RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive57

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 6 June 2022. Please do not make edits to this page.

2friedeggs (again)

Can we please do something about this person? They have repeatedly demonstrated that they can't be assed to use talk pages or ATIM to settle disputes and instead settle them by blocking, edit warring, and desysopping (which goes against CS by the way). I don't want to heavily get involved in another huge drama like last time but we need to be able to tell this guy to stop. Plutocow (talk) 00:47, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Neither do I! I wonder why you have such a bone to pick with me? I'm just annoyed and I hope you're satisfied. Meanwhile, the very things you accuse me of are stuff you have done to me in the past. Is this all because I misgendered you by accident? If so I'm sorry but beyond that I just want to play Stellaris, not deal with someone who can't deal with themselves.--Spoony (talk) 00:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
You started it by editing one of my comments in a past archive, which is against CS, which another sysop reverted you over but you began a hissy fit and edit war over it. Don't play the victim here. Plutocow (talk) 00:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Not only is it not against CS but I told you the CS encourages it multiple times because of the inflammatory and passive-aggressive nature. As usual you do not listen and do not care about the truth or the grey areas of a wiki dispute. Do you have any idea why literally no one cared last time? I sure do. I don't know what your issue is, but all I see is someone who wants the last word, so you complain about whatever you want while I play Stellaris, and I'll wait and see if mods care about what I have to say. Likely though, they probably think we're being childish again, but self-awareness was not your strong-suit last time, and it won't be this time. But just know you are probably one of the most manipulative people I've had the displeasure of dealing with on a wiki.--Spoony (talk) 00:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
At least I did what you should have done by bringing the dispute to ATIM. Self-awareness doesn't seem to be your strong suit either, as you took great exception to being called a "coward" but are calling me a "manipulator". But for now I'll just quote the relevant passages of CS:
โ€œโ€Talk pages (including user talk as well as article talk pages) and other discussion pages, such as debates or the Saloon bar, are community property. They must not be deleted, nor protected, although they can be archived periodically. Similarly, users should not delete or change another user's comments on a talk or discussion page, with the following exceptions:
  • Obviously vile comments made for the purposes of trolling, and of a user on their own talk-page, as described above.
  • Posts from users who have been blocked from the site, but are circumventing the block by using an alternate IP address or sockpuppet account. Deletion of such posts is mandatory, as this is considered necessary for the proper enforcement of blocks.
  • Spam and copypasta posts.
  • Content that makes the talk page awkward to read or navigate, such as unsigned comments (use the {{unsigned}} template), use of signatures that impersonate other users (such as the {{USERNAME}} template), messy formatting and footnotes (which should not be used on discussion pages).
Said post does not fit any of those exceptions, and it was just saying you were being "disruptive", which you were by repeatedly unbanning UShit without paying attention to the context; you've called me worse in this thread. But I'm just tired of this nonsense and my main point is when you have a dispute you bring it to ATIM, both times I had to do it when you were already using more extreme measures. Plutocow (talk) 01:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Either keep twisting or find the relevant block logs today so people who are more mature than us can deal with this because I sure can't figure it out right now. Help me help you.--Spoony (talk) 01:08, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
(ECx2) For the convenience of those who aren't here right now, relevant archive history. ๐’ฎ๐‘’๐“‡๐‘’๐“ƒ๐‘’ talk 00:53, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, this recent spat began in tech support, where some troll said some troll thing, Eggs asked what was going on, and Pluto deleted both comments. The came an edit war. Honestly, in that case, deleting the troll stuff was the best move, no need to clutter up all the pages with garbage.
Also, editing the ATIM archive? Quite sure that's a nono. Unless it needs to be scrubbed because it's personal info or some-such, even insults stay in the archive. CorruptUser 01:11, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Well if that's (actually) the case then that's my responsibility, Plutocow just had a bone to pick with me for awhile. Tech Supp didn't have an edit war though.--Spoony (talk) 01:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

โ”Œโ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”˜Please either provide links to edits that illustrate this dispute or agree to de-escalate the dispute. Bongolian (talk) 01:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Why does this have to be ATIM? Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosoliniโ€™s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 02:30, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Ugh, looks like they are blocking each other, but at least not altering their user rights. Blegh. Someone want to figure out exactly wtf is with these two? CorruptUser 02:36, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Don't worry, I'm aware of how embarrassing it is.--Spoony (talk) 03:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
I think the problem is that 2friedeggs refuses to back out of edit wars, and if he'd stop and be more amicable to using talk pages to settle disputes, we'd get along better. I really don't want to continue this feud, but 2friedeggs reignited it by editing one of my comments on an ATIM archive (that was of a case unrelated to him), and after another sysop reverted him he started an edit war. And you can't argue that some of 2friedeggs's behavior, such as leaving a message saying I'm "embarassing" on my talkpage, isn't inflammatory. I'm perfectly willing to back off, but I'd like a mod to send him that same message. I really don't want to waste my time on a petty feud, especially since this current incident occurred in the middle of an attack by a persistent TOR spammer/harasser, so that situation caused unnecessary chaos. I'd just like this to be resolved here and now so I don't have to deal with this bullshit again. Plutocow (talk) 04:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
I bet you don't want to waste time on a petty feud, that's why you're here after all. My only issue with you in the pure contempt you have for anyone that isn't you. On the tiny chance this goes somewhere for you don't let it get to your head.--Spoony (talk) 04:54, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
It takes two (or more) to edit war. You two need to agree to take it to the relevant talk page for disputes before it escalates. If you can't find common ground on the talk page, then invite other users to weigh in on the particular dispute. Bongolian (talk) 05:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
It was an archive, there wasn't exactly a talkpage for that, plus multiple users were reverting him. But I'm just tired of this so I'll stop responding to 2friedeggs. I'll just say that I'm starting to think an interaction ban may be the best idea for my own sake. Plutocow (talk) 05:03, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
The problem I have is Plutocow's only interest is to point fingers and they, from my perspective and not (necessarily) reality, do not care about my perspective. I'm fully willing to deal with that, the problem is that this already happened twice and to say the least it's irritating to deal with someone who has no self-awareness whatsover. I don't need them "dealt with" I just want some slap on the wrist, some gesture to teach them a little bit of humility so they understand they're working on a community project, not a project to boast about. Some people who are given sysop early get the wrong idea because on places like Wikipedia it's not given very lightly.--Spoony (talk) 05:11, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

