RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive48

This is an archive page, last updated 10 July 2022. 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>, <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>, <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)

Admin abuse by GrammarCommie

So basically I added info with a valid source on Christopher Hitchens which User:GrammarCommie reverted here (although I responded with what they said, note their incivility in calling me a dumbfuck despite being an admin). I removed slanderous, unreferenced original research "he must have been talking about [...]" and added a reference about his precise atheist stance which wasn't even mentioned in the beginning of the lede - in fact the "Prior to his atheist activism [...]" technically doesn't make sense without mentioning his precise stance. After some edit warring and quarreling in the talk page, they simply protected the articles and shut their mouth without even acknowledging my concerns of the content at the talk page, further proving that they could not care less about it and that they use say "use the talk page" as an excuse to keep horrid content, even though I did use it despite them ignoring the discussion after the page protection(s) - (the same happened at Sam Harris).^{— Unsigned, by: RationalAdam / talk / contribs}

I haven’t looked at all this in detail, but make sure you’re aware of this; might help avoid conflict escalation, keep people from talking past each other. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 13:43, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

While I don't think GC had the right to go ad homenim, RationalAdam also has a point. As such, GC should probably make a comment here.--Andrew5 (talk) 13:48, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

" (Undo revision 2386434 by GrammarCommie (talk) look, I know you're trying to defend your 2000yr old sky goat herder beliefs, but that is not an excuse to vandalise. I put info with REFS.)" Hmmm... I wonder why GrammarCommie called this guy a dumbfuck... I guess we'll never know... Also, like, I have a life outside of the wiki. I'm sorry that I didn't give some random dipshit my full undivided attention. _{Not really, I'm not sorry.} ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:52, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@RationalAdam On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you.

Anyway, RA, a quick overview of your edits suggests a degree of not understanding snarky point of view. I'd encourage getting a funny bone. We're not a dry tome like Wikipedia is. -- Techpriest (talk) 14:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Your first time? The admins can be very sanctimonious. Last time I checked, another user going by the name Senioritas got temp banned by an admin for adding something into an article and then the same had happened to another user going by Beard Of Zeus, and yet another user tried to improve the wiki just to be attacked by one of the admins. Unless you are an established user, you should make use of precautions and expect this sort of thing to happen to you from now on @RationalAdam. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 14:40, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@TransChicken What are you talking about? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:47, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

You are overprotective of your articles (possibly because you are so afraid of Conservative Ken and Michael Coombs). Therefor, you won't allow those articles to be changed unless it goes toe to toe with what the other established users think. Perhaps, YOU think you are right and that Adam guy is wrong, so you expect him to fall in line. Being overtly fanatical about a narrative is inherently contrary to rationality as that is zealotry by definition. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 14:55, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Now that I'm thinking about it, the article on president obama has had many revisions from IP addresses, all of which were reverted regardless of whether they were constructive edits or not. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 14:57, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@TransChicken Some random person was fighting over articles. Fighting over articles is frowned upon. I ended the fight. If said person had just gone to the talkpage and explained themselves (instead of taking the insults to said talkpage) I probably would have agreed that there were problems, but instead they decided to assume I was a theist and insult me. I don't know what you or they expected to happen. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here is afraid of Ken or Mike. -- Techpriest (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Two technical notes: 1) RationalAdam's quote committed ellipsis abuse (4 elipises in a single quote), arguably a form of cherry picking. 2) It's not possible to slander a dead person, such as Hitchens — that's the law, at least in most democracies. He cannot rise up from the dead and sue us. He was a drunk, so what of it? Bongolian (talk) 17:44, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Being the first to sling an insult implying GC is a theist and then edit warring and subsequently accusing GC of vandalism and then complaining a page got protected even though that's the correct thing to do after an edit war doesn't cast you in a sympathetic light, even if GC insulted back. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:43, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@Bongolian Yeah BLP only really applies to living people. Keep in mind that it mostly exists to draw away the legal shotgun. -- Techpriest (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

It would be libel:Some states do permit suits for libel or slander to be brought on behalf of the estate of a deceased person in some circumstances. The definition of libel in Texas includes written words that “tend to blacken the memory of the dead.” So, if this wiki is visible in Texas, take note. @ GrammarCommie: You make an important point, but then it is obscured by summarily reverting dubious edits without comment. I suggest you be sure to inform the reverted user that you want to see a discussion on the relevant talk page.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:56, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Given that RW does support corrections, prefers citations to claims, does not like bullshit, etc. I don't think that Texas is of much concern in that regard. Unless the person making the claim could be identified as a Texas resident at the time the claim was posted (generally not possible), then the applicable law would be federal (US), not state. Bongolian (talk) 19:01, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ariel31459 Shrug. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:27, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

There is really no end to similar precedents, in 2017: "The European Court’s case law on “defamation of the dead” has given rise to some commentary suggesting that Contracting States have a positive obligation to protect the Article 8 rights of individuals where there has been an attack on the reputation of their deceased relatives’ reputations." I suggest that comments that illustrate little more than truculent contempt are not useful anywhere on this wiki, and are in fact, stupid.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:35, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie Imagine how petulant you must be to get offended by a word and one that is neither a swear nor a slur. @Bongolian You can preach how much RationalWiki is pure all day long, but that does not change the fact that RW can still get sued for libel if the information is inaccurate and defamatory. Besides, if people can pick apart wrong information from this site, then it would mean this site has misinformation much like Conservapedia. Can you trust a site when the information provided from said site can be factually incorrect? It would be better for everyone here to review that article and see where the bad crumbs are so they can be removed. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 19:46, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ariel31459 and Bongolian If you would like to move this discussion about defamation to the talkpage for the article in question, that would probably be more productive. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@TransChicken Again, all I did was stop an edit war and bite back a little. Anything else is whatever fanciful notions you're projecting onto me. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:08, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Ariel31459, Similarly RW is incorporated in New Mexico, so the default law is the US unless they can prove that the person who posted it was resident in the EU at the time of the posting. Bongolian (talk) 20:07, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I think we can just archive this now unless @Ariel31459 still disagrees with me, in which case that part can be moved to Hitch's talk page, I guess. Bongolian (talk) 20:12, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@Bongolian This case should probably stay open for a few more days so the original complainant has time to respond. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:27, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

