems like a religious nut, but probably should've been approached first. All in all, I don't think any action is necessary apart from a reminder to be certain of a user's intentions before using the bin.

DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 13:28, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Noober was obviously someones sockpuppet. if u look at Special:DeletedContributions/Cindybic its a spambot, the deleted page means no edits are shown on contribs. mike_logo was clearly rewriting to favor social darwinism, etc EK (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

From my history of patrolling, I did notice that Oxyaena has a history of frequently being a bit heavy-handed in doling out punishment in general as well as demoting users pretty prematurely. I just didn't think it was serious, but I and others did repeatedly notified the user. I think an overall review of this behavior should be checked as I'm not confident Oxyaena practices good judgement in general despite her extensive history here. If this judgement remains poor later on, we really need to start cracking down inappropriate bans and demotions.

By the way that's vandal "brake" not "break".

And also try to be more respectful and use less strong language of users you want to bring to moderator attention as using strong language usually needlessly escalates conflict and causes the accused to swear back and becomes more of a flame war. This wastes my energy on trying to mediate the conflict when that energy can be used toward working out a solution to a problem. Thank you. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 14:13, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Several of them were ban evasions, which should entail blocks not bins, but I hardly think it's "abuse" of the brake. Ace, we'd prefer you at least look at the log and the reasons given, ace. And I do agree Oxy is a bit zealous on that block button, though, and may end up needing something more serious than a slap on the wrist. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:27, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Some idiot from ED wanted to merge our userbases. Fuck that. ED's userbase is toxic as all shit and fundamentally at odds with RW's mission, so no, I'm not going to treat that idiot's requests and spamming of 4chan style YouTube channels in good faith. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:34, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Remember this is by looking at the first page of logs and and NONE of these users were approached about their edits with Oxy just assuming bad faith and shooting first without asking questions. That isn’t how the vandal bin is to be used by our own community standards. Ace ⁱ⁹ 17:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Sure, but some of those are still clearly re-regs of banned accounts. You have to get past strict legalism when dealing with people who bend and break every standard for the sake of pure trolling. Extending good faith to a Mikey sock isn't going to achieve much besides make the wiki a more slightly hostile place for everyone else. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:13, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't have to ask questions when I know the person in question is a Nazi, a troll, a spammer, a repeat troll, has been permabanned, or all of the above. — Oxyaena ^Harass 17:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ace McWicked Oh for fuck's sake! Spam. Whitewashing. Trolling. Childish troll spam. Religious spam/apologetics. "Disclaimer" attempt. Religious nuttery, specifically edit warring over the claim that Jews are Christians. Bad faith troll, repeat offender. Bad faith concern troll. Vandalism. Racialist concern troll. Child grade generic vandalism. Vandalism, whitewashing, and Creationist woo pedaling. Now, should all of them of have been binned? Possibly not. I'll even admit I might have been wrong to bin a few of them. Were most of them acting in bad faith? All the ones I listed were. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:28, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I stand by my original comment - in the zealousness to bin perceived, or otherwise, socks and vandals there has been collateral damage. You binned someone who pointed out and revered vandalism for fucks sake. Oxy banned a user with no edits. That is bad faith and should be curtailed. It is also a violation of our own community standards. Ace ⁱ⁹ 17:42, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Would a clarification of the vandal bin rules help to get people on the same page about this issue? Bongolian (talk) 17:53, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I do not necessarily disagree with your assessment of how the Noober edits were handled, however as has been pointed out several times, including in my last post, User:Cindybic did indeed make an edit. And as I pointed out it was trolling. I even linked to the deleted page. Most of these cases should have been simple revert/ignore including several I am responsible for. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:56, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@Bongolian It wouldn't hurt in my opinion. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:58, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I’m not here to try get Oxy and others in trouble or told off by the mods - when looking at the logs I just wanted to see why people were binned so frequently, not who was doing it. But it showed the same people were doing all of the binning. The vandal bin is for vandals, not to punish people. Particularly as some of the users binned seem genuinely confused about how to edit or about RW’s ethos. Those users should be approached first, binned/banned later. Ace ⁱ⁹ 18:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

You pulled a motte and bailey, Ace, retreating from an argument of 17 examples to an argument of 2. If you use that kind of hyperbole, it diminishes the strength of your claim considerably. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 18:12, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I standby everything I have said - I don’t know why you think I’m only talking about 2 of the 17. So fuck off - I stand behind my initial comments that the vandal bin is being improperly used. Ace ⁱ⁹ 18:16, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