โ”Œโ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”˜ Why is this not a coop? --Andrew5 (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

The coop is dead. Not to sound mean, but the "x days since last squabble" banner is as silly as would be a "x amount of days since last injury" sign in a plant that outsourced 3/4 of its staff and isn't counting the outsourcing companies' injuries in that number. Since the point of the coop is to have a page where HCMs are contained vs. spread like a forest fire across multiple user pages (like I've read used to happen years ago), and this page seems to be fulfilling that purpose now, the coop's official role and processes really ought to just be merged into this page and archive the coop for historical purposes, but that's just my opinion. 71.208.x.x (talk) 01:31, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Pretty sure this place is for general complaints and the coop is for when everyone is freaking out.--2friedeggs (talk) 01:34, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
@71.208.x.x There is a discussion at RationalWiki talk:Chicken coop for merging it with ATIM, you might wish to weigh in on that.
@2friedeggs Eh, kind of. The purpose of the coop is to resolve disputes and ATIM is when it fails, but implicitly it feels reversed. Also ig ever since Scrooge abused the coop, everyone got scared to use it.--Andrew5 (talk) 01:43, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
E/C Pretty sure you need to re-read your history of the wiki, because before ATiM became such a big thing a lot smaller issues than this went to the coop. Those were the days when I went about as a dynamic IP editor with no solidified personification because I could actually do that because there weren't 10,000 trolls back then. Well, to a point anyway, I don't recall being involved at the wiki before the coop (When was that even? If I was here, I don't remember it.). But yeah... This is HCM 5, no big deal but technically considered "HCM" (to put things in perspective, casual interaction with no complaint element is classified as HCM 6). 71.208.x.x (talk) 01:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
For the record, it was certainly not because of that troll we drifted away from using the coop. Stop treating this user like he's some prominent troll when he was an obvious poor quality rereg who was dealt with relatively easily for this wiki's standards and should've been forgotten. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 02:42, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Well, Scrooge was permabanned in a 22-3 vote, which is relatively easily. I remember when I first joined in May how annoying he was, but unlike USHA action was dealt decisively.
Anyway to 71, this is probably HCM 5 right now, but there were definitely points where it escalated to HCM 2. The coop has a heavy weight and people might think sending it direct to the mods is more useful, but that's just my guess. --Andrew5 (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Actually, you're right in that we're beyond HCM 5 here, but I think it's more like HCM 4. A key part of HCM 3 is that it is when other editors begin to polarize over a dispute, and I'm not seeing that here except a troll or two trying to start an HCM 3. As the page says, it rarely stops at the level and almost always goes to HCM 2 from there, because once people start taking sides, insults usually start flying and it's frankly a battle to keep it from going to HCM 1. 71.208.x.x (talk) 18:31, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Actually, you might be right in this only having reached HCM 4, and not 3 or 2. HCM 5 is when a sanction discussion is ongoing, no matter how landslidey. I think, it might need to be a slightly controversial ban discussion. Like, the recent GC incident would be an HCM 5. I guess the GC screaming makes it seem more like HCM 3, though I'm not sure if it is in the definition just because it's not really polarizing, but adding a 3rd side to the triangle, which TP also did. Also, while it has rarely stopped at HCM 3, it has a few times, and this could be one of them. --Andrew5 (talk) 21:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Actually, Andrew, you're a moron who can't just fucking cede a point. Cede the fucking point. You said stupid shit (again) and someone pointed out that you lack the braincells to draw the conclusions that you're trying to draw. Your pretensions of intellectualism are just fucking insulting. Also fuck off with your weaselly ad homs. โ˜ญComrade GCโ˜ญMinistry of Praise 22:03, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
GC, if you want people to do what you want, you have to be nicer. You've done nothing except anger and stress me. Well, you get what you want - me to back out of the conversation. --Andrew5 (talk) 22:41, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Stop going into HCM about the level of HCM that would be applicable here. -- Techpriest (talk) 22:43, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
HCM level is of no import whatsoever. This is molehill mountaineering, trying to create drama where there should be none. Bongolian (talk) 01:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Good post!
โ€”cosmikdebris talk stalk 03:54, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Oh c'mon where's your sense of adventure? Let's have a full blown HCM 0 over what level of HCM the site is in! Just kidding. You're right in that it's not that big of a deal, my point is that we are in fact in an active dispute despite the coop banner bragging about how many days "since the last squabble" which wouldn't be such a big deal if it didn't outright look retarded. I say get rid of the bloody banner over there altogether. 71.208.x.x (talk) 21:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Good post!--Andrew5 (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

2friedeggs caught alting

In case anyone missed what just happened here, User:Back2theroots34, who made several troll edits [1][2][3] and generally was supporting 2friedeggs in any conflicts they were involved in, has now been exposed as an alt of 2friedeggs. Make of that what you will. Plutocow (talk) 05:53, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