OK. Bongolian (talk) 20:28, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

BLP, as I remember, is alive or deceased within the last 6 months. Of course, Hitchens died in 2011 so it's irrelevant, but it's an important reminder. If it cannot be determined if they are dead or alive, we should take it that if they were born <115 years ago they are alive, if it's >115, then they are dead. I remember going to a museum once and this was there policy, I am not sure if Wikipedia uses it, but I do feel this is the best system we can provide here. --Andrew5 (talk) 20:33, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

In either case, I feel that the best thing to do, just to be safe (as he has kids and whatnot) is to remove the defamatory material, but I really don't have a super strong stance. --Andrew5 (talk) 20:35, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I just wanted to get alternative views aired. I'm done. Thanks.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:58, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Anyway, a run-down. GC reverted the comments, an invitation to go to the talk page.[1] This is something RationalAdam should've done in the first place, but he instead reverts the edit and leaps to assuming bad faith by suggesting he's religious and "vandalizing"[2] while also creating a section [3] again assuming bad faith and making baseless accusations to which GC responds by reverting and flaming[4]. This response probably shouldn't have happened, but this isn't exactly an offense that supports RationalAdam's exaggerated claims of admin abuse. RationalAdam AGAIN reverted the comment[5] basically reiterating his old point while incorrectly accusing GC of edit warring, which he should've done in the talk page in the first place. At this point, what RationalAdam was doing is edit warring, which GC reverted it and then protected it[6], which is the correct thing to do in an edit war.

However, looking through his contributions, RationalAdams has a record of characterizing edits he doesn't like as "vandalism".[7] (edit on Charles Darwin) [8] (edit on Sam Harris). He also has demonstrated little understanding how RationalWiki works[9] (removing statements deemed as "unencyclopedic") [10] (removing strikeout under the illegitimate reasoning of "more formal") and hasn't really improved. He also has accused me incorrectly of edit warring[11] for making one revert[12] (I found the edit reasoning a bit skeevy: "This is not very rational or neutral"). These edits happened over two articles, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens though accusation of vandalism also happened in Charles Darwin. The resulting section here is a repeat of RationalAdam's repeated overreacting and hasty bad-faith assumptions. I have to agree with AMassiveGay here[13] that "what you have done instead is overreact hysterically to the reverting of your edits, make idiotic assumptions as to the motives of the editor reverting, without really justifying your own edits while claiming faults with what you removed that are neither significant or accurate." and "honestly, you were reverted once and went straight on the attack like its an affront to have justify your own actions. not after repeated edit warring or after attempts of reasonable dialogue had gone no where, but one mention of 'talk page' and you are straight out the gate with a fuck you and unearned arrogance. how dare we question your minor edits which make no functional difference either way to the article.". --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:27, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

EC this is all idiotic. i have no doubt some one some where is legally allowed to sue rw for some reason or other and we should probably be mindful to not fall foul of this hypothetical lawsuit. they are not going to sue over the hitchens article and certainly not over the spurious claims of slanderous vandalism made by this hysterically overreacting user. a user, i might add, who has reacted with outrage and, by there own dubious standards, with slanders of their own after a grueling edit war consisting of one revert. the 2nd revert in this horrific forever edit war resulted in this 'admin abuse' nonsense. a 3rd revert is likely to have gc on trial at the hague for his crimes.

Some people here should probably have taken a look at the fossil record and the talk page for hitchens for actual relevant details before jumping in with hand wringing over imagined hypothetical issues with no relevance to this temper tantrum of some pissy editor. [see here for said details].

i was unaware of the kerfuffle on sam harris's page before this and not fully up to speed on all that went on, but a cursory glance shows the classic edit war complaint of everyone else is edit warring for reverting my edits, but im not edit warring when i revert them. perhaps we require un intervention for this atrocity? consensus appears to be against rational adam there. couldnt possibly just be sour grapes now could it? AMassiveGay (talk) 21:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

If RationalAdam keeps up the charade, he should probably be given 30 minutes buffer per edit so he can make every edit thoughtful. 🤷 --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:34, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@RationalAdam should probably be informed, as a vandal bin is very serious. (1 edit per 30 minutes). Andrew5 (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I have looked at the chain of recent edits on the C. Hitchens page and will now comment on the talk page, with a vital message from Christopher Hitchens' Ghost.Ariel31459 (talk) 21:37, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@AMassiveGay @LeftyGreenMario @Bongolian @Andrew5 @Techpriest @GrammarCommie @LeftyGreenMario @Ariel31459 Sorry for the late response. I have read some of the comments here and I honestly think it's best if I just stay back from RationalWiki. I see no point in further arguing or trying to stay here as I am used to Wikipedia, which is incredibly different than RationalWiki. I planned to get some articles to gold-brain status (thingy, idk what it's called) but I don't see a silver lining. I probably did overreact, because this type of language wouldn't even be considered on Wikipedia. You can slow my edits, revert all of them, or ban me, do whatever you want. Farewell and have a good one RationalAdam (talk) 08:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I learned the "this isn't Wikipedia" the hard way. I oppose strong language anyway, but them pushing back from it was, slight.Andrew5 (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Some users here are very intolerant of new users when one makes an edit without their approval. The Hitchens edits look reasonable. You just can't fight over an edit. They don't allow that at WP either. We have a policy that allows edits to be "snarky" which all too often resembles foolishness. Improvement comes from people trying to improve.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:26, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Excuses. This accusatory behavior RationalAdams demonstrated here would get him sanctioned at Wikipedia too. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

There are no sanctions under consideration at this point. Can't we all just get along?Ariel31459 (talk) 01:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we can end this. As I noted in the talk page for Hitchens, the smoking and drinking are missional because they were likely causative or contributed to his death. I think it's appropriate calling him a drunk, being in keeping with the type of words he used about drinking, but I not absolutely committed to using that word. Bongolian (talk) 01:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