No, you retreated from a stronger claim that it was being used persistently in the wrong way to the entirely weak claim that some collateral damage occurred, because your original claim was untenable and people called you out on it. If you want to be taken seriously on RationalWiki, try being better at the Rational part, eh? CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 18:19, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I haven’t retreated - I stand by original claim. I don’t doubt there are some genuine but I still believe the vandal bin is being overused persistently in cases it shouldn’t be. Ace ⁱ⁹ 18:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Ace is correct in that we should endeavor to engage more often rather than simply dismiss. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:38, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with that generally, but using hyperbolic claims which can be easily dismissed by looking at evidence is not winning him many friends, I would venture to guess. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 18:40, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I’m not trying to win friends, I’m trying to alert the mods there is an ongoing issue with the vandal bin. So, you know, fuck off and let them do it before shooting the messenger. Ace ⁱ⁹ 18:45, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Or, you could share your 12-year-old wisdom and lead by example. Just a thought. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 18:49, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Let the adults speak, boy. Ace ⁱ⁹ 19:04, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

That's a racist slur. Shall I see you in the chicken coop? CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 19:28, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Off you fuck, sonny-Jim. Ace ⁱ⁹ 19:38, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Ace fuck off with your concern trolling, there is no issue with the vandal bin. Out of your 17 examples only two have any merit, and one of them is (probably) a sockpuppet, and I have my suspicions of who that sock belongs to, not naming names because I don't want to feed the troll any more than I have to. I see literally no need to engage with Nazis, they should be banned on sight. The bin is too lenient for them. — Oxyaena ^Harass 20:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, quite a few of the accounts listed shouldn't have been binned. Whether its worthwhile unbinning them I do not know, since they've all disappeared. Still, its probably best to go easy with the vandal bin. --RWRW (talk) 19:06, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

That’s the whole point, it seems the vandal bin is used instead of actually engaging the user. Normally asking about the edit and explaining how RW operates is enough. In the listed cases not once was any user warned, asked about nor pointed in the right direction. Ban first, questions later is not a good community building tactic. Ace ⁱ⁹ 19:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Unless they're clearly mikey. I want to fight for that point. Because the dude has a disorder where he can only breathe while registering new accounts or talking about how right race science is. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, whatever. I’m not saying vandal bins don’t have a use but it looks like it is just lazily being used for no real purpose other than “meh, can’t be bothered engaging that user”. Ace ⁱ⁹ 20:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

They were all either spammers, trolls, repeat trolls, vandals, or permabanned repeat trolls, none of which are mutually exclusive. There's no reason to "engage" with someone who's only here to cause trouble and be a pest, Nobs notwithstanding. — Oxyaena ^Harass 20:36, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

IMO people who whitewash pages tend to have to explain themselves first after getting vandal binned, usually not the one doing the binning (which would be a waste of time since a lot of whitewashers tend to be bad-faith anyway). In a lot of cases, they know what's coming to them. Vandal binning is treated as a soft ban in cases because vandals do stop afterward while the persistent ones treat the bin as a permaban and just rereg. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 20:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Poor judgement[edit]

Okay I'll admit, I don't have exactly the best record when it comes to judgement calls, but I stand by binning those idiots in the first place. As others have pointed out, and as Ace keeps ignoring, they were all trolls, vandals, permabanned users evading bans, spammers, and dipshit Nazis. — Oxyaena ^Harass 20:42, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Bullshit, they were not all trolls, vandals or permabanned users. You can’t know that without checkuser. The guy reverting edits to Robs page - how is that a vandal? The guy who added some joke about a band he liked? Those were his only 2 edits - binned with no explanation. You’re a liar and a zealous dick so fucking stop it. Ace ⁱ⁹ 21:06, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

You catch an eye for this sort of thing, Ace. It takes practice but don't worry, you'll get there eventually. — Oxyaena ^Harass 21:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Then put up or shut-up. I did the work in linking to all the user contribs. You say they are trolls, vandals, permabanned users evading bans, spammers, and dipshit Nazis then evidence please - look at each one and link to their binnable behaviour. I'll wait. Ace ⁱ⁹ 21:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

IDK Ace I don't see anyone really overwhelming agreeing with your case either. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 21:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Then change the community standards to “anyone can be vandal binned based on a hunch” Ace ⁱ⁹ 21:38, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie already did it for me. — Oxyaena ^Harass 21:40, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Put up or shut up. Ace ⁱ⁹ 21:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

GC already did it for me, just scroll up an inch, I know it's hard to do but it's worth it trust me. — Oxyaena ^Harass 21:45, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, no, you just have to accept that your arguments don't hold that much water as you think. Don't think any action will be taken. Sucks you can't curry a consensus in your favor but that's how mob works. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 21:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

If you can’t show it you don’t know it - to quote AronRa. If you aren’t going to actually provide evidence for your claims then I’ll start paroling users you vandal bin. Simple as that. Ace ⁱ⁹ 21:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to parole them. Also, here's the info you wanted. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

If Ace is suggesting that at least some of the moderators really ought to review the disciplinary actions taken, then I suppose that would be a practical use of their time. Ariel31459 (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I did. Don't think most of them should be paroled. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 22:46, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

It's too late now, as all of them will've abandoned the site after so long. As for the overall dispute, the last thing I'll say on the matter is that I will be more vigilant in monitoring how the vandal bin is used, and going forward I will remove anyone from the bin who I feel has been put there improperly.

DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 01:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

At least someone is thinking about properly. We have our community standards for a reason and watching people ignore them and just ban away has been the antithesis of how this site was governed from day 1. Ace ⁱ⁹ 04:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

You're an idiot. This site has evolved since day one, we've already explained to you multiple times why these clowns were banned and binned. Fuck off with this shit, and you still have yet to address GrammarCommie's response. — Oxyaena ^Harass 15:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

No, Ace does make valid points. Looking through this list some (not all, but some) should not have been binned. I cannot see any justification for banning these: Nightwave(changing a single word), Cindybic (it wasn't spam), Noober (reverting bad-faith edits to another's userpage), Kotterdlae3 (good-fath edits), Sadistic666 (accidental/editing test), Nomionly (accidently putting talkpage comment on article page) and Frankiie (not vandalism). --RWRW (talk) 15:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Fuck off RWRW. Your concern trolling is shit. @Ace McWicked I've twice linked to the general reasons and admitted that most probably shouldn't have been binned. It would be nice if you'd at least acknowledge my responses. I'm not speaking for Oxy, nor anyone else, simply explaining things as I see them, nothing more. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Ace: Hey Mod can you look at this?

Mod: Yeah Ace has a point

GC: Fuck you mod, you're a concern troll

The mods were specifically asked for an opinion so how does that make them a concern troll? Ace ⁱ⁹ 19:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, no, RWRW is not a "concern troll". RWRW is, how do I put it, someone who disagrees. I tried giving RWRW a more fair response. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 19:40, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

"accidently putting talkpage comment on article page"; Frankiie's edits

It's a common pattern that people like to inject personal commentary on a page they don't like all the time. Of course, it's due to ignorance to how wiki editing works, even if it's rank ignorance given that none of the articles have poorly-formatted personal commentary that contradicts the rest of the page.

This also applies to Nightwave. It's not "changing a single word", it's an attempt to whitewash the page. I don't think that should be an immediate vandal bin but that's a bad faith edit trying to give credit to conspiracy theory. But either way, I don't care if this user gets paroled or not since it's a zero-effort whitewash.

Noober is some random red link drive-by that immediately tries to bring up its concerns over one long-time user defacing RobSmith's page and also specifically name-drops Oxyaena in the midst of reregs that harass Oxyaena. Again, maybe that's not an immediate vandal bin but it acted suspicious enough for me to not care for paroling it. Besides, if it's legitimate, it can still edit, it just has to put effort in what it's arguing.

Not sure what happened with Kotterdlae3 though. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 19:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think I want to be a part of a community that has no problems letting serial trolls reregister and not be banned for harassment. — Oxyaena ^Harass 19:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think a lot of the disagreements here can be cleared up by 1) Clarifying the rules on vandalbinning and 2) When someone vandalbins someone else (particularly for less-than-obvious reasons) they should include an explanation of the vandalbinning in the "Other/additional reason:" field. The same could go for blocks of non-sysops. Bongolian (talk) 19:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

We also might have to rethink if we even need a vandalbin. It's applicable in the rare case where a user that has established itself makes bad edits but isn't quite bad enough to get banned over. But in many cases I've seen my attempts at vandal-binning also get slapped with an indef ban that kinda invalidates that action. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 19:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

^Sanity will prevail. Has everyone forgot do not feed the troll banning people for suspected ban evasions every time just empowers the troll. Ignore them. Ace ⁱ⁹ 20:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

That doesn't work for everyone, some of us (namely me) have conditions that make it especially hard to just ignore the troll. — Oxyaena ^Harass 20:02, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry you have a condition like that but that isn't a valid reason to change our blocking policies. RW isn't here to cater for your particular issues. Ace ⁱ⁹ 20:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Leaving their comment on has downsides too. It's a form of validation. Leaving it on there also empowers the troll and they can and have tried to spread incitement comments all over the wiki, which also wedges into conversations and hinders flow of conversation, exactly the kind of disruption the troll wants. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 20:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