And the funny thing is that this isn't the first time this has happened, as he tried to pretend a BoN was a different person than him, then later accidentally exposed himself as said BoN. It's all so amusing. Plutocow (talk) 06:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Are you done screwing around yet whats your problem with me? Good to know you wanna use issues resolved months ago against me but now this. Stop clowning.--Spoony (talk) 06:07, 29 April 2022 (UTC)--Spoony (talk) 06:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Well, it's not exactly a resolved issue if you are acting in the exact same way once more, and the fact that not only the BoN but Backtotheroots was you as well definitely sheds more light on that whole hoopla, Mr. "I edited a talk archive of a resolved ATIM case against another user to reignite drama that should have been dead". The lesson here is be careful when using alternate accounts. Plutocow (talk) 06:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Wow this is getting, really, REALLY good...--Spoony (talk) 06:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
You're tellin' me! Plutocow (talk) 06:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
MORE proof that 2friedeggs and Back2theroots34 are the same person: when I blocked 2friedeggs, after Back2theroots34 had already been blocked, it didn't create a new autoblock. This is undeniable proof that the two accounts share an IP, and are thus the same person. Give it up, Spoony, you've been caught red-handed. Plutocow (talk) 06:37, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Are you done clowning yet? If it was the same IP I wouldn't have been able to edit on this account.--Spoony (talk) 06:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
That's not how autoblocks work. Due to you giving me a 0 second block after a pi times infinity block, it left an autoblock on my IP, but I was still able to make edits before I noticed the autoblock and removed it. Autoblocks don't prevent logged in users from editing, but they can prove that two accounts share an IP, as if an account that shares an autoblocked IP is banned it won't create a new autoblock, and the old one will just move one space below the newly banned user on the blocklist, which is most noticeable when dealing with Tor account spammers (as autoblock, for whatever reason, does not work on Tor IPs). So yeah, this is undeniable evidence that you two are the same person. At least grow a pair and admit it. Plutocow (talk) 06:47, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Tor is literally not usable on this site so If we're at the point you're accusing me of using Tor then I guess we'll see because that's not how Tor works.--Spoony (talk) 06:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
First of all, Tor is very much usable on this site, as I myself have demonstrated, secondly when did I accuse you of using Tor? I said that you and Back2theroots share an IP, meaning that you're the same person. Come back when you're sober please. Plutocow (talk) 06:53, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
It isn't. If they shared an IP I would have been banned too. Stop being paranoid, I know being ashamed of your actions or yourself can cause that.--Spoony (talk) 07:10, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Hm, it works for me, and for a bunch of trolls apparently. Again, you do not understand autoblocks, they do not block logged in users from editing. Plutocow (talk) 07:17, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
They do, and I'd test that by making a new account if I didn't know you weren't acting in good faith and would block it off the bat. Sounds like someone wasn't here since 2014.--Spoony (talk) 07:22, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
If you look at the block log, my IP is currently autoblocked. Guess what, I am still posting. Another one of your points is conclusively disproven. Plutocow (talk) 07:27, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
And now I know you're just outright lying. It depends on whether you choose to allow the user you banned to create a new account. Either way I hope you're ashamed of yourself.--Spoony (talk) 07:29, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
The autoblock literally says "account creation disabled" lol. What matters is whether logged in users are allowed to edit from the IP (aka the "anonymous users only" provision) which seems to be turned on with autoblocks, as I have just demonstrated and am currently demonstrating now. You know, I would respect you a lot more if you admitted to your alting, as it's not even a ban-worthy offense and the evidence against you is truly staggering, but you deny it and blame me for no reason. Plutocow (talk) 07:38, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Let's assume I alted for a second: Who would care? As you said it wouldn't be a ban-worthy offence which is why I didnt ban your "Spoony is a Coward" account when it was made but when I made "3friedeggs" you decided to be a hypocrite and ban it. You do not have good faith in mind, you have a bone to pick with me, and I am treating this entire situation as such, which means only replying as much as necessary, and treating you like the attention-seeker you are.

โ”Œโ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”˜You know, sometimes I wonder about you.--Spoony (talk) 10:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

It's called evidence, maybe you should try it before making unsubstantiated allegations of alting. Plutocow (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Abuse of supression powers

2friedeggs just abused suppression powers on my talkpage, which is once again against the CS. Plutocow (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

2friedeggs and Plutocow-free zone

Seriously, whoever comments here gets 10 bad points from me. You two have plenty of territory to spin out on elsewhere.

In the brief flashes of text that weren't these two, I thought some good points were made.

1. By Bongolian, it takes two to tango.

2. By CorruptUser, the genesis of this seems to be a decision by Pluto that was correct, but not liked.

It seems to me that both are contributing heavily to this tedious slapfight. But that doesn't mean that one side's contributions aren't heavier. Pluto also seems to be making *some* effort at de-escalation and/or solutions that aren't just endless bantz. I don't know what this means, what to do, or if this is even helpful to type up, but this is what I see in the situation so far. I'll take a closer look at it later if I decide to spend some of my precious weekend time on it. Buck (talk) 11:43, 29 April 2022 (UTC)


  • Literally don't care as long as they do not interfere with my edits.--Back2theroots34 (talk) 05:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Do not care what happens as long as Plutocow stops being annoying but obviously would rather keep my sysop.--Spoony (talk) 05:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Tempted to vote "yay", this is getting too banal. CorruptUser 17:08, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

GC and removal of sysop rights

He just removed my sysop and blocked me for no reason, and this is not the first time he has done this. Can someone please tell him to cut it out? Plutocow (talk) 19:26, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I removed your sysop again. I'm done with you and Spoony/2friedeggs turning this site into a battleground over editorial disputes. You'll both be put to a vote on if it sticks, I'm done with you two. -- Techpriest (talk) 19:36, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Just wait for him to anger enough people that he does it to himself.--Back2theroots34 (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Votes for Plutocow and 2friedeggs

I'm fucking done. Votes are for sysoprevoke for both of your lot because I sysoprevoked both of you and an interaction ban, now for realsies. Stop turning ATIM into a battleground for the fucking dumbest edit wars. JUST BLOODY ASK A MOD TO LOCK PAGES IF THERE'S A WAR OKAY? -- Techpriest (talk) 19:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Sysoprevoke Plutocow

