RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive49

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 2 January 2022. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: , (new)(back)

User:JamesIV concerns[edit]

This account suggests it could be Ken, but I can't be 100% sure, check this diff, which is an archive created pointing to this essay, which does contain negative comments about me in the Discord by several RW sysops. Now, not sure if it's photoshopped or not, but still. The essay was compiled by Ken, of course. I can tell it's about me, although the claim in the essay I began editing 8/20 is false (it was actually 3/28, [1]). The essay then goes in depth to describe issues not relating to me.

So, I'm not jumping to the fact that it's a sock, but rather that it could be and they need to be carefully evaluated, and also alerting the RW community about this essay if they weren't aware (preferably, I'd like to see if these comments about me are true or not). --Andrew5 (talk) 20:33, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Again.... --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 20:34, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Also those comments are real. You can join the Discord if you must. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 20:35, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) (twice) I tried joining Discord, it wouldn't work. I can try again, however. Thanks for alerting me that they are real. That's the main reason I posted this, actually. --Andrew5 (talk) 20:36, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Yeah. I'm sorry about coming off as gossiping. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 20:38, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Honestly, I regret checking the Discord. It seems all the negative attention that isn't being put on me on wiki is discussed there. Not saying there isn't negative on wiki attention (in fact, there is this), but it does seem to intensify. Of course that might be what Discord is about but still...--Andrew5 (talk) 20:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
That's probably just the nature of the Discord. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 20:45, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
I figured. --Andrew5 (talk) 20:46, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Just something to consider though: the worst, most draining activities, from my experience, take place on the wiki itself. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 20:47, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Well that makes sense, because ban votes should be public records. This is a case of talking about me behind my back but isn't at the level yet of a formal discussion. When you want to ban a user it has to be on wiki to allow broader input and a historical record. --Andrew5 (talk) 20:55, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Given I'm in those screenshots; I should be clear that my dislike of you is just for the constant playing of wikicop, which I have yelled at you for in the past. At the same time, what's being omitted is that I have also told people several times that as annoying as I find that behavior, it's not directly against the rules either. In general, if you prefer to not hear those comments in the future, I would at least on a basic level like to remind you that we are not Wikipedia and that not every policy there applies here automatically. That's what frustrates people (incl. me) about you; you tend to jump the gun a lot and when people complain you cite a Wikipedia policy at them instead of engaging them. We prefer collaboration over policy wonking. -- Techpriest (talk) 21:05, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Dude, tone it down a notch - you have it turned up way too high. Acei9 07:10, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Are you talking my to me, or not?--Andrew5 mobile (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
I was talking to TechPriest. He’s a jackass. Acei9 03:40, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Ah, ok. --Andrew5 (talk) 04:56, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Ehhh no. Techpriest is being extremely chill about this and does not need to take it down a notch,. Andrew, you quoting wikipedia policy is mindnumbingly fucking annoying, especially since you have been told dozens of dozens of times by multiple people on multiple wikis (that is, more than just one other wiki that isn't wikipedia) to stop doing it. Nobody cares about your history on wikipedia, your wikipedia block and nobody on rationalwiki cares about wikipedia policies here. If a wikipedia policy was relevant here we would have adopted it by now. Knock it off with talking about wikipedia at all...please. ShabiDOO 13:56, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I'd recommend reading the context. However, thankfully someone has already nominated the Conservopedia essay for speedy deletion by now. --Andrew5 (talk) 14:07, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Another dismissal of what people are saying. Andrew, antagonism towards you will continue as long as you continue with the wikicop nonsense and talking about Wikipedia. Why not just stop pointless stuff you do that leads to antagonism against you? Seems like a no brainer...isn't it?ShabiDOO 15:06, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Essentially what you're saying is - if I didn't cause these problems in the first place, I wouldn't have to worry about being gossiped in the Discord? --Andrew5 (talk) 15:16, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Yet another dismissal avoiding the issues. I am not condoning the gossiping. Essentially what I am saying is: Knock it the fuck off with the pointless wikicopping and Wikipedia talk. Just stop it for fucks sake. Pretty please. With sugar on top. No more...as of now. Por favor. ShabiDOO 15:27, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
ah well then fuck you too. Acei9 22:03, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room." Bongolian (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Just give Andrew5 some time to adjust, though it's a pretty rocky road for him, we already told him how different this culture is from Wikipedia and that Wikipedia policy isn't THAT important to us. I do advise cutting down talking about him like this however. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 23:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree with the gossip part, but I would say a year and a half time over multiple non-wikipedia wikis, is more than enough time to adjust. Not listening on other wikis led to permabanning. I am simply trying to avoid a repeat Andrew. So...do listen this time around. Nobody would like to see it happen again. Seriously. ShabiDOO 00:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
I can understand that (and what Shabidoo is hitting that is that I edited Uncyclopedia for a bit, then flipped back to WP block evasion) which is why I've tried sourcing a lot of articles. It's boring...but works.--Andrew5 (talk) 00:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I would not normally comment on what you did on Wikipedia, but It seems that you're being disingenuous about why you were initially indefinitely blocked on WP: it was for putting in false information that was not fact checked, i.e. repeated Unencyclopedia-style edits on WP.[2] The block evasion only changed it from indefinite to permanent. Bongolian (talk) 01:03, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

It wasn't permanent at first, standard offer was seen as a possibility by some initially([3]), however the discussion at UTRS 47813 and the ArbCom appeal denied shut it down. You are blocked and locked across multiple accounts and multiple wikis. At this point, with your history of abuse, there is no reasonable prospect that the English Wikipedia community will accept your return to the project. I would strongly advise you to stay away from all WMF projects for several years before appealing again. As a rule of thumb, the Committee will permit fresh appeals anywhere from 6 to 12 months after the previous one, and while our response to your previous appeal said that we would only entertain a new appeal after 12 months, I would suggest that you wait longer than that. -Maxim I mean, Samlaptop85213 did manage to get unblocked after 8½ years, so it's not totally out of the blue.
As an aside, that wasn't my first account.([4][5]) Indeed, Gale5050 was only my fourth account, and an entire SPI was filed nearly six months before Gale5050 was blocked. Not saying it didn't play a role - it totally did, and the cross-wiki NOTHERE was why I was globally locked. Also not saying NOTHERE didn't kick in on Andrew5, and I had recieved two warnings for unsourced edits on Andrew5 [6], so I'd say it's a mix of both.
This was probably the edit that got me blocked. I say that because it was reverted at 19:34 and my initial NOTHERE block was at 19:37. This failed attempted move also contributed, and I was warned on Gale5050 for poorly sourced edits. [7].
It's a socking/NOTHERE/unsourced edits combo for my Wikipedia block. Not sure how relevant it is, but I'd thought I'd lay it out and we now have an easy-to-use diff containing the information. --Andrew5 (talk) 01:22, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=RationalWiki_talk:All_things_in_moderation/Archive49&oldid=2398379"