We have a template to collapse comments like that and, listen, the universal internet law has always been do not feed the troll. Blocking, banning and binning should be a last resort where here it is currently the first resort. Ace ⁱ⁹ 20:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

That hinders legibility too; it risks drawing the eyes toward the colorful, massive template that stretches across the page. For new topics that trolls create, it works better, but not when red link trolls try to inject their commentary in the middle of a discussion. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 20:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

As adults I am sure we can manage. Ace ⁱ⁹ 20:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

As an aside to the topic, if you are interested in eliminating practices that hinder legibility, I would start with cross-outs in main spaces. Generally, apart from Mad Magazines, such typographical detritus is not found in texts intended for the diffusion of useful information.Ariel31459 (talk) 21:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I remove crossouts when ever I see them. They are dumb and unfunny. Ace ⁱ⁹ 21:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I tend to remove most but if they add to the joke (usually jokes about self-delusion or false pretenses like Jordan Peterson saying he's an evolutionary biologist when he's not) then I keep them. Sparingly is best for them. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 21:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

As far as I know he made that particular statement once in a video interview out of thousands of hours of recordings. Not terribly controversial: the man has an interest in that subject. Was he correct to say so? Probably not, although we have no complete knowledge of his post-doctoral studies. Does a cross-out belong in the first sentence of the article? No. In addition, cross-outs are sophomoric humor. Am I worried? What? Me worry?Ariel31459 (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ This is getting very tangential and your obsession with defending that total and complete huckster should be tabled. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 21:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

My comments were hardly a defense of anything other than good style, which I tend to believe is a prerequisite to obtaining the good opinion of educated people. You should try it for a while. It just might work for you. Ariel31459 (talk) 23:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Bullshit, you're attempting to defend the reputation of a known bigot. — Oxyaena ^Harass 07:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Some friendly advice: look up the word bigot. A lot of people don't really understand the concept of intolerance.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

A more important lesson[edit]

We should all be more proactive in reviewing the block log and reducing excessive blocks. Same with the bin. If you see a user catch an indef or 3monther and they're new, ask yourself "is this a troll who would be deterred by having to come back tomorrow?". Maybe reduce their sentence and explain what they did wrong to them on their talk page. Maybe clear blocks sometimes. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Just apply the lightest touch. Vandal bin for registered users / banning for 9 hours for IPs is usually enough for me. Also, not a blanket standard, but just assuming people that like, replace pages with lel funny content, for starters. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 20:09, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, but some people feel the power a little too strong occasionally, and we should all be better about cleaning up after them. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad we are actually addressing the issue I was trying to raise in the first place. "Fuck you Ace" didn't really resolve anything. Ace ⁱ⁹ 20:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

It totally does solve the problem of "no one told ace to fuck off today" though. Do you know there are countries where children go a whole year without telling ace to fuck off? Tragic. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

It should be common sense to ban people for harassment in order to foster a healthy community, but I`m in the minority I guess. — Oxyaena ^Harass 20:20, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah but your banning people before they have harassed anyone on your own hunch that they will. That isn't how things operate. Banning is a last resort - not a first resort. Banning and binning - shooting first and asking questions later doesn't foster a healthy community either. Ace ⁱ⁹ 20:22, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Either way I'd like to not talk about whether Oxy's actions were wrong in this subsection, but continue to insist that we should do more to reduce punishments. Every man a parole board. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

That's the whole point I was making in the first place. You'll note I never pointed out Oxy was the problem - only said they were the most generous with the banning. This was never about Oxy until Oxy lost their shit about it. Ace ⁱ⁹ 20:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I think it's worth saying this again. I think Ace is mostly right, and I will take steps to control excessive use of ban and bin tools in the future.

DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 22:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad we can focus on the issue - not the people involved. Ace ⁱ⁹ 22:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Can we get a resolution on this?[edit]

Let's close this up as it is still hanging around. My proposal would be:

vandal binning is for vandalism (blanking pages etc) and not because there is "suspicion" that it is another user evading a ban because there is no way to tell and people just seem to be binning on hunches or because actually engaging with people is somehow too difficult
If a user has made some weird edits (accidentally signed a post on a main page, making dumb jokes etc) then talking to the user on their talkpage, linking to the welcome template and pointing out out community guidelines etc should be the first course of action
If the user continues making weird edits or edit warring that don't constituent vandalism then a short ban and a message to the talkpage to say cut it the fuck out
If that doesn't work then ban - give it a month say but make sure the user can still comment on their talk-page
Don't feed the fucking troll

I'm not proposing changes to the guidelines, just asking that people use their head instead of ban on sight. Thoughts? Ace ⁱ⁹ 07:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