This vote has been closed. Please do not add, remove or change votes.
The result of this vote was: Fails. 1-10. TranslationForAll (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
  1. Children can't be trusted with this level of responsibility. โ˜ญComrade GCโ˜ญMinistry of Praise 19:57, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
  1. Executive decision to stop edit wars whilst this is going on, I don't need this to stick but procedure says I have to put it to a vote. -- Techpriest (talk) 19:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
  2. Let's see if the interaction ban solves the problem first. Vomitorium (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
  3. Overreacted with sysop powers at one point, but nothing a good talkin' to can't fix. No need for permanent promotion. CorruptUser 19:54, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
  4. Despite their aggressive blocks sometimes, Plutocow is still a good sysop. GeeJayK (talk) 19:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
  5. Plutocow is on the whole a productive user, and my interactions with them have mostly been positive. I'm not willing to crack out sysoprevoke just yet.-Flandres (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
  6. I didn't abuse my sysop powers. Plutocow (talk) 20:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
  7. Just needs to grow up.--Spoony (talk) 20:17, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
  8. Final warning is necessary, with a sysoprevoke occurring next offense or on an iban vio. --Andrew5 (talk) 20:25, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
  9. โ€” Exaskliri (they/them) (talk | contribs) 02:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
  10. Bongolian (talk) 03:41, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I do not care if they keep sysop but they need to be taught that doing things like this to rile people up is not acting in good faith.--Spoony (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

That second account is a completely different person User:Astroyoder, while the first was my response to you blocking and desysoping me out of the blue. And you want to talk to me about having no self-awareness? Plutocow (talk) 22:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Ban them both for a month. โ€”cosmikdebris talk stalk 01:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I say let them keep the toolset for now, but the minute they abuse it, to include unblocking themselves, they lose it. 71.208.x.x (talk) 01:16, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Sysoprevoke 2friedeggs

This vote has been closed. Please do not add, remove or change votes.
The result of this vote was: Fails. 2-8. TranslationForAll (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
  1. Children can't be trusted with this level of responsibility. โ˜ญComrade GCโ˜ญMinistry of Praise 19:57, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
  2. Support due to repeated abuse of sysop powers, besides the aforementioned suppression and desysoping he's also shown unnecessary hostility to new users and also accusing them of being alts of me with no evidence. I'm tired of this. Plutocow (talk) 20:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
  1. Executive decision to stop edit wars whilst this is going on, I don't need this to stick but procedure says I have to put it to a vote. -- Techpriest (talk) 19:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
  2. Let's see if the interaction ban solves the problem first. Vomitorium (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
  3. I don't think this is necessary just yet. CorruptUser 19:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
  4. GeeJayK (talk) 19:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
  5. Up to you whether or not you count this one--Spoony (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
  6. I like Vomitorium's idea. --Andrew5 (talk) 20:25, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
  7. โ€” Exaskliri (they/them) (talk | contribs) 02:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
  8. Bongolian (talk) 03:41, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Ban them both for a month. โ€”cosmikdebris talk stalk 01:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Interaction ban between Plutocow & 2friedeggs

This vote has been closed. Please do not add, remove or change votes.
The result of this vote was: Passes. 16-0. TranslationForAll (talk) 00:31, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
  1. There's been too much drama here. I've been taking a bit of a break from RW, and these flamewars are stressful to the entire community. They should stop once and for all.--Andrew5 (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
  2. Fucking christ in a sidecracker. -- Techpriest (talk) 19:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
    Wow these fetishes keep getting weirder. CorruptUser 19:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
    Believe me, I have so many more weird ones where that came from :^). -- Techpriest (talk) 20:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
  3. Agreed on this one. CorruptUser 19:43, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
  4. I've been avoiding commenting for a while because this case doesn't have much in the way of substance for us mods to address imo...but this is starting to remind me of Oxymania in terms of vindictive vitriol outweighing productive discussion of any sort. I would like to quell any blaze remotely like that before it spreads.-Flandres (talk) 19:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
  5. I'm tired of this shit. โ˜ญComrade GCโ˜ญMinistry of Praise 19:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
  6. Vomitorium (talk) 19:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
  7. UncleScrooge would be proud of you guys. Lesson of the day? Don't be annoying. GeeJayK (talk) 19:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
  8. Please. Literally ASAP.--Spoony (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
  9. Without a moment's hesitation. Spud (talk) 23:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
  10. Good idea.Ariel31459 (talk) 00:50, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
  11. It seems like this is the only solution. Just make sure his socks like Back2theroots are covered by the ban as well. Plutocow (talk) 01:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
  12. This is a no-brainer. Both parties need a serious trouting on top of the IBAN. 71.208.x.x (talk) 01:14, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
    Good post! --Andrew5 (talk) 01:19, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
  13. โ€” Exaskliri (they/them) (talk | contribs) 02:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
  14. Bongolian (talk) 03:41, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
  15. ShabiDOO 08:35, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
  16. LongStylus (talk) 03:41, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
  1. Thereโ€™s already a vote on a IBAN. Shall we transfer the comments? TranslationForAll (talk) 19:43, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
    Go ahead, it's better to have that unified. Leave the scrapped vote part up above though. -- Techpriest (talk) 19:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
  2. I'll fulfill my end of it but I want to know what to do if my edits are interfered with.--Spoony (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
    We have enough eyes on the wiki to keep an eye out for that stuff. Repeated violations can be reported on ATIM/Coop. -- Techpriest (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