OK, but short of turning into Encyclopedia Dramatica, I hope we will not mention people's weight when they die of covid-19, or their misuse of salt when an African-American dies of heart failure. The cause of a person's death is not usually funny, or, more to the point, relevant to the highlights of their career. If it is serious and missional, provided one does not take our mission as an opportunity to act out absurdities, maybe treat it so an educated reader will understand something besides an insipid joke. Ariel31459 (talk) 03:06, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

As I said on the talk page, it's missional in Hitchen's case because of tobacco and alcohol denialism campaigns. Bongolian (talk) 03:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

So, do we have criteria for subjecting historical figures to contumelious prefaces for the sake of a better tomorrow? Is that in the mission statement?Ariel31459 (talk) 03:20, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Best end now.Ariel31459 (talk) 03:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

So. Are people still mad at me for ending an edit war and calling someone stupid for making stupid accusations? Because that's my entire stake in this nonsense, not one iota more or one iota less. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:56, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

J3wzus

I think it's clear that this user is, in fact, user:Viril.Feline.Wyyzrd, who was banned by consensus some months ago since they both use the same dumb custom userbox about Michael Coombs. I supported the ban back then, but I didn't check his edits on his new account, so I don't know if they're still causing trouble, nor I have time to check it myself, but I think you guys should know it. GeeJayK (talk) 01:27, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, those links are convincing to me. J3wzus was trolling for a banning anyway. Bongolian (talk) 02:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Even our trolls have trolls. Bongolian (talk) 02:49, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah easy sock. -- Techpriest (talk) 11:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I object to the sock template though, it jut givs the troll more attention and is unnecesary. We agreed not to tag Mike, Ken and Scrooge socks (see userpage for User:Donald F. Duck), why not extend to all socks? --Andrew5 (talk) 12:27, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Big fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite them, and little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum — Jonathan Swift

UncleKrampus (talk) 17:42, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ J3wzus posted an essay here outlining why they are not a sock, if anyone wants. --Andrew5 (talk) 17:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

That's not an outline; that's a sentence. Really, I don't care. Sock or not, it was just a matter of time before banning the troll. Bongolian (talk) 18:54, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Filters and autoblock

Not sure if this should be here or in Tech Support, but which of our filters should auto-block users? For instance, one of my filters blocks a new account from adding a huge chunk to an article, but should this also get a block in addition to warning? Because if the user ignores the warning, chances are they are a troll/bot. Furthermore, I'm not sure if new users should be allowed to post files as their first few actions, but I'm also not sure they shouldn't, as it could be a Sysop that's logged out, but I feel like that's something that should be decided by the community too. CorruptUser 17:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Remember that autoblocks are only for pi days. If they're infinite, that means someone is going around and reblocking them to infinite. Personally I'd say that warning the user in advance should be required for the filter if there's potential that it might be a legitimate editor. The second question shouldn't be done by the filter and you're probably best off raising that on the CS talkpage after the election (also keep in mind that we can't prevent users from proxying/referencing files from Commons, which isn't the same as uploading). -- Techpriest (talk) 00:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but abuse at Commons will be dealt with a block at Commons, and a DR. And if it spreads to other WMF sites, a WMF steward can globally lock them like what happened with me. --Andrew5 (talk) 01:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about inappropriate links to images at commons being inserted onto pages. Also you may want to double check, but we are not the WMF. -- Techpriest (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

One of my filters blocked the recent troll adding "file:Donald Trump" everywhere and claiming to pwn us. So at least he started trolling with a different file. So I guess my question is whether unconfirmed users should be allowed to add any file at all? CorruptUser 22:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but we recently saw Pugsleyfan69420 get in trouble at Wikimedia Commons for abuse at Uncyclopedia. Our only other way to avoid this, would be to remove our link from Commons, which is stupid as we would lose thousands of images. I don't know if Commons will block for cross-foundation abuse, but it could be worth a try. Andrew5 (talk) 23:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Actually we are not on the internwiki map. That might be an issue. Andrew5 (talk) 23:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Sysoprevoke USHistoryAnalyzer

User was banned via coop vote in August, but will be returning in a week and a half. Somehow they weren't sysoprevoked yet. I'm not sure if they need a vote but said user should be sysoprevoked as they are coming from a coop block. --Andrew5 (talk) 15:29, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Knock it off and stop being an officious dickwad. Well cross the bridge with USH when we get there. -- Techpriest (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@Techpriest Well said Scream!! (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Andrew we are not Wikipedia. Stop quoting Wikipedia policy. Nobody wants to hear it (nor here, on uncyclopedia or any other wiki). This is not a technocracy. The fewer machinations the better. ShabiDOO 16:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware UShit had sysop taken away before they were coop banned, so he's not entitled to getting sysop back upon his return anyway. Regardless, I'm not looking forward to having to deal with this dipshit again. Plutocow (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Really it's nothing to be concerned about as the mob does not take kindly to being trolled. If you never think of them again it won't keep them from fucking up and getting kicked off the wiki.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Tech Help - File upload broken

Hey - we need a tech to fix the file upload. There is some kind of error and I can't upload. Didn't know where else to post this... Ace^i9/ 21:46, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

This should go in RationalWiki:Technical support. I got that problem yesterday, and it went away on its own after a few hours. Bongolian (talk) 21:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Cheers pal... Aceⁱ⁹ 21:58, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Phil Murphy official

This user vandalized my talk page. After blocking them, they sent me two shitposting emails. Can someone please block this individual's email access? LongStylus (talk) 23:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Done. Sorry I did that to you by mistake briefly. Bongolian (talk) 00:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

It's alright. Thank you for your help. LongStylus (talk) 00:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations and thanks

Congratulations to the newly elected moderators, and thank you to everyone who participated in the election! Bongolian (talk) 00:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I see a new oligarchic council of oppression has been appointed. I will defy you until my last breath! Sic semper tyrannis! 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄^{Ask about our holiday specials!} 01:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I voted myself second and I still won. :/ --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations to all of the winners! Here's to a peaceful year where our services...aren't needed too much.-Flandres (talk) 01:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations folks! --RWRW (talk) 01:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Remember comrades, help keep moderator lazy. Lazy moderator is good moderator. CorruptUser 01:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, I'm happy to do another year! Don't forget to update the header template and the moderator history page. If it's not done in 10 hours or so, I'll do it myself but it's 3 AM right now here... In any case, welcome back LGM, welcome to the team Cory and Flandres, gratz to Bongolian and Spud for being re-elected! (...and uh me I guess) Enjoy your newfound mighty tools of unlimited power and justice responsible mod tools and make sure to watchlist this page and the coop for any ongoing wiki meltdowns.