What he said!Scream!! (talk)

All reasonable options, I vote aye.^{— Unsigned, by: GrammarCommie / talk / contribs}

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Spud (talk) 12:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ For fuck's sake, Ace, when you engage with people long enough you become familiar with their editing patterns. How many times do we have to tell you this? Burn in hell and stop shitting up my talk page. — Oxyaena ^Harass 15:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

1) Ace's proposal seems reasonable to me. 2) This has devolved into a fight between Ace & Oxy that has gotten beyond the issues. I advise both Ace & Oxy to try to stay out of each others' faces for a while (particularly on Oxy's talk page). Bongolian (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Not been around for a while. But what Ace suggests is certainly what policy was intended to be when these things were set up lo these many years ago.Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 17:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Seems like usual. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 17:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, but I still want to stress my "There's such a thing as a dead giveaway" point regarding re-regs. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

This too. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 18:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what Oxy's deal is - when I first brought this up I never mentioned anyone by name and was playing the ball, not the man. Then Oxy freaked the fuck out about it and started attacking me while I had said nothing about them personally. I'll admit to ikanreed's point that yes there are dead giveaways but we should still be more careful about it. Seems like this wound up being settled reasonably, thanks to everyone who wasn't a dick about it. Ace ⁱ⁹ 19:08, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Could it possibly have been your text "This is clearly a misuse of the vandal bin with Oxyaena being far and away the worst offender" that perhaps provoked her? Don't say "I never mentioned anyone by name" when that's clearly not true.

I don't think anyone disagrees that you had a point about excessive use, but it's also untrue that they attacked you "for no reason". There's a couple places here where you crossed the line to being pointlessly antagonistic too. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry - I retract because I had forgotten I had pointed out Oxy. Nonetheless, in my defence, it wasn't an attack on Oxy personally and Oxy immediately started calling me a concern troll and told me to fuck off on my talkpage so I responded in kind. Nevertheless - let's end on this resolution rather than a who said what when. Ace ⁱ⁹ 19:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Aye, I'd be fine with this if I wasn't name dropped, and you also questioned me on my talk page initially. There is such a thing as a dead giveaway as Ikanreed pointed out, which I feel should be acknowledged. — Oxyaena ^Harass 19:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Don't overreact over being, what, name dropped? Yes, there are give aways, people know this. But don't give people a hard time for having a problem with your behavior either. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 19:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I have a problem in that Ace is okay with harassers being on the wiki. — Oxyaena ^Harass 18:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Anyway if you want to talk more about the issue between Ace and Oxyaena, I rather that goes in its own section. As for the vandal bin problem, I think the resolution has been met and I do expect better decision-making for vandal binning/bans in the future. --It's-a me, Lefty Green Mario! 19:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Showing up late to the party but I agree that Ace's policy should be the way things are done.

DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 19:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Goos stuff all round then. Ace ⁱ⁹ 20:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

2019 moderator election[edit]

★ 2024 ★

Moderator Election Schedule

Nominations and campaigning will begin on:
6 November 2024
and will end on on:
27 November 2024

Voting is closed.
Starts: 17:00 UTC, 27 November 2024
Ends: 17:00 UTC, 4 December 2024

Results will be announced on a later date.

We will elect:
6 mods, 2 alternates

v - t - e

I would like to volunteer to coordinate the 2019 mod election. I see no reason to diverge from the structure and format from last year. Following that model, the proposed dates are:

Nominations open: November 2-16
Campaigning: November 2-16
Voting: November 19-30
Results announced: November 30

I don't have the additional permissions to coordinate the voting booth and compile the results at this time, but I'm willing to take on this responsibility if the mob approves and the techs and admins can assist. Cheers, Cosmikdebris (talk) 15:27, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Thanks for volunteering!

DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 16:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

And i sounds good to me too. And thank you again. Spud (talk) 06:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@Cosmikdebris only someone with root server access like @David Gerard can start the election and collect the results. you will need to run openstv on a compatible (linux) machine to count the results once this is done. EK (talk) 12:40, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

yeah, basically. Someone email me when we have the list - dgerard@gmail.com - David Gerard (talk) 11:59, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Defamation of me on the Encyclopædia Dramatica article[edit]

For some reason, John66 has some issue with me and has been Googling me to death and trying to put every single negative thing he finds about me in this article just because my company, GreyPonyIT, restored the server and hosts it. Due to that, he has made the decision on himself that I am the owner of Encyclopædia Dramatica now, which actually isn't true at all, Encyclopædia Dramatica is owned by EDrama and incorporated in the Seychelles. That information isn't defamatory, it's just completely inaccurate that I am the owner.