@Plutocow and 2friedeggs I have it up to here with your crap!!! KNOCK IT THE FUCK OFF!!!!! โ˜ญComrade GCโ˜ญMinistry of Praise 23:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Then you fight them instigating on my talk page idc how angry you are I didn't do anything that time.--2friedeggs (talk) 01:07, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
IIRC, Pluto already told you they're NB or something like that, not a "she". It's not my hill, but we did just ban someone for misgendering because, well, offensive. CorruptUser 01:37, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
IIRC, Pluto mentioned their pronouns were they/she but hey. I fixed it. If you're talking about USHA thats because he was just bullying them about it outright.--2friedeggs (talk) 01:40, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
I actually thought it was Scrooge for a second (RationalWiki_talk:All_things_in_moderation/Archive44#Unclescrooge_again), which was in the last 8 months. And yet since then we filled up 13 ATIM archives. Crazy...--Andrew5 (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Quick end

If @2friedeggs, as the other affected party, can agree to it, can we end this vote early? (You can reply on your talkpage as you are blocked) It is extremely obvious how the vote will turn out, and I want to be able to get things back to normal so I can continue work on RW without interruption. CS says that a vote must go on for at least a week, but if the result is overwhelming and both affected parties agree to end it, then there's no good reason for it to continue. Plutocow (talk) 20:18, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah that would sure be nice but I find it doubtful that will happen.--2friedeggs (talk) 22:48, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
No. This should be resolved thoroughly, not swept under the rug until the next childish shitshow. Both parties should shut the fuck up and take their godsfuckingdamned punishment. โ˜ญComrade GCโ˜ญMinistry of Praise 20:59, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
The interaction ban would pass under that scenario. There's no need to drag this out. Plutocow (talk) 21:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
If you didn't want to deal with this process, you shouldn't have fucking quarreled. Now quit complaining. โ˜ญComrade GCโ˜ญMinistry of Praise 21:21, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Honestly, I feel that if a member wants to accept a punishment, so long as there's no horse-trading or plea bargaining for lesser punishment or any other form of leniency, they should be able to agree to it. E.g., if the vote is whether there should be perma-ban, member can agree to perma-ban and we skip to that. But if it's 3 week ban, perma, etc, the member can't say "just give me the 3 week", it's either perma or wait till end.
So for this, if Pluto and Eggs both agree to the Iban, I wouldn't have a problem with early ban... Except... the Sysoprevokes are still being voted on, even if absurdly unlikely, so unless Pluto and Eggs both agree to the Sysoprevokes too... CorruptUser 21:27, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
@Plutocow You can start a discussion on the CS on ending votes earlier. Monet Ye 17:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
There was one time SNOW was used here, RationalWiki_talk:All_things_in_moderation/Archive34#Request_to_have_my_topic_ban_rescinded. The other time a vote closed early was RationalWiki_talk:All_things_in_moderation/Archive45#ADefenceOfChristiany, which was SNOW closed because the user was revealed to be a sock. --Andrew5 (talk) 21:01, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
This isn't Wikipedia. Their bylaws hold no sway here. โ˜ญComrade GCโ˜ญMinistry of Praise 19:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Please read the closing statement of Archive34, which did say The result of this vote was: SNOW closed as successful; topic ban is lifted with no conditions. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 18:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC). This should be brought up with JJP if necessary, but it was also over a year ago and I think it's unnecessary, especially as he made 20 edits in the last year.--Andrew5 (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Quit posturing, you look like an idiot. Wikipedia's rules and bylaws are not binding on this site. Mainly because this isn't Wikipedia. Argue a case or don't, but citing Wikipedia's bylaws accomplishes nothing. โ˜ญComrade GCโ˜ญMinistry of Praise 20:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm quite sure the only laws we have to follow are our own laws, the Fed, the Geneva conventions, and the custom of the sea, and even then I think the Geneva conventions are more like guidelines. /snark. CorruptUser 20:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
@CorruptUser Don't be absurd. All of those violate the NAP. This here is an AnCap zone! โ˜ญComrade GCโ˜ญMinistry of Praise 20:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Yup. You got some nice user rights there. It'd be a shame if something were to happen to them. For a reasonable fee, we could help you avoid... problems... CorruptUser 22:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
@CorruptUser Exactly. Clearly a voluntary exchange of resources with no coercion. โ˜ญComrade GCโ˜ญMinistry of Praise 23:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
? --Andrew5 (talk) 01:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
We're mocking Anarcho-Capitalists, i.e., the people who think we should replace the court system with the Mafia. CorruptUser
Ah, ok. --Andrew5 (talk) 01:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

โ”Œโ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”˜ Seven days gone by, so no longer a quick end. I'll close the sysoprevoke votes. I'm not sure about the IBan one tho. TranslationForAll (talk) 21:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@TranslationForAll The iban was 16-0, so it can safely be closed. --Andrew5 (talk) 00:17, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
@TranslationForAll You also have to notify the parties about this, as they didn't recieve a notice. --Andrew5 (talk) 00:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)


-Troll, obnoxious edits.

-Uses the limey userbox despite being American.

-Obsessed over Mike; also browses ED.

Guy is clearly Viril.Feline.Wyyzrd. GeeJayK (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

@GeeJayK You forgot "is annoyingly dense". โ˜ญComrade GCโ˜ญMinistry of Praise 17:09, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
I remember J3wzus, see RationalWiki_talk:All_things_in_moderation/Archive48#J3wzus. I remember that, and behaviourally they are similar. My guess is it's a sock. --Andrew5 (talk) 18:40, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Banned permanently for being a VFW alt. -- Techpriest (talk) 21:11, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Am I the Asshole?

Trying to avoid an edit-war with GC, so I think this might be a better place to discuss.