I'm sure we'll have many agreements and disagreements in the next 12 months but I'm looking forward to working with y'all. As for other stuff to prepare for; remember that this year is a US election year (half the US Congress and Senate is up for re-election), so we'll probably get a bunch of trolls again looking to soapbox about their (least) favorite politicians. Keep a level head and I'm sure we'll make it through fine. -- Techpriest (talk) 01:56, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure I'll catch whatever conflict on the wiki on recent changes... it's not hard to miss. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I updated the mod talk header and did the permissions shuffle. Good luck everyone. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 02:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for reelecting me once again. I'm hoping against hope that it will be a quiet year. Spud (talk) 11:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Quiet? Oh no, this is our theme for the upcoming year CorruptUser 16:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

As one of the two alt-mods, let me offer my congratulations to the successful candidates. Perhaps I should have asked on the campaign page concerning the time you all consider adequate for purpose as moderators on this wiki. One of my campaign promises was that I would be as active as the most assiduous moderator. Well, I wasn't elected (thanks). But, I did also claim that I was under no obligation to have been more active than I had actually been. Now, even though penultimate in the vote, I do think I have some obligation to pay more attention here. Ariel31459 (talk) 18:11, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

There's no real requirement. Generally it's one of self-assessment: when a moderator feels that their life circumstances are such that they can no longer adequately participate, they make an announcement and bow out to the next alternate (if there is one). Special elections for replacement moderators have not been held in my time here. Bongolian (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

From my experience, stepping down is a choice if you feel there's no time in your life to adequately moderate the wiki. Personally I don't see a need to require this from other people. Replacement elections aren't needed unless a whole mod team manages to resign. When I joined the wiki originally, we had a few duds in the mod team that led to only a few people handling mod cases and both alternates were active at that point. While annoying, it was by no means unmanageable; it's important to remember that the role of a moderator is mostly guidance and steering the community to not devolve into inappropriate shitflinging (appropriate shitflinging on the other hand... naw I'm kidding) and mass LANCBs. -- Techpriest (talk) 21:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Speedy AfD resolutions

It's obvious at this point that the AfDs relating to the Jesus myth theory was obviously created by Ken. I want to immediately mark them as keep since I don't want AfDs to be used as a way to evade bans, however I'm still aware that we need to keep to our conventions of allowing a full day to come to conclude a vote. Is there any objections to me closing it early? Rockford the Roe ^{boop my snoot}_{praise Oscar Wilde} 17:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't know of any proof you have that it was Ken, but I seem to be the main proponent of this whole thing, and even I feel it's a bit premature to have an AfD on that page. Not that I don't think it deserves it, but there wasn't a whole lot of discussion pertaining specifically to that page. Friedman (talk) 17:58, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

The socks follow the same logic Ken

does (excessive reliance of quote mining, association fallacy, etc.) and uses a lot of his catchphrases like "deny [fill in the blank] and loose all credibility". Ken doesn't bother to appeal his multiple blocks on the user talkpage (that's how I knew you were not him). In addition, he wrote an essay on Conservapedia Specifically about that article. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck.  Rockford the Roe boop my snootpraise Oscar Wilde 18:09, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I am in favor of speedily closing these AfDs and keeping the discussion to the article talk pages. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 18:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, I can certainly see why you would suspect me of being Ken. As for the AfD, I feel like the more sudden an AfD, the less time each side has to make its case. I known there's been discussion about the article's shortcomings on its talk page, but nothing like what happened on the Evidence for... article. Plus, at another user's suggestion, I've just started a topic on the Richard Carrier's reliability as a source over on the talk page for his article, so I'm interested to see how that goes.

I'm not in favor of closing the Evidence for... AfD, but I am in leaning in favor of closing the one on the Jesus myth theory. Friedman (talk) 18:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the Afd from the Jesus Myth Theory page. It was never discussed on its TP. It doesn't look like a bad article. The Evidence article on the other hand is a badly written monster that concludes something like "maybe, but it is better to think otherwise because (statistics here) shows it is unlikely. I mean really...Ariel31459 (talk) 19:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Guy doesn't come off as Ken to me. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I know Friedman isn't Ken, but I brought this up since a ken sock created that AfD. Rockford the Roe ^{boop my snoot}_{praise Oscar Wilde} 20:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Evidence should stay up. Close the other AfD, it was clearly overzealous. -- Techpriest (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

The evidence one should stay up since there were 3 non-sock objections to a keep in current form, the other one should be speedily kept as it's a silver for crying out loud. --Andrew5 (talk) 20:35, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Problematic Article

This discussion was moved to Talk:Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ.

Note: Bongolian moved the discussion over to the relevant talkpage; there's nothing to see here. -- Techpriest (talk) 20:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

173.206.0.0/16

I don't think blocking the whole range was good. It contains 65,536 IPs and will cause collateral as it affects much of Toronto. Thoughts on the /16 block? --Andrew5 (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

@Cosmikdebris, would you care to explain your block?[14] Bongolian (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Repeated abuse and obscene harassment of editors on the site from multiple IPs in that range. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 22:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I was under the impression that range blocks were to be used sparingly and with input from the community. Aceⁱ⁹ 23:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I too was under this impression. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the policy is that a vote is required for IPv4 range blocks such as this one (RationalWiki:Blocking policy#Range blocks). Bongolian (talk) 23:55, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

