RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive18

This is an archive page, last updated 1 May 2020. 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>, <15>, <16>, <17>, < List>, <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>

, (new)(back)

Blocking and Vandal Binning

Don't know where else to put this so I'll stick it here. I am pleased to see a little more forbearance and rationality around blocking and vandal binning. Much less in the way of infinite/super long blocks and invalid vandal binning. The site hasn't been anymore or less inundated with trolls and/or vandals. Just glad to see no one losing their heads. Kudos. As an aside a lot of this page should be archived now. Ace^Moderator 05:40, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

2607:FB90:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 Block

Dmorris is too "busy" to troll and mediawiki fully supports IPv6 ranged blocks. It appears the block for User:2607:FB90:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 is working. Thanks all.—チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk) 19:51, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah it ain't working, just ignore it, that's what I`m doing. — Oxyaena ^Harass 19:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. The IPv6 block isn't working? I think Dmorris is bluffing.—チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk) 19:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

The troll is using various public wifi hot spots not associated with the ipv6 block, e.g. at coffee shops and restaurants, to get around the block that's in place. Cosmikdebris (talk) 20:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Do you have real-life confirmation? Sounds more likely. anyway. Two possible scenarios:

1. Mediawiki's range block feature just happens to not work at Rationalwiki for IPv6 addresses. The range I blocked is a legit T-Mobile range, and is located on the arin website. And DMorris is busy even though he's on Christmas break and has no school. from Ips
2. Le Internet Tough Guy is bluffing and is using public access points to get around the block.

I think the second is more likely. This is Grawp/DMorris we're talking about. I don't think he would pass up an opportunity to troll us. Besides, when the previous range didn't work, he was more than happy to edit without an account to show his IP. Now he's not doing it.—チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk) 20:34, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Revert, block, ignore. That's the plan I've been using. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:36, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

^— what he said. Oh and he isn’t the infamous Grawp. That’s just stupid. Ace^Moderator 06:38, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

No, he is. — Oxyaena ^Harass 09:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Wanna enlighten us with your evidence for such a claim? Ace^Moderator 09:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

there is substantial evidence that I will not post here that DMorris borrowed the grawp name from Wikipedia and that every example of grawp activity on this wiki has been Morris. The original grawp aka Jack, he never posted on this site. EK (talk) 11:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I second CheeseburgerFace. If the ipv6 block had failed, Morris would have continued editing openly from Ips in the range to stick it up our faces. Thus, it must have succeeded.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 16:06, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Blackhat SEO Spammer?

I've seen this a few times over here. What's a "Blackhat SEO Spammer"? --Tinribmancer (talk) 16:55, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

It's a bot that creates articles to post links to random websites in order to boost them in search engines. SEO stands for Search Engine Optimization. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄^{Ask about our holiday specials!} 17:02, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

"downvoted into oblivion"

How many downvotes must one votepoll atleast have on the "To do list" section in order to be removed? -10? --Tinribmancer (talk) 14:26, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Ideologically motivated block

I have been blocked or put in the vandal bin without warning or explanation on multiple occasions for the apparent crime of whitewashing. Mainly I changed certain anti-Catholic parts of articles that were unsourced or poorly sourced and that were historically inaccurate. Specifically I cited professional historians who showed that the Fulda and Freising bishop conferences excommunicated Nazis other than Goebbels were excommunicated. This has been attested by Gary L. Krupp and Donald J. Dietrich. I also referenced the role of Pope Pius XII in the 20th July plot to assassinate Hitler. I was told to go here with how I`d been censored. Hopefully free discussion will be encouraged in the future and I won`t be punished for making historically accurate edits. JohnLogan (talk) 16:34, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

As I have pointed out elsewhere, Mr. Krupp is not a professional historian, nor does he have training in that field. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Dear Sir or Madam: Kindly refrain from sea lioning further.