Basically, in the Saloon Bar we have a discussion regarding the "What is a Woman" thing popularized by some of the Right. GC's response is that the definition of "woman" needs to be something that can be used in a social setting, i.e., you can't define "woman" as "having ovaries" because giving non-voluntary medical exams to everyone you meet would get you disinvited to social gatherings. My response was that you don't need to verify if someone is biologically a woman for "woman" to have a meaning, and that while it's not wrong to use a social constructed definition of woman (i.e., anyone who presents as a woman is one) it's also not wrong to use a biological definition (i.e., has the female reproductive bits) regardless of whether or not that can be verified without ending up on a sex-offender registry.

Then I went into the thing about trauma, personality disorders, and LGBT expression, etc etc. GC and a couple others seemed to think it's queerphobia to suggest there's any connection between sexual abuse and LGBT expression because that was an old homophobic canard about homosexuality being a mental illness, but LGBT people seem to have a higher rate of prior sexual abuse compared to non-LGBT, cite 1, cite 2, cite 3. GC and a couple others don't seem to like that.

So my question is, am I the asshole here? CorruptUser 22:08, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I think this is better placed at the chicken coop. Andrew5 (talk) 22:09, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
No itโ€™s not. A simple mod opinion should be enough. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosoliniโ€™s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 23:29, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
@CorruptUser Again, shit like "biologically a woman is so far off the mark that it boggles the mind why the fuck you're speaking on this topic. You're familiar with biology right? If I asked kept asking you something like "but what if rocks were cosmically animals?", you'd be well within your rights to question my understanding of the topic yes? I get that the STEM fields think pretty highly of themselves, but Jesus fucking Christ do they produce the dumbest fucking takes on social matters, which if you haven't noticed has an entire fucking array of sciences trying to make sense of it. Maybe have some basic fucking understanding of the limits of your knowledge. Maybe that would help!! โ˜ญComrade GCโ˜ญMinistry of Praise 23:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
This isnโ€™t the type of thing where a mod can handle. The chicken coop was designed specifically to deal with these types of problems where users are getting into conflicts to resolve them, not necessarily for penalty votes. What has happened was the coop was slowly morphed into that. And then nobody used it. There are too many disputes as of now in ATIM that ought to be moved to the coop and if we want to revive the coop, this is the perfect example given the likeliness to escalate and a possible iban too. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 23:51, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
@Andrew5 mobile Andrew, I'm going to put this in the politest possible terms. You aren't a mod, you're wrong, and you're a nosy busybody who needs to just shut up about this matter, since you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. โ˜ญComrade GCโ˜ญMinistry of Praise 23:55, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Surely, Corrupt User isnโ€™t violating any of our site norms with his edit. I seriously doubt that the mods need to read more than one sentence of CorruptUserโ€™s edit, to realise that his edit is well within the bounds of free speech. If GC objects to it, then he should feel free to criticise it. To edit war, in this aggressive manner, smackers of a gratuitous intolerance. GrammarCommieโ€™s histrionics remain a nuisance. LeucippusSalva veritate 02:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

not this again G Man (talk) 04:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Spoke with GC privately last night. He's a bit more calm in chat than on the forum, though we weren't able to get to much with the main points themselves. CorruptUser 05:11, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Personallly: YTA. Professionally: not our purview. Being a STEMLord isn't against the rules. That said, I will echo GCs comments (albeit in a politer tone) for @CorruptUser to realize that the social sciences operate under a different set of rules than the hard-and-fast STEM sciences. To put it another way, STEM science relies on performing repeatable experiments and understanding cause and consequence (in other words, it's easy to peer review something purely on the notion that it exists; this is why it's relatively easy to debunk say Flat Earth from a STEM perspective). The social sciences on the other hand rely more on analyzing trends and human behavior. They do sometimes overlap (social science for example tends to rely quite a bit on statistical analysis), but you need to be far more careful with post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacies. That's what the sexual abuse/LGBT expression thing is in a nutshell (to address this specifically); things may seem correlated, but the reality is that the cause for the correlation is far deeper tied to society's treatment of LGBT people at the time kinda resulting in sexual abuse being more common for those individuals. Basically, be aware of your own limitations. -- Techpriest (talk) 18:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Also, Andrew this is what ATIM is literally meant for. No ruffled feathers, just a quick question to see if anything needs to be done/anyone needs to be yelled at. -- Techpriest (talk) 18:32, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Going to be a bit stubborn on this, but I still don't see how using the social definition of "Woman" is the only correct use of "Woman", instead of being one of several correct uses of the term "Woman". CorruptUser 18:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Basically, consider whether or not the definition is being used in a social context or in a scientific context; most people who try to argue this distinction are trying to apply the scientific definition in a social context where it just doesn't fit (this is the crux of what TERFs try to do; they apply the scientific definition of a woman/a female (since in a STEM sense these are identical) to be the sole defining factor of the sociological definition of a woman, which is closer to a set of expectations society places onto you that stem from an odd mixture of societal history and prevalent-ish genetic traits). It's not the "only" correct definition, but in a layman conversation, the scientific definition of a woman is usually not what we're talking about and it tends to be done often in bad faith.
Like, for example, when one talks about letting people use their bathrooms by preferred gender, the main reason we split bathrooms by gender is because in the past, we defined what a woman was largely on a "separate spheres" ideology; it ran on the sociological assumption that to "protect the sancity of the experience of being a man or a woman". This is rather obviously a sociological definition; back then a woman was someone who stayed at home, did the dishes and raised the kids. The biological definition of a woman has very little to do with the argument, unless you're trying to shoehorn in a difference between people who want to sociologically live as a woman versus those who were born a woman. In practice, this supposedly super hard distinction has been flexible/blurred from the start - intersex people tend to go to whatever bathrooms they prefer, I'd say most private homes don't split their bathrooms by gender and disability toilets have always been gender-neutral. Inserting the scientific definition of "a woman" in this discussion has functionally nothing to do with it and is frequently seen as bad faith because of how often TERFs tend to do it. -- Techpriest (talk) 19:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
The gendered bathroom thing is because we don't want people to feel uncomfortable doing something rather private, and it's foreseeable that a big burly man in the lady's room would scare a woman. Enforcing the North Carolina law would basically violate Griswold v Connecticut; we don't ban contraceptives because the enforcement of the law would require a police officer watching people have sex, ergo we shouldn't have that stupid bathroom law because we don't need a police officer to do a cavity search every time someone wants to poop in a public restroom. CorruptUser 19:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Because women are eternal victims... This isn't socially contingent at all... โ˜ญComrade GCโ˜ญMinistry of Praise 19:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Then why even have gendered bathrooms instead of just one bathroom for everyone? CorruptUser 19:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
I think you are reaching the correct conclusion in that gendered bathrooms are rather silly. -- Techpriest (talk) 19:53, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Non-gendered bathrooms are ok as long as there are 2. Otherwise the bathroom line increases if you just have 1. --Andrew5 (talk) 01:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Nobody is suggesting we only have half the bathrooms, though from a mathematical perspective, everyone using the same room means we do need slightly fewer bathroom stalls. CorruptUser 05:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
@Techpriest, It's way off topic, but the "bad faith" bit reminds me of how a sliver of racists will use a very technical definition (at best) of "history" to make arguments like "Native Americans didn't have a history before Europeans came" as colonial apologia knowing full well that their audience is going to read it as the generalizing common meaning. To bring it back on topic, different definitions of powerful terms in different contexts are almost unavoidable, but don't cross the streams! Buck (talk) 08:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Ugh, looks like I pissed off GC. Again. CorruptUser 14:08, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Noindexing the barchives