173.206.251.0/24 would have been more then enough, and would have still left 65,280 IPs unblocked. I oppose this block, it should be lifted. The single IP blocks can stay, and I won't oppose a /24. --Andrew5 (talk) 01:13, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Rangeblock might inconvenience people, but I do think it should be shortened from pi weeks to maybe one week and the range be reduced somewhat. Request for a rangeblock does not require a vote, but simply a request showing evidence of IP hopping and a proposed range. I do support a rangeblock as the IP hopping is obvious, but just not of that length and probably not that size either. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 02:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

[ec] The appropriate range in this case, @LeftyGreenMario, is 107.206.245.0/24. --Andrew5 (talk) 02:06, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Uh LeftyGreenMario, it says rather clearly in the block policy page not to rangeblock IPv4 without a vote, "tl;dr Don't enact rangeblocks without a vote unless it's IPv6…" Bongolian (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

And also, the IPv6 only applies to a /64 network, nothing bigger. --Andrew5 (talk) 02:12, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see, didn't notice the italics. IMO think the vote is just onerous policy stuff that'll get in the way of immediate action that's required, but I'll have to stand by policy. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 02:13, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

But is blocking over 65,000 IPs for 3.14 weeks over something where a /24 can handle it really "urgent"? They'll probably flip out of the /24 and lead to collateral. Andrew5 (talk) 02:37, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

IMO think the vote is just onerous policy stuff that'll get in the way of immediate action that's required, but I'll have to stand by policy. Your opinion aside man, it is what it is. Aceⁱ⁹ 05:53, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Another act of oppression from a member of the moderator oligarchy! General Secretary LGM, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for RationalWiki and its people, if you seek liberalization: come back to this IP range! LGM, reopen this IP range! LGM, tear down this range block! 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄^{Ask about our holiday specials!} 11:15, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘All this debate about a dinky little internet service provider in Toronto is bullshit. The statements that it will "cause collateral as it affects much of Toronto" and "[t]hey'll probably flip out of the /24 and lead to collateral" are made without substantiation and are extremely suspect. Point out one single useful contribution to this wiki from 173.206.0.0/16 in the past two weeks, and point out a single example of someone using 173.206.0.0/16 being inconvenienced in the last two weeks and I'll apologize for the rangeblock. To be perfectly honest I forgot about the rangeblock vote policy, which in this situation I believe would have given more air to the dirtbag who's been spamming the wiki with vile crap. I'd much rather be contributing to improving the content of the wiki instead of seeing the recent changes piled up with the bullshit emanating from 173.206.0.0/16 or jumping into a long, boring debate about bureaucracy and policy. I'll stand by policy and refrain from future rangeblocks because of the policy, although in cases like this I find it to be completely useless. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 14:17, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I would say look at their Wikipedia contributions. It clearly shows many users with many interests, and we have to know only ~1% of the people on the range edit WP (even less for RW) but they might want to, and we shouldn't disallow that over 3 IP harassers. --Andrew5 (talk) 14:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Idk what's the ratio between people that edit Wikipedia and this wiki? Only reason it seems we're so opposed to range block is that the Conservapedia thing was so abusive and incompetent of it (but, hey, they're abusive and incompetent about a lot of other things) but I've seen several other wikis use it without much roadblocks like this. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 15:51, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but these wikis which do rangeblocks have one massive difference. They have CheckUser. We don't. They often scan using multiple tools and even CU checks before doing a rangeblock. We don't have that. Unless any RW user is also a WP checkuser and can do a check on WP. Or maybe uncyclopedia or another site. --Andrew5 (talk) 17:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh for Bob's sake, shut up! This is not wikipedia, please stop comparing RationalWiki to Wikipedia. This is not uncyclopedia or any other pedia. And bringing up checkuser is irrelevant in this case. One needs only to look at the fucking edit filter logs and recent changes to see that there is nothing but abuse coming from 173.206.0.0/16. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 21:33, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter that not anything but abuse comes from the /16, you still put forth an aggressive rangeblock without factoring in how many people are there. Blocking the indivisual IPs until it gets out of control is better, unless it becomes out of control (10+ IPs per every 1,000), which in this case is not. We only have 3 abusive IPs, not enough to justify such a destructive rangeblock. --Andrew5 (talk) 22:15, 9 December 2021 (UTC) (see below for more)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ For me to believe a rangeblock is justified, I ask the following questions.

1. Do I think that there is a large amount of abusive IPs as I stated above? (In this case, no.)
2. Would there be likely collateral from such a block? (In this case, yes.)
3. Can a rangeblock be avoided? (Maybe not for the /24, definietely for the /16.)

With the way I answered my questions, I would argue it's a net negative, especially since we don't have a request an account service, and as such, this is why I oppose a rangeblock. --Andrew5 (talk) 22:19, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to start referring to you as Cement Head, because you never listen to anything that anyone says. Plonk! —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 22:29, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but you're failing to consider that while these Toronto harassers are the only ones (ab)using RW, someone else could join. I really guess if you were this insisting on having the rangeblock, for a week, I guess I could let it live (although by no means would I endorse it), but the 3.14 seems long. Maybe we could compromise on that? --Andrew5 (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm fairly ignorant of the issue, but if I'm understanding things correctly, why can't we start with a /24 block and then see whether a /16 block is necessary after that? Friedman (talk) 22:53, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

--Andrew5 (talk) 22:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Andrew5 didn't look at the block log very carefully. It's more than 3 IPs and more than one /24 range. Looking past the 3 blocks just prior to the range block to the day before (December 7), these smaller range blocks would cover the various IPs: 173.206.200.0/24, 173.206.251.0/24, 173.206.254/24. (As an aside, Andrew5 also wrote 107 instead of 173 in the Wikipedia link too.) Since the range block was lifted, IPs in all three subranges have been given new individual blocks too. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 23:08, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Well blocking those /24's would be more productive then the entire /16. As an aside, all /24's fi within 173.206.192.0/18 anyway. Andrew5 (talk) 23:12, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I haven't been around long enough to fully understand the specifics of the situation, but it just seems to me that (unless we have a drastic need to) we should start small and work our way up if that doesn't work. If I understand correctly, wouldn't blocking the three /24 ranges that ApooftGnegiol listed solve the problem? Or has it somehow moved beyond that? Friedman (talk) 23:34, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I mean I don't mind the proposal, but this "putting it up to vote" is counterintuitive with what we need to achieve. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Again while we're deliberating on a vote, people are free to easily IP hop. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