What's truly defamatory is the article states that I was "discharged in disgrace" from the US Navy. Truth is the absolute defense to defamation and he might be resorting to older news reports of my Court Martial or decisions through the Military Legal Process, but he doesn't have a copy of the Convening Authority's decision on the Court Martial. In the military justice system, the Convening Authority reviews the case and has the ultimate decision on accepting the decision and executing the sentence or, modifying it, or setting it aside. I have a DD-214 that states I was discharged Honorably, VA Documents that state I was discharged honorably, and I receive full VA Benefits, my family has TRICARE, etc.

The CA set my case aside because the crux of the case, that I was doing it for increased Veterans benefits, was proved to be wrong as the condition I was already being treated for, which was Epilepsy induced by a Traumatic Brain Injury, is already a 100% Service Connected Disability, quoting 38 CFR Book C, 4.124a:

General Rating Formula for Major and Minor Epileptic Seizures: Averaging at least 1 major seizure per month over the last year 100%

Anyway, so I have an honorable discharge, so I wasn't discharged from the Navy in "disgrace" as this article says. Additionally, what's more amazing is he goes to the point of nothing an arrest in Denton, TX was actually thrown out because I was able to prove I was passed out due to having a seizure (you secrete certain enzymes in your blood after you have a seizure.)

Finally, my involvement with ED was limited to recovering their server and setting up hosting. I understand that John66 may have a problem with ED, but that doesn't give him the right to defame me. Even in the article, I'm not sure what he's referring to about me trying to use GoDaddy as ED's host in 2018, especially since GoDaddy doesn't offer VPSes, Dedicated Servers or Colocation, they are a Domain Name Registrar, so this kind of proves that this author's intent is kind of malicious. I secured some domain names because the admin at the time asked me for assistance, he's my friend and actually one of my customers. Anyways, I am more than willing to send proof to a neutral third party, as I would rather this text be removed with your cooperation instead of having to resort to further means. Thank You. Conradrock (talk) 17:53, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

It is not our intent to libel anyone, and we as a community make a concerted effort to remove false information from our website (libelous or not). Since your edit is the current one on the ED page, and this dispute between you and @John66 has just been started, you can try to resolve this on the Talk:Encyclopædia Dramatica page first before bringing it to the moderators. If you can provide evidence to support your claims, it might be helpful. Bongolian (talk) 18:12, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Keep note: another user registered under a similar name claimed that the original alleged user, Conradrock, is just a troll to stir the pot. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 18:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Conrad is described by ED as the hoster of their website. I understand he doesn't want his name attached to ED because of possible future lawsuits. There is a lot of depravity and offensive material on the website (animal abuse etc) and it would be career suicide to own up to running it. I clicked on their "offended" article today and I have never seen something so deprived. There are images on there of animals being killed and their heads cut off. Conrad for some reason thinks this is funny and is happy to host such degrading material.

Conrad wants to be known as the hoster and nothing else. Our article reflects that. I have not defamed him. All edits on the article were public information take from external references such as the U.S. Navy website [1] or police records. I have removed the content in question because it was personal and not about ED. He may qualify for an article in the future and said information can be restored, but I will leave it for now. John66 (talk) 19:09, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@John66 Ahem. As I stated on your talkpage, hosting a problematic website does not necessarily make one responsible for its contents, as the management is separate and in the eyes of the law is viewed as interactions between two separate entities. There is no love lost between myself and ED, but what you are stating is on its face incorrect and misleading. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you on that and I replied here [2], but Conrad is not just their hoster. He has an account on ED and is their highest admin. He literally runs the website. He is their host and manager. Without this man there would be no ED. John66 (talk) 19:24, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Conrad admitted to collecting money for ED, as John66 has cited,[3] so that makes him a responsible party and not just a hoster. Bongolian (talk) 19:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

That changes things. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:38, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I think even with the technical caveats, I still think hosting a site comes with responsibility even if it's two separate operating entities, as you should be aware what the site's content is, being any possibility for harm. It's why hosts/supporters like GoDaddy, Cloudflare with DDOS protection, YouTube and PayPal were under fire for hosting (or supporting in Cloudflare's and PayPal's case) problematic websites, and I think that comes with legal risks as well (even if they're technically legally correct per all sorts of caveats), gray zones the companies don't want to deal with. But perhaps, that's aside from the point, as legal and moral judgements can be different. Nevertheless, Conrad controls significant parts of the website, it appears, and while I think that's enough to say he "hosts" it, that he financially benefits from it is just seals it. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 19:53, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario What I was arguing is the difference between holding the hosting provider accountable for getting into bed with shitty sites, and holding them accountable for decisions made on those sites, by those sites, and with no input form the hosting company. It's the difference between actively committing a crime, and passively letting it happen. Since Conrad owns both host and site, that distinction doesn't apply though. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:16, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I figure that's the legal difference that doesn't align exactly with my personal ethics. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 20:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Clarification[edit]

In the RationalWiki bar, I started this thread, which I believe is appropriated with the kind of philosophical/scientific/social topics are usually discussed there.