At the moment, the Saloon Bar is NOINDEXed (doesn't show up in search engines, this does not affect our internal search engine), probably largely because of how many personal opinions and fights get thrown around there. However, I have been made aware (full disclosure: this is due to an off-site person who wanted content removed from the barchives out of concerns of it landing on their job searches for an incident; this request has been denied as the original comment did not violate any rules - I told them to reach out to the original commenter if they wanted it removed since users are allowed to retract their own comments) that due to a small inconsistency, the archives of the bar are currently not NOINDEXed. I would like some input/possibly a vote to resolve this rather obvious discrepancy. I do not personally care whether or not the barchives or the bar gets added/removed from the NOINDEX tag or not but this is a discrepancy we need to address. -- Techpriest (talk) 20:36, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Is the editor who made the remark still active here? Is the comment missional? I presume it's not libelous since that would be a different type of complaint. Bongolian (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
If it isn't contributing to social harm or a legal violation, I see no reason to remove it. That being said, if it is removed from the search engines in such a way as to allow for internal review, then that is fine, I suppose. โ˜ญComrade GCโ˜ญMinistry of Praise 20:54, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
@Bongolian The editor is no longer active here. The comment is missional. It is not libelous. Person just requested that their association with a horrible person would be removed on the reasoning that they matured since and they don't want it to affect their ability to get a job. In any case that was more of a honesty disclosure; I am largely unconcerned about the users actual complaint, but I don't want it to bite me in the ass later. As for @GrammarCommie, yeah noindex affects nothing there; it just means you can't google the page and find it that way. Entering the page from the barchives or our own search bar would still be possible. -- Techpriest (talk) 21:34, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
@Techpriest I'm fine with that then. โ˜ญComrade GCโ˜ญMinistry of Praise 22:16, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
I would have no problem with such a change. I am not so sure about your comment that "users are allowed to retract their own comments". Looking as CS I see nothing which allows this. I know that our CP days are long past, but I remember that we always held the rule that whatever you said stayed said as we had seen what could happen when users selectively edited the past.
But maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "retract". I'm assuming "delete" but perhaps you mean someone saying, "I was wrong when I said the above".Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 11:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
In this case it involved removing a single sentence from a comment that was otherwise unrelated to the main subject of that comment; we allow users to edit their own comments, therefore allowing a user to retract their comment by editing out certain parts is an implied right. To be clear, nobody went around and edited non-offending comments they didn't make themselves. In addition, no edits are suppressed; users can always go back in the history to see what was written. In any case, my hangup isn't so much with the edits, moreso with the noindex, which I appear to have consensus for. I'll look into an implementation after work. -- Techpriest (talk) 12:47, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

GrammarCommie again

Hi mods, I am quite new in here but I am trying to contribute and bring value. That being said, I am being harassed. โ˜ญComrade GCโ˜ญMinistry of Praise is attacking me instead of my arguments, using words like dumbass, idiot, stupid, telling me to fuck off etc. โ˜ญComrade GCโ˜ญMinistry of Praise threatened he will revert any comment I will make (on a talk page) and he just did exactly that. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Apex_fallacy. How do I deal with this kind of harassment on Rationalwiki? — Unsigned, by: Londondare / talk / contribs