If you need to vote, then I think it would make sense to allow making range blocks first and starting a vote on them second, lifting them if the vote goes that way. Whatever you do now, maybe you should discuss changing the community standards, since a bunch of people want something different from current standard practice. Maybe it should also be allowed to use a larger range block to quickly stop a barrage of bad edits and then replace it ASAP with smaller block(s). Some general ideas, beyond that I don't have more to say right now. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 00:06, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@ApooftGnegiol That requires a vote on the RW:CS talk page, not here. Andrew5 (talk) 00:14, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘For those grousing about the need for a vote on a IPv4 range block, the September 2021 vote on the current blocking policy was 13 to 0 (RationalWiki talk:Community Standards#Range blocks for /64 on IPv6: Implemented). Bongolian (talk) 02:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

In all the time everyone here has expended and all the energy and electrons involved, some butthead from 173.206 has done gone and pooped on the wiki and got themselves blocked again. For Bob's sake, just range block the idiots. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 03:37, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

This is a bit unorthodox, but I've done a 1-day range block of 173.206.254.220/16 since they're hopping all over the place on the IP. I'm calling for a vote now as to extending or removing the block, with the vote to expire in about 1 day. Bongolian (talk) 04:43, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

First, the CS was specifically about /64’s and nothing else. This doesn’t mean you can just block a /48 (the IPv6 equivalent of a /16) whenever you want, and it’s because a /64 only affects one person and is the same as an IPv4. As such of cannot be used to justify even a /63 rangeblock (although that’s very niche, the smallest I ever saw on Wikipedia greater then a /64 is a /62.) what we could do is I guess start rangeblocking the /24’s one by one, and slowly expand off there if it becomes truly unmanageable, but playing whack-a-mole with the individual /24’s is a better idea, to not block everyone in a large area. I only support a /16 range block if at least ten smaller range blocks have failed to stop abuse. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 11:52, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Vote

This vote has been closed. Please do not add, remove or change votes. The result of this vote was: Largest number of votes: 7 in favor of changing the block to /24 for pi weeks

No block Reverting edits is as simple as hitting rollback and blocking the IP. The chance that this hits good faith editors are small, but one dedicated troll is not really a big enough issue in my eyes to justify knocking out all users of this ISP in Toronto. armed_roomba (she/her)What am I doing wrong this time? 16:49, 10 December 2021 (UTC) We are doing just fine without the rangeblock. I don't have a job, so I'll be checking on this wiki frequently. LongStylus (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC) A rangeblock is overkill at this time. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:59, 11 December 2021 (UTC) Extend block for pi days Extend block for pi weeks Maintain one day block 1 day is fine for such a long range but please no more. --Andrew5 mobile (talk) 11:27, 10 December 2021 (UTC) Bongolian (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2021 (UTC) --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 21:15, 10 December 2021 (UTC) Replace with needed /24 blocks for pi weeks Since there's only 3 (so far) /24 ranges, you can remove almost all potential collateral damage by adding pi week blocks for them, and then let those remain while the /16 block expires. If it turns out the current three /24 ranges are not enough to block (a bunch of IPs appear within a fourth, say), then additional /24 ranges can be blocked if/when the need arises. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 21:15, 10 December 2021 (UTC) Agreed. Friedman (talk) 21:33, 10 December 2021 (UTC) Andrew5 mobile (talk) 21:39, 10 December 2021 (UTC) Bongolian (talk) 21:41, 10 December 2021 (UTC) Spud (talk) 23:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC) Plutocow (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC) -Flandres (talk) 00:22, 11 December 2021 (UTC) Goat Albeit 2¼ hours preliminary, there appears consensus (7-3) to block /24's over no block as everyone supporting the 1 day block also supports that motion. It could probably be closed to reflect that (see Bongo's comment above about it being a one day vote.) --Andrew5 (talk) 02:29, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Request blocking on two Mikey socks

They are User:Bald Antifa Lunatic and User:Bald Mental Case. The first was created at 17:06, the second at 15:58. Neither have been blocked, and one has a talk page needing deleting. Can a sysop or moderator please clean up this mess? --Andrew5 (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Done. Bongolian (talk) 17:56, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Request of a block of User:Join CP AtheismProject

Pretty obvious Kensock (Ken edits about atheism and is from CP), was reverted but no block yet. --Andrew5 (talk) 22:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Disregard, Cosmik already blocked. --Andrew5 (talk) 22:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

You do not need to input requests for obvious sockpuppeting trolls for All things in moderation. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Sometimes, the accounts get renamed and not blocked, and sometimes, they slip through the cracks. Since I don't have blocking rights, I am trying to ensure they get blocked. --Andrew5 (talk) 23:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

(P.S. I can think of one user who was renamed and wasn't blocked until I did when I did have sysop rights. It can be found here.)

Accounts that are renamed to frivolous, unwieldy names rarely if ever continue using that account under the new name. If they are not blocked in due time, then revert and give some time before a sysop eventually blocks them. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I probably could have waited on this one. I did it a few times when (1) it wasn't clear block evasion, or (2) it's literally been multiple hours (a good revision to delete is this act of vandalism, btw). Also, I think I might recollect one instance of a renamed account continuing to harm RW. --Andrew5 (talk) 23:32, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Who cares? Somebody will put a stop to it eventually. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄^{Ask about our holiday specials!} 23:37, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Umaru16

Please refer to User talk:Poczer. Seems @Umaru16 has abused their user rights by blocking @Poczer over inserting sourced content on the page South Korea that they disagreed with. There are no traces of a talkpage discussion either. Personally I'm suggesting either a slap on the wrist or a sysoprevoke; it's a pretty blatant case of rights abuse. -- Techpriest (talk) 12:37, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Given it's a first violation (upon closer examination), just gonna say that I think a slap on the wrist and a warning to not do it again is my recommendation. -- Techpriest (talk) 12:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I support a trout/whale on the lines of this was an error. --Andrew5 (talk) 13:03, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Spud (talk) 13:41, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