The user @GrammarCommie promptly deleted it, without explanations.

I asked the reason of GrammarCommie's action on their talk page, and he promptly deleted such request also, again without explanation.

Since I do not understand what is wrong with my posts and the why the user GrammarCommie is acting like that, I ask to the moderators @Bongolian, @DuceMoosolini, @LeftyGreenMario, @RWRW, and @Spud to clarify the situation.

CaptainMarvel (talk) 15:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Just say "I am insecure about people who are different than me." It's alot faster than stupid ass dog-whistles. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

GrammarCommie is in the right. You bigots trying to mask your bigotry with clever language are in the wrong. Spud (talk) 15:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

"insecure about people who are different than me" ? "Bigots" ? How is that even related to my original thread? CaptainMarvel (talk) 16:10, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Repeating your question doesn't make you look any more credible. Also I've had enough racist concern trolling for one week. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I will bite, a little: The usage of quotas as a tool to encourage diversity is not universally accepted. Nonetheless, diversity as a whole is largely seen as beneficial to any field (go to Google and hit up most management studies on this topic). Best application would be to develop methods for that remove systematic bias as much as possible, without any numerical forcing. An example here would be blind auditions for orchestras.

Usually, CaptainMarvel, when I've seen this sort of "quotation", it's someone that is trying to mask shitty culture and bias that often accounts for a larger percentage of participation differences than the complainer thinks. This issue for instance has arisen *a lot* in computer programming communities -- the percentage of women, unlike most university level degrees, has fallen since the 1980s, bucking the trend of most other academia. Too often the explanation for this from the naive is that women have this innate inability to code. There may be "some" innate gender differences, but it's pretty clear to me that a large part of the gap is far from that. "Nerd stereotypes" (mentioned in the article), along with the toxic culture that has emerged as trendy in Silicon Valley (demonstrated by Uber most prominently) has also played a huge part in discouraging women from the field. Women in particular are poorly represented in open source far more than other programming environments, and this is no surprise, because open source culture is *notoriously* shitty. If a mere code of conduct encourages more women developers (as is noted in the Wired article), then such reflects that much of the gap is not innate.

The big irony of this "wah everyone's complaining about everyone being equal" is this: toxic culture like the open source community turns off women in part because women and men process and enact aggressive behavior quite differently. So yes, women and men *are* different, and tech bro types don't even fucking get how or why. Men at a biological level will usually have far more upper body strength compared to women, and are far more propensity to physically violent behavior. Hell even as a guy I wouldn't want to enter a community where you might get death threats merely for coding something that Falls Afoul of The Linux Religion, and whose leader occasionally turns potty mouth ranty without realizing that these days overaggression is considered a serious managerial flaw. Soundwave106 (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Soundwave106 Finally somebody who is able to have a conversation! Sorry if I will ignore for a moment your interesting response to my somehow banned post of the saloon bar, but GrammarCommie is getting beyoung my endurance and I have first to post the response I was writing in the meanwhile you posted.

@GrammarCommie It seems that you are making a lot of assumption about me. The last about being racist. If I'm repeating my question, it is not because I want to seem more "credible," whatever you mean by that, but because I never got any answer. I found this website; I saw that it has many articles about fallacies, especially in social contexts; I found that many of these topics are discussed in the saloon bar; and I decided to post in it a kind of fallacies, "the representation fallacies," I thought about for a some time... Then I go nothing but doors slammed in my face and, after asking for explanations, I got accused of being insecure, a bigot, and a racist... What's wrong with you!? CaptainMarvel (talk) 16:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

"Diversity = bad" "fixing systematic problems = bad" "why do you keep calling me racist?!?!?!" ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie My post did not make any of such claims. Especially, race is not even mentioned in my post. Even more, the most common of the racist thesis actually are called fallacies ("The Representation Predisposition Fallacy") by my own post. CaptainMarvel (talk) 17:31, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Yeah, I would tend to agree with Spud. Seems like alt-right JAQing: making up a ~~racially-~~ minority-motivated fallacy as a first posting is not a good sign of honest conversations. But good news, CaptainMarvel: You're welcome to keep trying your JAQery until you violate our rules and get banned! Bongolian (talk) 17:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Bongolian I'm still not sure about what exactly happened... Anyway, I cannot post in the saloon bar anymore. I'm not going to violate any rules. Can you please put back in the saloon bar my post on "The Representation Fallacies" and maybe even the response Soundwave106 posted here, so we can continue from there? CaptainMarvel (talk) 17:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

