RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive42
LeftyGreenMario[edit]
She kept blocking me for no good reasons. I merely post a reply, and a one or nine hour block comes. And then the vandal bin. Utterly unwarranted. And do explain how citing The New American constitutes such a horrible crime. Yeesh. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 16:08, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Nobody gives a shit. Shut the fuck up, please.
Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 16:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- At this point, USHistoryanalyzer, you are no longer getting returns on this coopings. I am simply not active enough to enforce the site's ideals, nor do I desire to be that active. Yes, they should not be blocking or binning you. It is at best immature and is really just intellectual cowardice antithetical to what RationalWiki is about. But what you're doing is clearly not changing anything-Hastur! (talk) 16:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- You're citing, as you often have, a source with not much interest in factual reporting.[1] If you could muster up the capacity to find fact-based right-wing reporting, you might get a better response from someone. However, at this point you've annoyed enough people that you're not likely to get the benefit of the doubt. Bongolian (talk) 17:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- What policy has this user violated that justifies binning or blocking him? It looks to me like the cool kids are just ganging up on him. Nutty Roux (talk) 18:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- To the OP: you are a supposed history analyzer. If you really were, you know that the John Birch Society is probably most famous for calling Dwight D. Eisenhower a commie, and being so paranoid and conspiracy ranting about Commies that Bob Dylan directly made fun of them. You don't deserve to be blocked for that, for sure (if you were edit warring over your bullshit as you have in the past, that's another story). But calling them "biased towards the truth", well, that's a position to be mocked for sure. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 18:29, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- I tried so hard to be patient with this user and stop people from treating him in a way that I thought was unfair. I’m so done with that now. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 18:42, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- I tried so hard to be patient with this user and stop people from treating him in a way that I thought was unfair. I’m so done with that now.
- To the OP: you are a supposed history analyzer. If you really were, you know that the John Birch Society is probably most famous for calling Dwight D. Eisenhower a commie, and being so paranoid and conspiracy ranting about Commies that Bob Dylan directly made fun of them. You don't deserve to be blocked for that, for sure (if you were edit warring over your bullshit as you have in the past, that's another story). But calling them "biased towards the truth", well, that's a position to be mocked for sure. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 18:29, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- What policy has this user violated that justifies binning or blocking him? It looks to me like the cool kids are just ganging up on him. Nutty Roux (talk) 18:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- You're citing, as you often have, a source with not much interest in factual reporting.[1] If you could muster up the capacity to find fact-based right-wing reporting, you might get a better response from someone. However, at this point you've annoyed enough people that you're not likely to get the benefit of the doubt. Bongolian (talk) 17:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- At this point, USHistoryanalyzer, you are no longer getting returns on this coopings. I am simply not active enough to enforce the site's ideals, nor do I desire to be that active. Yes, they should not be blocking or binning you. It is at best immature and is really just intellectual cowardice antithetical to what RationalWiki is about. But what you're doing is clearly not changing anything-Hastur! (talk) 16:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
[edit conflict] I'll reiterate what I said in there last frivolous ATiM filing - isn't there a way we can sanction them to only allow 1 of these posts per week or month? --Gale5050 (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think there is currently any automated way to do that. It would require modifying the vandal bin code, something unlikely to happen for a single user. Bongolian (talk) 18:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- (EC)My big problem with Ushit is that no matter how many times they are called out or punished for their behavior they never learn a damn thing and return to their old behavior. They are a bigot (in the traditional sense of the term) and ultimately they provide nothing positive. They had several major sanctions imposed on them and nothing changed their behavior. It's probably best for this user to be moved on until they can make an attempt to improve their behavior. Unclescrooge at least did make an attempt for a short time, while Ushit has done no such thing, so Ushit is worse that Scrooge for what I am concerned. Plutocow (talk) 18:52, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Bongolian and Plutocow It would be a social restriction, with long bans (week or more) for each violation. --Gale5050 (talk) 18:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Honestly, we've tried pretty much every other sanction, and none have done anything to improve his behavior. A long-term ban may be the only solution. Plutocow (talk) 19:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- The cool kids ganging