User has been slapped with a wet fish. Mostly reported it here so we don't have a repeat case wrt what happened with Karasawa Takahiro. -- Techpriest (talk) 16:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Agree. Bongolian (talk) 18:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

3 indefinite IPs need sorting

There are 3 IPs blocked indefinitely, which is bad. The first two probably are old enough where they could just be unblocked, the other one should probably be commuted or unblocked. --Andrew5 (talk) 22:34, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

It's been done. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:41, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Tegel

Bongolian blocked for 9 hours at 01:59 for mindless generic vandalism. From 01:59-02:03, they abused their talk page. Please remove TPA due to abuse, I blanked at 02:04. --Andrew5 🎄 (talk) 02:05, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Continuing to vandalize user talk page. --Andrew5 🎄 (talk) 02:07, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Issue resolved; DietMoridian revoked TPA, and Bongo extended block to 3.6 days. --Andrew5 🎄 (talk) 02:16, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Temporary TOR block?

It's pretty much obvious that TOAB is going on another spamming spree with TOR IPs, but I still stand by my philosophy on TOR exit nodes editing. I want to make some sort of compromise that we can temporarily block Anonymous TOR editing and account creation for a few days/weeks and allow those with existing autoconfirmed accounts to log in with TOR. Would that be a possibility? Rockford the Roe ^{boop my snoot}_{praise Oscar Wilde} 14:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Support, as Wikipedia automatically blocks them.--Andrew5 (talk) 14:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Support, sounds good to me. Spud (talk) 15:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Support, the idiot is a nuisance. Scream!! (talk) 15:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Support --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 16:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Support Derp ShabiDOO 16:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

If Techpriest says its feasible and supports it, then it's fine with me. I don't see why someone non-malicious intent would need TOR to edit RW. Bongolian (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm thinking that what if a elected mod has go thru a situation where they have to move to a location with strict network filtering and adds RationalWiki to the list of blocked domains. Sure, they could use VPNs, but sometimes that's not a feasibility since they usually require a higher level of administrative access in order to run them on the computer. Rockford the Roe ^{boop my snoot}_{praise Oscar Wilde} 17:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

S'pport I just do what the mob tells me. CorruptUser 17:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Support, as you might guess.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 00:36, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose based on technical feasibility, please read my technical note. -- Techpriest (talk) 00:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Support, even if banning all of 'em is impossible we can at least disable some of the most annoying ranges. Plutocow (talk) 02:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment - are we going to take action or not? It apprars this became stale in the last 3 weeks. --Andrew5 (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Technical note

Yeah so, this is well and good, but we can't easily do a "temporary" block with what we have at our disposal right now. TOR blocking would mean either setting up a DNSBL source (DNS blacklist) for TOR editors, which would need to be done by a root user, has no safeguards and has no exemption options, or installing the TorBlock extension (also needs a root user), which is still a blanket block, but would allow us to permit individual users past the blockade by setting up a new user right for it. My guess is that the latter would need some sort of CS amendment (not to mention our forever delayed update means I'm not even sure if the extension would even work) and the former is not something individual editors can easily do. I support a general Tor block, but the idea as described is unfeasible unless you want someone to write a custom extension for it. -- Techpriest (talk) 00:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Given the widespread consensus here, I am 91.83% sure it would pass as a CS amendment. --Andrew5 (talk) 01:11, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

That would have to wait until the election is over (early december at the earliest). -- Techpriest (talk) 11:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Is there any rule saying we can have two votes concurrently? --Andrew5 (talk) 13:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

No but nobody wants to clog up the sitenotice with two things. -- Techpriest (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

No one said a CS vote has to be in the sitenotice, and plenty of them haven't. --Andrew5 (talk) 15:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion really needs closure

This discussion is on it's 41st day and there is still no closure. It does appear to have 6-1 support for going through, but a significant oppose based on technical restrains, which could point to no consensus. But I can't see a point in continuing to keep this open and unresolved. --Andrew5 🎄 (talk) 15:51, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

It's not technically feasible, so it's not an actual vote. Techpriest can close it if so desired. Bongolian (talk) 17:42, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

It was actually 7-1, but ok.--Andrew5 🎄 (talk) 18:05, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I am going to close it, but keep in mind that anyone interested can come back to this on RW:TECHSUPPORT once the site update has gone through and we can actually install extensions again. -- Techpriest (talk) 22:54, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I motion the following (requests denied)

• the removal of me from the vandal bin
• the removal of my topic ban
• the installation of improved spam filters to block kenspam
• the restoration of Andrew5's mop

Ushit the dipshit (talk) 20:42, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Andrew's case I'll probably consider but I want to see more understanding how this wiki works before I'm comfortable. For rest? I don't agree. You're not really conductive to the community and you've shown no behavioral changes since a successful coop that has sanctioned you for months. Please reflect on that. The kenspam stuff? Too vague. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I have a strong feeling if my mop was to be restored, it would probably have to be conditional. If you think of Wikipedia's Adopt-A-User, which I actually briefly went through as HT495 from December 4-14, 2020, it would probably be similar. As in, an experienced sysop would have to mentor me, watch over my actions in a training program, and I would be limited to certain areas of RW, which would grow as I progress. If I were to fail, I could be sysoprevoked without further discussion. Or it would be something like, "you can delete, block obvious socks only and nothing else" or something of that sorts.

