RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive67

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 19 June 2023. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: , (new)(back)

Let me get this straight

A moderator on this site can uncritically post anti-LGBT hate propaganda from fucking Libs of TikTok and that is okay? Nope Rocket (talk) 04:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

1) This was posted on YouTube by @jamirkris, who is not mentioned on the Libs of TikTok page. 2) The post was not entirely uncritical since CorruptUser did say the "source is a bit biased". That was obviously an understatement since @jamirkris is clearly a propaganda channel, and there's no reason to believe claims about the performer's age without evidence. 3) I think it's bad judgement on @CorruptUser's part to have posted in that way. Bongolian (talk) 04:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
There's a very clear "@LibsofTikTok" watermark right in the middle of the video. Calling a fascist-adjacent propaganda machine "a bit biased" isn't just a gross understatement. It's an insulting distortion of reality. Children's hospitals have been subjected to bomb threats because of LoTT's hate propaganda. We can debate the merits of the Saloon Bar as a soapbox vs. containment area for the airing of bad opinions. But someone who posts LoTT propaganda absolutely should note be in a position of authority. Nope Rocket (talk) 05:24, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
The discussion may have turned unsalvageable but [1] baselessly accusing a user of being a creep (not to mention Blade of Northern Lights defending this accusation shortly after!?!?!?!?) and that they belong on an offender registry is utterly atrocious conduct. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 06:35, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Uhhhhhh… what sort of shitstorm have I walked in on?!? --Luigifan18 (talk) 07:56, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, having re-read the whole thread it reflects very terribly on Blade and Cory. (I apologize for being unable to comment anymore on this case yesterday-something personal came up.)-Flandres (talk) 13:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
I have to agree with Flandres. Spud (talk) 14:12, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, that was uncalled for. And it isn't the first time that Cory and Sorta have this kind of uncivil squabble on the bar. While I'd rather not escalate this case, I think the two of you should avoid intereacting with each other. At this rate you guys will end up with an interaction ban. I mean, come on, Cory, you've taken worse from other users and remained civil, that was just not cool. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 14:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Hay Cory, kids can dress up in drag and it is totally non-sexual, come at me, 'bro'. Come out and call me a pedophile, I know you want to. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 12:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, going to cool it w/ OSD for a bit. Kinda why I brought it up here in the first place. CorruptUser 14:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
so, do you have anything to answer for regarding those abhorrent accusations toward only sorta dumb --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 19:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
That it was in response to a combination of OSD calling me the same, among other things? CorruptUser 19:12, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
In other words, you're doubling down on your own shit. Fantastic. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
it's probably up to only sort of dumb to explain but if you're talking about this[2] it reads like a dumbfounded rhetorical question rather than a straight-up accusation you did. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 22:26, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
I have found that all sorts of troubling literal detritus can be found on this site from time to time. The fact that a member of the wiki finds drag-related children's activities undesirable and says so, howsoever disagreeably, should be no surprise to anyone paying attention to the many obstreperous related complaints so abundant now, and often to be found in polite society. When a person thinks he is right, they should not be accused of doubling down, when what really is happening should more likely be described as sticking to their guns, holding fast to their opinions, or being true to their own particular virtues which any of us might regard as a really contemptable thing to do. Moderators probably should not insult users as a general principle. The lot here has done so, on occasion, with possibly one or two exceptions. For that reason I advise there to be calm on this matter after suitable apologies are offered. UncleKrampus (talk) 22:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Bigotry and ignorance are not "opinions," and they are absolutely not "virtues." Nope Rocket (talk) 22:56, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
It is unwise to believe and propagate a social media post from an account that at minimum contains at least one "very stretched" declaration (as by now it's pretty clear to me, thanks to OSD's posts, that this was a vogue competitionWikipedia, which far from encompasses drag), and is best known as an extremist political agitator account. In other words, if a member of this wiki finds drag-related children's activities undesirable, maybe they should be sure that this really is a drag-related children's activity first. (And yes, it was "tangential", but Googling is not terribly hard.) One would say the same if they were sourcing their, say, pro-Russia opinion and relying on Russia Today. It is possible to have heavy bias while maintaining factual standards (an example that comes to mind of this is Reason, which does not hide its libertarian bias but also is (forgive the pun) reasonably well researched and, generally speaking, high on facts). Russia Today does not qualify. Neither does Libs of TikTok.