Go away, whitewashing sealion. Quit shit-stirring.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 17:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@Summa Atheologica I'm not convinced that this person is a sealion, at least not yet. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:19, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

JohnLogan, from what I've seen, your 4 mainspace edits since 2007 have been void of citations. If you want to make a contribution that is contrary to what is already written, it behooves you to include a citation in the edit to a reputable book, journal or mainstream media source that backs up what you're saying. RationalWiki is not meant to be a repository of random opinions on mainspace pages. If you want to offer your unsubstantiated opinions, you are welcome to do so on the talk pages. I think that the vandal binning was unwarranted however. Bongolian (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I would agree with @Bongolian and have thus paroled this user. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:34, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I might be out of line, but oxy needs to cool it

"TrumpImpeachmentSham" might be a pretty obvious obvious sign of someone who is only intending to register to troll, but it is in no way, shape, or form against any sort of policy about usernames. I guess this is slap-on-the-wrist territory in terms of harm done, but it's going way too far. I blocked oxy for longer than I should have, but I'm pretty sure it's too far. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

They were vandalizing articles with "fuck n-words," so while the ban reason may be wrong they still deserved a ban. — Oxyaena ^Harass 16:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I do believe that was ikanreed's point. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't my point, but only because I totally missed those edits. When you rename them it changes the logs. Seriously, I couldn't even see that because of the unnecessary rename. Save it for when it's harassing a user or pretending to be user or threatening or other similar problems. I guess I'm not surprised though. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Return of the troll/vandal

As some of you may have noticed, there was a recent series of troll attacks, likely from the person above given their nature. I did a bit of poking around into the person's criminal history on public record sites. It seems that the person's criminal history. It seems that he opened his first account on RW shortly after his 5-year parole ended for misdemeanor stalking/felony fraud. He had a prior juvenile arrest for "written threats to kill or do bodily injury", but the adjudication on that is not public. All the dots are rather tightly connected between his criminal record, CP editing history, and RW editing history, so this is not easily deniable on his part. It really does look bad for him to keep up this quasi-stalking behavior on RW now that he's got a prior conviction. If anyone's feels like they've been personally harassed by him, I advise you to contact law enforcement or a lawyer sooner, rather than later. I can post the links for this information if anyone's interested. Bongolian (talk) 19:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Please do so. — Oxyaena ^Harass 20:56, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I know you already know his first and last name. So as not to make this appear like doxxing, I'll just tell you the procedure; the pages are not directly linkable anyway because you have to go through a Captcha to get there and the pages do not load with unique web addresses. From his first and last name, you can find his middle name and date of birth from his arrest record here:[1] There are three records for two people who turn up. It will probably be obvious to you who is who. From knowing that information you can narrow down the court case records to the correct person here:[2] Once you find his court case records, you click on the folder icon and dig down until you get to the summary page, which includes the case docket. The docket gives a detailed chronology for the case, including documents on charges, adjudication, sentencing, and requests by the parolee to end parole. Bongolian (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Nah, this strikes me as being more the work of EiK. — Oxyaena ^Harass 16:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Another spammer

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/181.41.203.108 spammed a couple pages. I took out the spam but don't have blocking powers. ^{— Unsigned, by: Dave Wise 2 / talk / contribs}

Locked out of old sysop account

My old account was User:Jinx, which had (and still has) sysop rights. I am now using this account because I can't remember the password for my old one. If there is some way a mod could transfer sysop rights from Jinx to my current account (of course if you need me to prove that I am telling the truth, that is fine), that would be great. Jinkinson (talk) 04:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: Jinkinson was sysopped by Oxyaena. Bongolian (talk) 05:35, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

We can rename your account if you need to, by the way. Don't think there's a way to transfer edit history, so apologies for the inconvenience. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 05:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Fuck it I resign.