As for USHA, I'd personally be neutral on the vandal bin stuff (his post at the Saloon Bar aren't abusive, last time it was mainly for frivolous ATIMs), but the topic ban stuff I'd want to see a bit more of what contributions you'd want to make first. --Andrew5 (talk) 20:50, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

UShistoryanalyzer: Generally speaking, I do not support the idea of third parties proposing rights restoration on RW. If someone wants to have their rights restored, they should make a case for it themselves. You have not even made a case for yourself. Bongolian (talk) 21:01, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Agree. If you demand constantly, you're only delaying further your goals here. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:08, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@UShistoryanalyzer Pinging you So you can read the above. Andrew5 (talk) 21:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Andrew5. To respond:

• LeftyGreenMario: The stagnating online performance of RationalWiki is in need of a turnaround, even in spite of us besting Conservapedia at the present time. The intention of lifting my topic ban is to create additional articles on important subjects of interest. Among RationalWiki's lack of articles include and are not limited to the subjects of America First, Elizabeth Dilling, Gerald L. K. Smith, America First Committee, Clare Hoffman, John E. Rankin, Marcus Garvey, Albert Johnson, Ira Hersey, etc. etc. ad infinitum.
• Bongolian: I feel no need to extensively comment on your antipathy towards those sticking up for others, which alone is everything anyone needs to understand of you.

Ushit the dipshit (talk) 22:03, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Well this raving drunkard already explained earlier that Alexa's not reliable. Even if your topic ban was lifted, you have a history of sharing poor sources, or you're not very good at using reliable sources to support your arguments, which in turn are weak arguments; you're not very good at processing information and so I do not believe your contributions will be worthwhile without major improvements. I do not see how lifting your topic ban will improve our wiki. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:12, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I have noticed wikis dropping (Wikipedia went from #13 to #14, Uncyclopedia used to be in the top 500k and now isn't even in the top million). Study sources like Quizlet and Kahoot meanwhile are rising. Quizizz was too, but seems to be falling. --Andrew5 (talk) 22:13, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Recent Saloon threads have shown me Analyzer has not changed the conduct got him topic banned, he just changed where he did it. It's better to keep his buffoonery in the Bar in my opinion.-Flandres (talk) 22:20, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh, Analyzer has been at it in Saloon Bar even before the topic ban. Nothing's changed. Except for a signature change. Guess my coinage stuck. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:23, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

LeftyGreenMario, the articles I created prior to the topic-ban implementation were largely sourced with unbiased websites. Please don't mistaken between my article additions and discussion posts. The sources deemed "poor" by you were in Saloon bar posts.

Wow Flandres, what a bold and brilliant response from the absolutely outstanding user you are to oppose letting others create articles after deciding not to add content yourself! Also: your assertion here still does not manage to add up. What constitutes the definition of a "Dixiecrat" was joining the States' Rights Democratic Party revolt of 1948. Lott was a child at the time of the revolt, deeming the impossibility of him being an actual Dixiecrat. That demonstrates an example of erroneous material in articles I seek to fix, as my intent to lift the topic-ban is not limited to simply creating new articles. Ushit the dipshit (talk) 22:37, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I could go on about how Dixiecrat generally means segregationist democrat, which the article calls him...but more importantly, I think it's funny you are reduced to starting ATiM threads just to continue old arguments your topic ban prevents you from engaging in normally.

So, is this the part where I am somehow convinced to support your "motion"?-Flandres (talk) 22:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

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

I could potentially get behind a de-vandalbinning but not a removal of topic ban unless there is a mentorship. A mentorship will ensure his edits are checked, without that I don’t think it’s a good idea. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 22:51, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Flandres, the mere observation that people have the tendency to erroneously attribute "Dixiecrat" generically to all segregationist Southern Democrats does not validate the faulty notion. And it is your individual call to decide whether you greater value the expansion and potential increased online performance of this site or the retaining my topic-ban. You, for one, certainly don't create articles on crucial specific subjects as listed above by me. Ushit the dipshit (talk) 23:29, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

drums gloves on the desk --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:31, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I am skeptical you are capable of increasing the quality of this wiki by contributing biographical articles concerning the examples you have mentioned. Certainly WP has articles about all of them. I don't see them as missional. There is no second to this motion. Dismiss. Ariel31459 (talk) 00:04, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Additional articles detailing the history of "America First" and past bigots acting as forerunners to contemporary "right-wing populists" is not missional? I do ponder what planet you live on. Ushit the dipshit (talk) 00:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Your primary interactions on this site are partisan pseudo-history and denialism. Please stop acting like you actually contribute anything of value, especially on the subjects of American history and American political history. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 00:35, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Pfft, you're evidently one with no understanding of irony. Ushit the dipshit (talk) 00:40, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

A lot of people have a problem with Analyzer and his conduct. We know this sentiment is widespread, because he has multiple sanctions imposed on him that require votes to go through. He wishes for some of these sanctions to be removed, but immediately faces criticism similar to that which led to his sanctioning by majority vote.

Does he attempt to address this? Alay the fears? Show he has changed? Display any contrition? How does he address what is clearly a widespread sentiment?

He doubles down on the exact conduct that got him here, while demanding we stop sanctioning him for it. Just wanted to render his pompous idiocy in a state all of us can quickly read. Thus, we should dismiss his motion, ironically enough for reasons he himself has provided, hmhmhmhmhm...-Flandres (talk) 00:51, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

* dons Mod Hat * 

It's evident in the discussion that no one, including mods like me and Bongolian and likely Techpriest, is going to honor Ushistoryanalyzer's requests. If Andrew5 wants sysop tools, however, he can attempt to make a separate case for himself. Thank you. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:19, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

The courage to assail me is possessed by the lot of you, yet the will to create additional crucial articles (as detailed by me above) is not. Ushit the dipshit (talk) 01:22, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'd wait a little bit. Had I not seen the Discord messages I would've thought maybe in late winter but after seeing that, I doubt anything would pass before May or June of 2022. I'd wait until I know I have a good chance, because otherwise the embarassement of failing would get to me. --Andrew5 (talk) 01:24, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

That which comes out of the coop has to go back through the coop for a change. I also don't see any need for a change, and would oppose removing the topic ban. Also, it's inappropriate to argue about Dixiecrat here. Bongolian (talk) 01:25, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

"I also don't see any need for a change" Aha! So by the relativistic means in which the rest of you define political ideology to dub conservative as "seeking to preserve status quo," the lot of you are right-wing reactionaries by your very own definitions! Ushit the dipshit (talk) 02:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Conservatives aren't the same as reactionaries. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 02:27, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I motion to archive this

Don't bother us again with that request. Not in a long time. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 07:22, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Fine with me. Bongolian (talk) 07:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)