So hopefully lessons learned. However, I will add that you're pretty funny in telling mods not to insult people while throwing out a "fuck you" to the Wiki in the same paragraph. That you dressed the insult in multiple syllable words merely makes it overwrought, not clever. BobJohnson (talk) 23:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Anyone object to closing this drama? CorruptUser 18:56, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Bigotry and personal attacks aren't "drama" and the fact you want to summarily shut down an attempt to hold you accountable only further establishes that you are not suited to a position of authority on RW. Nope Rocket (talk) 19:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
And now CorruptUser has antagonised me on talk page after being explicitly told not to post on it. Nope Rocket (talk) 20:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Rainbow trout transparent.png Whack!
You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Somebody just wants to let you know you did something silly.

CorruptUser 20:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, no. You shouldn't be allowed to post blatant anti-LGBT hate propaganda and try to sweep it under the rug like it's nothing. You shouldn't be allowed to insert a sneering anti-abortion lecture into the Roe v Wade article. Moderators need to be held to a higher standard of conduct. And if they try to use their authority to shut down attempts to hold them accountable, then that is a blatant abuse of power. Nope Rocket (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Ok, first off, the abortion thing was that the people who aren't getting abortions now thanks to the end of Roe are exactly the people who would be terrible parents; pretty much a pro-choice stance to take. If you disagree with that, we can discuss on the abortion talk page.
If you are going to be this openly hostile to people who've not wronged you personally, well, I actually feel bad for you. CorruptUser 20:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
You're the one who made this personal. This wouldn't have escalated further if you had simply honoured my request not to message me on my talk page (something which would've required zero effort on your part). It would've remained a matter focused on your posting of anti-LGBT hate propaganda and your unacceptable comments to Only Sorta Dumb. Nope Rocket (talk) 21:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Okay, watching that video I can see why one would wonder if it is real. Is the person as young as claimed, are they trans (why does that matter?), is this sexualisation of children (regardless of identity?). Having said that, there are a whole lot more interesting questions to ask on the bar and can't for the life of me figure out what happens in CorruptUser's brain when he occasionally loses all sense and posts stupid and pointlessly provocative shit like this. Having said that, posting this video and JAQing off is not in itself violating any rules (as unpleasant dipshittery as it is) and it is not vile anti-LGTBQ+ shittery, but general shittery. It does not warrant the kind of shit disturbing and uncalled for subsequent behaviour by Blade and Cory. Challenge CorruptUser instead of raging and being disruptive. ShabiDOO 22:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
JFC, the Roe v Wade additions are a total trashfire. Are you seriously implying that poor people make unfit parents? That doesn't improve your nonsense, it makes it 100 times worse. Nope Rocket (talk) 22:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
For anyone who thinks CorruptUser isn't advocating eugenics. Nope Rocket (talk) 22:19, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Only "occasionally"? So apparently, you think I'm improving :D.