Apparently trying to crack down on toxicity in the Saloon bar is a bad thing. Fuck it! Kill each other then!!! ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:29, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I heard there is a coronavirationalwiki disease spreading. DuceMoosolini resigned, Oxyaena threatened to leave. Everyone is going to resign and I am going to be the new don around here. John66 (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I already claimed that title. wink wink, nudge nudge. — Oxyaena ^Harass 19:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• do you mind calming down and maybe not dying over the US election or whatever it is that has everyone acting weird and combative. EK (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Election season. I wonder if 2016 was any different. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:32, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

    It wasn't. There were just more people. RoninMacbeth (talk) 05:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Don't be silly. Go outside, ring your doorbell and let yourself in.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

User:GreenNewDeal

Re: this user. An infinite block was handed out for this user after three edits. The reason given was "ban evasion morris". This seems to me to be an unjustified use of the banhammer and grossly subjective and excessive. I cannot see where this user exhibited behavior patterns associated with the banned user dmorris, and I cannot see how the posts this user made warant the action taken. This is not meant to be a slam against @Oxyaena. I am just trying to understand this issue better. Cosmikdebris (talk) 18:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that was excessive. Bongolian (talk) 19:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC) How does one conclude that was Morris? Oxy's been wrong about this at least once before I think. Bongolian (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

My read is that Oxy perhaps assumed it was Morris based on the comments accusing them of being an authoritarian mod as well as the comments about the past to the site? On the other hand, their last comment would seem to suggest that they're a Bernie supporter which would run contrary to what I know about Morris (which admittedly isn't a lot). The Crow (talk) 21:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

its obviously not a new user, as shown by their sniping at the admins here. And detailed knowledge of past mod elections and site policies. EK (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Frankly, I would've given it a vandal bin after seeing its comments myself. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I didn't like GreenNewDeal's calling out of two users as being problematic, I didn't like the comments about how RationalWiki isn't as good as it used to be in the good old days either. But just because someone writes something you don't like doesn't make that person Morris. GreenNewDeal has done nothing that warrants any kind of ban. Yet. Spud (talk) 06:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

They're obviously here in bad faith, and the fact they targeted two specific users, one Morris has specific enmities with, is suspect enough. — Oxyaena ^Harass 13:24, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Being there in bad faith doesn't mean they should be blocked for stating an opinion. They only oughta be blocked if they are well, being unreasonable or trying to vandalize mainspace pages (which Morris is but GND hasn't done beyond calling a mod and a tech names, which probably should more be warranting a short term block or a vandal bin than a permanent block) if I understand the blocking policy and community standards page properly, not permanently blocked for holding an opinion and expressing it. Unless there's additional evidence that they're Morris (beyond "this person has beef with someone Morris has also beef with", which is pretty shallow if I'm being 100% honest), this probably should not have been a permanent block if I may state my input on the entire matter. The Crow (talk) 16:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Given the way that GND began edits, the likelihood that GND will ever act in good faith is diminishingly small. Starting with a 3-day block would have been better, but I find it hard to get worked up about permabanning this shit-stirrer. Bongolian (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Hence vandal bin. It still has an opportunity to dispute it and act in better faith, but its own opportunities on stirring the pot are reduced. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. If we don't have a vandal bin in the future, we'll need some policy revision for bad-faith editing or other VB reasons. Bongolian (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

New member here but experienced Wikipedian. I have a draft article but can't even begin it here because of new account limitations; suggestions?

Hello all, been doing Wikipedia simply for ages, and enjoy reading RW to get a more conversational and snarky take on conspiracy theorists and white supremacists and all without the stuffy standards of Wikipedia. Both great sites, just different angles.

Anyhow, I was talking with some folks on Reddit about how the folks in the far-right in India get a lot of latitude to crap up social media sites in English because the average Admin/AEO tech guy in California has no idea how nasty some of the jargon/slurs they toss around are. Like the Admin would know what "1488" or "(((international bankers)))" mean but has no clue when Indian users even typing in English are basically making "burn down all the mosques" comments but using their clever little inside jokes to make them.