This is the place. You did start with a pejorative (redneck) against @GrammarCommie on that page that you cite.[4] That doesn't help. Using pejoratives against fellow-editors is against the rules of civility. You can use pejoratives against ideas or non-editors all you like. Cut out the ad hominem attacks and edit warring. Bongolian (talk) 16:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
I didn't really care about the insult so much as the whole "I know what you really meant" crap. Like no, no you don't. Fuck off with that shit. โ˜ญComrade GCโ˜ญMinistry of Praise 17:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Bongolian, I am not proud that I lost my cool in face of GrammarCommie's threats and harassment and called him a "redneck", but if you take the effort you will see that it is not true that I "start with a pejorative on that page". GrammarCommie called me dumbass, idiot and stupid long before that. Instead of paying him back with the same coin I tried to resolve it on Chicken coop, but to no avail. BTW GrammarCommie vandalised my comment even if I removed the "redneck" pejorative. Does the rules of civility apply to other editors or just to me? Londondare (talk)
See above in regards to my reasons for removal of the comment. That kind of shit is dumb unless you have a good read on someone, something that takes months of interactions over multiple subjects to get right. I did not harass this user. I did call them stupid when they acted stupid. I did call them a dumbass when they acted like a dumbass. I did call them an idiot when they acted like an idiot. I did threaten to revert their comments because they kept saying that the Apex fallacy was integral to feminism, even when it was explained that they were in fact strawmanning feminism, but that's only because they needed to start citing academic literature directly if they wanted to be taken seriously. Also because I'm 98% certain that their knowledge of feminism comes exclusively from manosphere forums and idiot internet personalities. The proper reaction to my threats/demands would be to start citing the relevant academic literature, obviously. Beyond those facts this person seems to be extremely thin skinned and belligerent, with little actual knowledge of the disputed subject and an overly high opinion of themselves. โ˜ญComrade GCโ˜ญMinistry of Praise 13:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Oh, and I am seeing this now:
> You were put in the vandal bin by GrammarCommie and the reason given was: "Stupid shit.".
> The block ID is #4141. Please include this in any queries.
Londondare (talk)
Sometimes it's better to be a silent fool rather than speaking up and removing all doubt. While GCs behavior is a tad aggressive, Londondare seems to be a case of argumentum ad nauseam, having been posting the same cruddy arguments on the talkpage for over two weeks. Your vandal bin sticks for now imo. -- Techpriest (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Vandal binning is a reasonable approach in this case. GC would do better to insult the postings rather than the poster: it gets the point across without being overly inflammatory. Bongolian (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm okay with putting Londondare in the bin. As for GC...after reading the discussion again, I don't think he did anything particularly wrong here. Londondare spent weeks pumping out the same basic set of fallacious arguments. Said fallacious arguments were pointed out repeatedly and refuted conclusively. GC was hardly the only person showing Londondare he was full of crap. I'm okay with being blunt in those conditions.-Flandres (talk) 19:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Londondare's contributions on that talk page have increasingly bordered on concern troll inanity, especially after two or three weeks of hashing around a whole bunch of PRATT. I see no problem with GC's conduct or actions. โ€”cosmikdebris talk stalk 04:32, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@Bongolian, @Techpriest, @Flandres, @Cosmikdebris, I have to say your approach surprises me to say the least. I came here in a good fait, trying to fix a tiny mistake. I was calm and rational, replying on a talk page once in two days on overage, because I have more important things to do in my life. For this I was vulgarly attacked and harassed, while under a gish gallop of straw-man arguments and blatant falsehoods. And I am the a troll and vandal here?

It is all super simple:

  1. This wiki contains the sentence "the idea that the case for feminism can be reduced to or depends on this fallacy".
  2. No one is forwarding such idea. To my best knowledge not even manosphere is claiming such thing, only rationalwiki.org is. The sentence is a clear straw man argument made up by rationalwiki.org. Congratulations.
  3. I suppose the whole thing is PRATT, we all know that no one other than rationalwiki.org is making the claim. Not even the quoted blog post, which is only 300 words long, contains the idea that "feminism can be reduced to or depends on this fallacy". Neither literally, nor figuratively (thought I know now you don't understand the difference).
  4. If caring about rationality of rationality.org makes me a concern troll, then I am outta fuck of here.

That is all, there is nothing more to it. It is clear to me now that you are intellectually dishonest group unable to make a sound argument, which is why you have to rely on bullying and harassment. Enjoy your irrationality. Londondare (talk)

"What is the Apex Fallacyโ€ฆ..
โ€œโ€ฆ.Apex fallacy is the idea that we assign the characteristics of the highest visibility members of a group to all members of that group. This fallacy has a particularly damning effect on the feminist construct of patriarchy.
Women have looked up, and seen that the top of society is made up of men that hold power. They then attribute that characteristic to all men. The line of thinking goes, all CEOโ€™s are men (mostly true), therefore all men are CEOโ€™s (not even close). Feminists fail to look at the men at the bottom of the pyramid.โ€
-Absurd Experience
Well, when one sees members of a certain group at the top of a pyramid, they may assume that that is a complete picture of power. However, they are not looking at the bottom of the pyramid. They are not looking at the males over-represented in the death professions. They are not looking at the males who have a higher success rate in suicide. They arenโ€™t looking at the statistics that say that women tend to live longer than men.
At this point, you may be thinking, well, what about the glass ceiling? Is the fact that the Untied States hasnโ€™t had a woman President proof of this? Perhaps. There can be many factors why women tend not to be in the highest rungs on a hierarchy. One may be sexism. Oh, and thatโ€™s really complex to determine too. Is that sexism from a group of guys in power trying to keep women out or does it come from other women? Remember nowโ€“women are the largest voting block in the U.S. Any discussion that includes the glass ceiling, also needs to include the glass cellar. To do otherwise is to have an incomplete if not dishonest discussion."
"Not even the quoted blog post, which is only 300 words long, contains the idea that "feminism can be reduced to or depends on this fallacy"."
You're either dishonest or stupid. โ˜ญComrade GCโ˜ญMinistry of Praise 14:48, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Seriously. This is the level of engagement that's been argued on that talkpage for weeks. This is so fucking stupid that it's farcical. โ˜ญComrade GCโ˜ญMinistry of Praise 14:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
When I said "literally", I meant literally. As in the words that the blogger in question wrote, which are on the webpage that's being argued about, which this fucking twit is just straight up denying exist, which can be verified so easily that it begs the fucking question; why the fuck would you deny something that can be verified so easily? But whatever, run off you fucking intellectual coward. โ˜ญComrade GCโ˜ญMinistry of Praise 14:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
With that, can we archive the thread? --Andrew5 (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2022 (UTC)