As for Roe, does anyone else want to weigh in on my recent edits to Roe v Wade? CorruptUser 22:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't think the parent snark was that great to be honest, it really distracts from the rest of the text. (My opinion, of course, though. I had no problem with the Rapture snark. :p )
I also think the current mifepristone "I'm Christian judge and I know more than the FDA" ban attempt is a pretty important story to add (at least at some point, maybe wait for the story to settle a little). Should this judge and anti abortion front groups "get their way" it would open the door for any fundie whackdoodle to try and federally ban whatever FDA approved medicine has become a conspiracy theory bullshit rumor, or offends the "morals" for whatever reason. (Easy to see candidates would be all forms of birth control as well as vaccines). Ordinarily I think the Supreme Court would be sane enough to block this foolishness, but I dunno about this one. BobJohnson (talk) 23:08, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
It doesn't help to accuse Cory of supporting eugenics. Don't do the same thing he was doing to OnlySortaDumb earlier. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 00:11, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes. Lefty, I suppose that some people are just too high strung to tolerate youtube videos by the wrong sorts of people. I wouldn't have been able to report much just by watching the clip that is at issue here. Perhaps, in the future, Cory should post a warning that a possible faux pas is imminent.UncleKrampus (talk) 00:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
This isn't a case of "YouTube videos" one should simply "tolerate." Libs of TikTok is a (para-)fascist whose hate propaganda has INCITED BOMB THREATS AGAINST CHILDREN'S HOSPITALS. Just so we are absolutely clear about what the BS spinners here are trying to hide behind bunch of pompous twaddle. Nope Rocket (talk) 01:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
I reccomend you go to the appropriate youtube video and leave a harsh comment. Also more of the pompous twaddle. You shouldn't leave it here.UncleKrampus (talk) 01:32, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
It's not an accusation. Read the post I linked and CU's addition to the Roe article. Stating that you believe Down syndrome pregnancies should be aborted because you "don't want to pay for them" (that is, disabled children) is advocating eugenics. CU even acknowledged this is ableist, although he very tellingly put "ableist" in scare quotes. Implying that people who can't afford to travel out of state at short notice (that is, poor people) for an abortion would make unfit parents anyway is also advocating eugenics. Nope Rocket (talk) 01:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Everyone is ableist when pushed to extremes. But that is not relevant here. Everyone is allowed their own tolerances. UncleKrampus (talk) 01:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, no. People have a legal right to express bigoted and ignorant opinions. That doesn't mean RW has to provide a platform for bigotry and ignorance. This isn't Wikipedia. Some opinions are wrong. We don't have to pretend otherwise because of NPOV. And there should absolutely be a zero-tolerance policy for uncritically posting hate propaganda from Libs of TikTok, who has INCITED BOMB THREATS AGAINST CHILDREN'S HOSPITALS. Nope Rocket (talk) 01:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I don't think there's any doubt at this point that CorruptUser consistently shows bad judgment. 1) The recent posts in the Saloon regarding 'grooming'. 2) Edit warring on the Roe v. Wade page. CorruptUser should have been the one to step back from that first and gone to the talk page since he made the controversial change. 3) Even going back to the last moderator election (2022), there was doubt about CorruptUser's suitability as a moderator even among two of the people who endorsed him (Plutocow and Shabidoo) (RationalWiki:Moderator elections/Campaigning/Archive15#CorruptUser). Bongolian (talk) 02:07, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

What are you (NopeRocket) trying to accomplish with this cool case? Cory can’t be stripped of mod powers without at least a vote, and you haven’t mentioned any other potential end goals. So far, this coop case is just unfocused complaining. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 02:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
I've repeatedly stated that CorruptUser should not be in a position of authority. I would argue that there are wider systemic issues on RW. At least when it's random users spouting edgelord drivel in the Saloon Bar, editors who make constructive mainspace contributions can ignore it. A moderator who uncritically posts a link to a Libs of TikTok video and inflicts regressive ideas on the Roe v Wade article cannot be ignored. That's when it crosses the line from someone having a bad take into effecting the operation and content of the wiki. Nope Rocket (talk) 02:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Et tu, Bongo?