So I'm ginning up a draft, but I can't launch it even as a Draft: article because the automod trips and thinks I'm trying to spam. Any suggestions on the most efficient way for me to establish bonafides here of my good faith to contribute so I can kick things off, even if just in Draftspace at first? TapTheForwardAssist (talk) 19:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@TapTheForwardAssist What title do you want for the page? Bongolian (talk) 19:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@Bongolian for the moment just Draft:Indian Right glossary would be peachy. Then I can get some Redditors who don't know wikicode to pitch in content, I can use my simple "coding" skills to clean it up, and then I can launch it (or get someone to do the Page Move if I don't have the permissions yet). Does that work for you? Thanks! TapTheForwardAssist (talk) 19:55, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@TapTheForwardAssist I made Draft:Indian right-wing glossary, which is a bit clearer. If you're still having problems, I can autopatrol you and that should then fix it. Bongolian (talk) 21:55, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@Bongolian Danke! Now I'll go rustle up some folks I know who tackle Indian extremism on Reddit and get them to pitch in some content, and I'll get it all polished up to the point it can be moved over to realspace. Appreciate the hookup. TapTheForwardAssist (talk) 22:28, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

deleted article

This article was deleted "per discord" but I cannot get access to that.

The reason was apparently dox, but this person is a well known debunker of creationist material. There was no dox on the article because he has identified what his Wikipedia username was. This guy authored a very notable book refuting creationist claims. His article was on mission. Was a mistake made here? If you check on Amazon his book can be found under the name "Jonathan Kane". John66 (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah here is the book https://www.amazon.com/-/es/Jonathan-Kane/dp/1629013722/, I haven't read it so far. John66 (talk) 00:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Also see the discussion on my talk page (User talk:Bongolian#Article deleted for no reason?. We should hear from @EK who deleted the page and/or @LeftyGreenMario who has a Discord account. Bongolian (talk) 00:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

its doxxing because 90% of the article was a Wikipedia drama between the author and the article creator who is banned from here for doxxing other people anyway. I absolutely oppose the creation of the article and since the article subject is now being impersonated here with multiple other postings spreading his name around using sockpuppets I'm even more inclined to simply file this under Smith trolling. And for the record I know the person who the article is about quite well and highly suspect that this connection is related since Smith has doxxed me and my friends, family members, etc before on multiple occasions. EK (talk) 01:06, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

I concur with EK's rationale for removing the article in this particular case, and believe they are a trustworthy member of the community. However, I am concerned that there are communication channels being used outside RationalWiki (e.g. discord and/or "treehouse" and/or "wp-chat" whatever the hell those last two are) to make moderation and/or sysop decisions without discussion on the wiki. Nowhere is this practice codified in any guidelines on RationalWiki, or in the community standards, or anywhere else. Unless I misunderstand the discussion here and on Bongolian's page, this smells like an invisible cabal that hides its activities from the rest of the community and I think it has the potential for abuse, and sets a very dangerous precedent. Cosmikdebris (talk) 02:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

its my discord server where people can chat in real time with others, like a combination of phone and email but faster. Generally I get opinions from people before doing stuff and also people gather information there in private where things can be dealt with without trolls being involved. It's been a thing for almost a year now, ever since the main RationalWiki discord server deviated from the site itself. But in terms of activity its purely informal, no different to any other means of speaking to people like irl or email. EK (talk) 02:35, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Cosmikdebris. Keep the page deleted unless there is hard evidence for the alleged aliases. Mikemikev trolling here was a clincher for keeping it deleted. Bongolian (talk) 02:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Moderator used bullying tactics to try to discourage input to article

Say what you want about my position on the non-binary gender article, that I’m misinformed, or a troll or a bigot or whatever. The fact is I didn’t choose to vandalize the article, and instead addressed my grievances with the article in the talk page, which I thought was the whole purpose of the talk page in the first place. It’d be one thing if I just disagreed with the position stated in the article, but I backed my claims that the section was poorly written, even from the vantage of a supporter of the article’s claims. Unfortunately, my points were dismissed, basically off hand, and it’s not going to be changed so long as the editors commit themselves to confirmation bias.