To clarify, your posting raised a number of red flags that may be innocent by themselves, but suggest insincerity or disingenuous motives when viewed as a whole. A [1] completely new contributor [2] with a username that could be associated with an anti-social justice "controversy" (namely, the misogynist backlash to the 2019 Captain Marvel movie) who [3] uses their first edits not for improving a mainspace article but to [4++] posit something that, as GC says, carries the implication that examining representation (racial or otherwise) to be inherently fallacious. You might be acting in good faith, but truth be told, we've seen a number of users in the past who've acted with similar characteristics that ended up completely wasting our time.

In any case, it looks like the posting restriction lifts tomorrow. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 17:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I think CaptainMarvel hasn't exhausted benefit of doubt yet so removing such discussion and then locking Saloon Bar is premature. You are not blocked, only that Saloon Bar cannot be edited unless you're autoconfirmed (a process that takes a few days and a few edits if I recall correctly). Anyhow, criticism of diversity quotas exist. At this point, it's best to address that criticism first, point out the problems in the logical fallacies that are being proposed. For instance, this proposed logical fallacy, first, is not even a fallacy. It is an argument against diversity quotas with no logic as far as I know being employed except an assumption that equal proportions of groups between a [assumed] professional job population and total population is inherently "correct". The proposed argument is a strawman of diversity quotas by failing to address the goals of diversity quotas. Proponents of diversity quotas don't want to bolster minorities for being merely a smaller fragment of the population, but address the minorities' having disadvantages including hiring, negotiation, education, income, medical attention, and wages compared to the majority (these can also limit the pool of qualified applicants from minorities). Additionally, the conclusion requires a definition of "discrimination" as there's systemic discrimination and the more active (and illegal) version. --It's-a me, Lefty Green Mario! 18:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario You are right in saying that portraying any support of quotas as "The Representation Fallacy Premise" is a strawman, and indeed this is not the intention of my post. When I would be given the possibility I would continue the conversation in the saloon bar, both replying to Soundwave's and yours comments. CaptainMarvel (talk) 18:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Quick side note, given this person is probably a fascist fuck, that username of theirs certainly raises eyebrows. — Oxyaena ^Harass 20:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Oxyaena I missed your comment; First, I'm not a "guy." Second, I'm not a "fascist fuck" and "Accusations of fascism or comparisons to Hitler are also best avoided." Third, what kind of movies/comics have you watched to believe that Captain Marvel is associated with fascism!? CaptainMarvel (talk) 15:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Oxy is referring to the right-wing dumbfucks who threw a temper tantrum over over how "woke" the Captain Marvel movie was. (Actually no it wasn't, not in any sense that didn't conform to marketing boundaries.) ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Marvel, why do you remind me of UT so much? Also my apologies for misgendering you. — Oxyaena ^Harass 16:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Am I missing something? Didn't the alt-right hate the Captain Marvel movie?[4][5] Bongolian (talk) 17:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Well Captain, why don't you find something to do besides bothering the moderators. Make yourself useful. Ariel31459 (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ariel31459 Nope. Since a moderator keeps insisting in marking my thread as "bullshit", I think that nothing useful can be done here. CaptainMarvel (talk) 20:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

This wiki isn't designed for you to have long romantic conversations in the digital saloon. Those who do eventually vanish behind the vale of tears or get sysop-revoked. You should create main-space content. That's all I have for you. Go away now.Ariel31459 (talk) 21:03, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Webshites/Politic[edit]

Using RationalWiki as a platform punitive punishment as absolutely unacceptable.

Parts of this article seem to be personally motivated, User: GrammarCommie has locked the page preventing edits. While there are a number of cited and credible shites on the list, there are also a few obvious emotionally motivated posts. Checking the talk page and history indicates a number of leftists have been on and off this page repeatedly. Two of the most stand out individuals are Vaush and ContraPoints. Both of these people have been instrumental in reigning radical-right folks to moderate or left positions. Several statements are taken and interpreted intentionally out of context. ^{— Unsigned, by: EcksThree / talk / contribs}

That's all true, but I don't think it requires moderator intervention at this time. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 21:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, go back to the talk page and see if you can work it out with @GrammarCommie and ikanreed. Bongolian (talk) 21:33, 14 November 2019 (UTC)