up on someone? WTF? I honestly do not know a single other non-garbage website or wiki that has this much patience with blatant trolling troublemakers before they start sanctioning them and calling them out. You don't have to break a specific rule for the mob to get fed-the-fuck-up with repeating bullshit falsehoods, abusing the ATIM and coop, trashing the wiki and its users and toxifying this place. It is utterly flabberghasting that someone could characterise our responses to USHistoryanalyzer's dipshittery as "the cool kids ganging up on them". Zheesh. ShabiDOO 19:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Y'know he has a point. Let's officiate some sort of sanctions in the Chicken coop. It's gotten to that point. Techpriest (talk) 19:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- The cool kids ganging up on someone? WTF? I honestly do not know a single other non-garbage website or wiki that has this much patience with blatant trolling troublemakers before they start sanctioning them and calling them out. You don't have to break a specific rule for the mob to get fed-the-fuck-up with repeating bullshit falsehoods, abusing the ATIM and coop, trashing the wiki and its users and toxifying this place. It is utterly flabberghasting that someone could characterise our responses to USHistoryanalyzer's dipshittery as "the cool kids ganging up on them". Zheesh. ShabiDOO 19:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Honestly, we've tried pretty much every other sanction, and none have done anything to improve his behavior. A long-term ban may be the only solution. Plutocow (talk) 19:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Bongolian and Plutocow It would be a social restriction, with long bans (week or more) for each violation. --Gale5050 (talk) 18:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- This discussion was moved to RationalWiki:Chicken coop.
Just one comment from me, those blocks were honestly disruptive nuisance blocks to curb drama (I accept the possibility it could've made more drama but honestly the idea of the guy shutting up for 9 hours sounded attractive). It's been practied before (by me, by others) to short-term block annoying users, if I recall. I've done this to TheDarkMaster2 years ago for example. --It's-a me, 
LeftyGreenMario! 00:48, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Resigning[edit]
I've thought about it, and I think it's time to resign as a mod. My inactivity in recent weeks probably hasn't gone unnoticed. My workload has increased significantly since the country started reopening, and I have a house move coming up in the next few weeks. Whatever free internet time I have, I'd like it to be care-free and peaceful, not spent mediating disputes.
I'm aware that there is some ongoing drama/squabbling at the coop, but I haven't read any of it and can't even be bothered to to try and figure out what its about - that's how I know its time for me to step down.
My apologies for not completing the full term. Best of luck to the remaining mods, and everyone else. --RWRW (talk) 01:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- No please stay! Please hold on to it for a bit longer please? 69Annoy 01:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- I believe Summa Atheologica is now a mod? I think one of the other mods would have to make the official change though...-Flandres (talk) 02:01, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- Correct, Summa is the second alternate. Summa has been demoted to moderator. Sad to see you go RWRW, it was fun to have you around and you were a good moderator. Hope you'll stay around on the wiki if you ever have some spare time and I hope you may want to run again as a moderator in the future. Techpriest (talk) 15:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- Best wishes to you on your future endeavors, RWRW! Bongolian (talk) 17:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks folks. Yeah I'll still be around when I can, just disengaged with this page, coop squabbles etc - basically what I have been doing but without a feeling of guilt. --RWRW (talk) 00:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- @RWRW I want you to know that I respect the fact that you evaluated the situation and stepped down when you realized you didn't have the time or energy. That takes integrity and self reflection, qualities much needed in the world we live in. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:27, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks folks. Yeah I'll still be around when I can, just disengaged with this page, coop squabbles etc - basically what I have been doing but without a feeling of guilt. --RWRW (talk) 00:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- Best wishes to you on your future endeavors, RWRW! Bongolian (talk) 17:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- Correct, Summa is the second alternate. Summa has been demoted to moderator. Sad to see you go RWRW, it was fun to have you around and you were a good moderator. Hope you'll stay around on the wiki if you ever have some spare time and I hope you may want to run again as a moderator in the future. Techpriest (talk) 15:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- I believe Summa Atheologica is now a mod? I think one of the other mods would have to make the official change though...-Flandres (talk) 02:01, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
UTC)
- Thank you, GC. --RWRW (talk) 08:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- Wow, I only just now noticed this. Sad to see you go, but I'm happy for you that your life seems to be going someplace good. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 15:40, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- Wow, I only just now noticed this. Sad to see you go, but I'm happy for you that your life seems to be going someplace good.