I am writing here because of the unprofessional, and frankly appalling behavior mod Oxyaena exhibited in their goal to dismiss my input that reaches beyond a simple disagreement. First, they felt the need to tag my talk section with a concern troll tag, so blatantly obviously poisoning the well. Like, yeah please disregard any criticism that could make this article better as you imagine in your mind that this person’s logic is derived from a sicko fantasy to antagonize. If the arguments against my position were so ironclad, one would think such an obvious portrayal of me as a Saturday cartoon villain would be unnecessary. It also would be less striking if we were editing on Encyclopedia Drammatica or Uncyclopedia and not, I don’t know, a wiki that in part analyzes logical fallacies and examples of their misuse? I get one mod doesn’t speak for all of you, but it’s pretty bad if your leadership so blatantly weaponizes fallacy (which I’m sure we are to assume to be bad).

Secondly, Oxyaena temporarily locked the talk page and patrolled the section to discourage me, and perhaps only me from pointing out the increasing number of flaws in the logic being presented. Presumably, a more general desire to fight against “toxicity” on the talk page would have resulted in a permanent lock across the board. They also cited “excessive stupidity” (argument by assertion) for locking the page, which sounds a little too subjective to be a proper argument to utilize such a privilege.

Lastly, and perhaps most egregiously, Oxyaena not only let another user post a reply to my post before locking the page, but posted their OWN reply in the form of a question that I quite obviously couldn’t respond to after the subsequent locking of the page, making it look like that I was dumbfounded and had no response for the obviously wrong argument used (that could have brought up at any time prior, but was chosen for a rhetorical advantage knowing that it couldn’t be responded to). This was such an intellectually dishonest and obviously underhanded tactic that I really have to wonder how someone so corrupt was gifted mod privileges. This would be like a teacher calling on a student that they don’t like to answer a question but also remind them that if they choose to answer to the question, that they’ll give them an F for the semester. I don’t care how much you disagree with my point of view, I was not being unruly or disrespectful, and thus such a roundabout way to use power to silence me really makes this mod come off as a bully.

I’ve enjoyed RationalWiki in the past, ironically, for the most part for its subjective use of examples in its articles on logical fallacies. But if the rules don’t apply to people with which the site disagrees with, then on principle they don’t hold much value. Merely having an antagonistic opinion to this moderator is one thing, but to use these underhanded tactics to silence dissent reflects badly on the management of this site. 69.60.33.176 (talk) 13:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Oxy isn't a mod. That isn't bullying. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 14:01, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

So you're saying any user is able to lock pages for whatever reason they feel like? 69.60.33.176 (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Not necessarily, but in light of what was put there, Oxy's actions were warranted.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 17:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

By what reasoning? Fallacy of acceptable targets? None of my edits(to the talk page, not the main page, mind you) were unruly, but even if they were, the steps taken were not appropriate peacekeeping methods. If any of you can explain how asking a loaded question then locking the page so it can't be answered is an appropriate use of privileges, then I'd love to hear it. Screw the Rules, I'm Doing What's Right! is clearly in effect here. 69.60.33.176 (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

It was @EK (also not a mod), not Oxy who locked the page.[3] I don't really see the justification of locking the page based on those edits. But EK can perhaps explain this. Bongolian (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd have to differ with the claim that you'd be punished for having a different opinion on uncyclopedia. You'd only be punished for making a juvenile terrible edit to a featured article. And even then it would probably be done with humour. ShabiDOO 18:49, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I did not realize EK locked the page, so I'll apologize and retract my third grievance. My first two still stand. 69.60.33.176 (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't agree with the lock either. No one was edit warring, there wasn't any vandalism, and there was no reason put behind it. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 19:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)