- Thank you, GC. --RWRW (talk) 08:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Promote SixtyNine?[edit]
SixtyNine has recently made a bunch of disruptive edits, such as this, this and this. I strongly suggest we remove his autopatrolled right due to his recent impersonation and vandalism, as it clearly needs patrolling. --Gale5050 (talk) 17:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
ADefenceOfChristianity[edit]
I honestly don't 100% know if they are here just to troll or they actually believe in their AiG nonsense they post on the Saloon Bar. Usually, I'd just block them; but they seem to be knowledgeable in MediaWiki and probably wants to be a part of the community since they created the "RationalWiki Church" page. Do you all have any ideas on how I should handle this? 
Rockford the Roe boop my snootpraise Oscar Wilde 01:41, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance. Personally, my policy is always to assume good faith. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 01:55, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- Since this one's still pretty fresh, I think ignoring is still a viable option. --It's-a me,
LeftyGreenMario! 02:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- I think everyone is familiar with RW:CD. No need to assume bad faith a priori. GeeJayK (talk) 02:31, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- Judging by their most recent posts, they appear to be a concern troll. Plutocow (talk) 04:31, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- I think this user is genuine. Not many trolls who are just out to troll could be arsed to come up with the persona of a reasonably polite Christian. But all of his edits will basically amount to trolling. This is yet another troll with a purpose. I believe this one has come here as a missionary to convert the heathen. At least this one does appears to be reasonably polite, so far. I'm worried about his use of "I demand" on his talk page, though. And since he's also edited the Evolution article, this looks like yet another user who should never be autopatrolled. It probably won't be long before he's screaming at us that his loving God will barbecue all of us for all eternity. There's not much chance this will end well. But let's wait a bit and see what happens. Oh, and being knowledgeable about MediaSWiki doesn't necessarily make someone a good RationalWiki user or even a good faith RationaLWiki user. Spud (talk) 05:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- No. This is an example of someone with irrational ideas who is arguing them in a civil way, and will require patience and well worded replies. If over time they refuse to engage in the rules of discourse (providing evidence when asked and reply to questions etc) or if it escalates to blatant concern trolling then I would agree. Unlike our resident troll USHistoryanalyzer, this person hasn't engaged in assholtry or have ignored all calls for sensible debate yet. ShabiDOO 11:52, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- I think this user is genuine. Not many trolls who are just out to troll could be arsed to come up with the persona of a reasonably polite Christian. But all of his edits will basically amount to trolling. This is yet another troll with a purpose. I believe this one has come here as a missionary to convert the heathen. At least this one does appears to be reasonably polite, so far. I'm worried about his use of "I demand" on his talk page, though. And since he's also edited the Evolution article, this looks like yet another user who should never be autopatrolled. It probably won't be long before he's screaming at us that his loving God will barbecue all of us for all eternity. There's not much chance this will end well. But let's wait a bit and see what happens. Oh, and being knowledgeable about MediaSWiki doesn't necessarily make someone a good RationalWiki user or even a good faith RationaLWiki user. Spud (talk) 05:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- Judging by their most recent posts, they appear to be a concern troll. Plutocow (talk) 04:31, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- I think everyone is familiar with RW:CD. No need to assume bad faith a priori. GeeJayK (talk) 02:31, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- Since this one's still pretty fresh, I think ignoring is still a viable option. --It's-a me,
Someone is impersonating editors[edit]
[2] [3] [4] Could one of the mods/techs change their names? Monet Ye 06:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- They're used because the rename process left open accounts. Block them. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 06:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Hey.[edit]
Since I am on a break, I would like to be blocked and have my user rights stripped until December. Thank you.--Ms. OliviaUse Chatter here / Fossils my Zilla dug up 10:50, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- Done. You will be automatically unblocked on the first of december. -- Techpriest (talk) 10:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
User:KristinaWhitaker[edit]
Please delete the page and block the editor for spam. --Andrew5 (talk) 21:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Done. Looks like same spam source as User:AndrewLambert11 which Christopher removed earlier today. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Andrew5 there’s absolutely no need to do this, the spam will be spotted just as quickly as your edit. Christopher (talk) 21:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)