The "edit warring" was NopeRocket reverting my edits, not the other way around, accusing me of being "anti-choice" and trying to provoke a fight. I'm trying to find the specific message, but I thought I already told Nope to discuss on the talk page before warring. C'mon, you of all people should be smarter than that. CorruptUser 02:35, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
"Avoid edit wars. If an edit you make is repeatedly reverted, or someone has otherwise objected to it, then discuss it on the article's talk page." (RationalWiki:Community Standards#Conduct) I interpret that as the onus being upon you, CorruptUser, your edit was reverted. You could have begun a conversation on the talk page, but you didn't. Bongolian (talk) 02:41, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
The edit in question was
"In the 6 months after Roe, there were 32,000 fewer abortions than would be typically expected,(ref) or about 64,000 per year. Bear in mind that abortion is still legal in most states, for now, and trains/busses/planes are also legal, also for now, meaning that the people who aren't getting abortions as a result of Dobbs are the people who were unable to arrange/afford a day-trip to another state. Also bear in mind that that being a parent is basically dealing with one last-minute emergency after another,[citation NOT needed] i.e., exactly not the people who only didn't get abortions because of Dobbs."
The objection was
"Sneering anti-abortion lecture goes in bin. Proudly proclaims "32,000 fewer abortions" but does not detail other post-Roe effects (e.g. taking a wrecking ball to women's healthcare). Implies people should just go get abortions in states where it remains legal "for now" (the implication being that it shouldn't be legal anywhere)".
I didn't really see how the "for now" is anti-abortion so much as a warning, but I'm open to criticism. So I added more about women's healthcare, and changed some stuff around so it was a bit clear that it wasn't a "anti-abortion" statement, thought I'm confused as to how someone thought it was. Nope has been excessively hostile to me, going so far as to berate me for trying to be friendly on their talk page or something. I probably could've done something on the talk page, but as you say, I sometimes have poor judgement. Fair enough. CorruptUser 02:55, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
I politely but firmly asked you not to post on my talk page. In response, you not only ignored that simple request, but told me that I have made you an "enemy." After that, yes, the gloves came off. I didn't see a need to mince words with someone who had explicitly told me I was an "enemy." And, seriously, how did you expect your Roe edits to read? You began a section called "Life Post-Roe" with the proclamation that there have been "32,000 fewer abortions than would be typically expected," and mysteriously failed to mention the massive and devastating impact that the overturning of Roe has had on reproductive healthcare. Then framed the fact that abortion remains legal in some states with not one but two ominous and unnecessary "for nows." That very much reads like gloating over a partial victory while conceding that overturning Roe didn't result in a full US-wide ban. Your Saloon Bar waffle about "abortion [...] pitting two 'rights' against one another" certainly didn't help. Nope Rocket (talk) 03:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
I know I'm not a popular guy here (or in real life, just tonight my "best friend" abruptly cut me out of her life thanks to her jealous boyfriend or whatever the fuck, so guess if you think I care about my standing here), but it's obvious to me that the edit is a negative comment on how poor women with unwanted pregnancies can no longer access abortions they would otherwise be able to obtain. The negativity is pretty well implied in pointing out this is the case even though it is entirely legal to carry all the steps necessary, an anti-abortion take would've been framed it as being despite said steps being perfectly legal. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Not sure why think sharing that anecdote helps your case. It says a lot, just not what you think it does. Nope Rocket (talk) 03:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
That's because you don't know me, I may not always come off the best in text but I promise IRL I'm not so bad. And my comment on the edit to Roe v. Wade stands unchallenged. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:11, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Duly noting that this isn't the first time that Cory has ran into the issue of being a poor mediator/drama magnet on these issues. I'll say that posting Libs of TikTok is a new low in terms of disinformation though. Makes me question for the next election if he's suited to be a moderator if he's that willing to use crank sources to further a point. Going head first in an edit war is at the very least not helping. -- Techpriest (talk) 11:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
We don't have recall elections when when presidents say stupid things. Unless Cory starts to deny the Holocaust, I don't think we should strip him of his mod powers since he didn't abuse them. Don't like him as a mod? Don't vote for him. I don't think, however, that anything good will come from his interactions with Sorta and Nope Rocket. I would like to propose an interaction ban between them. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 13:00, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
OSD and I have butted heads in the past, and while I'm not sure it's gotten to the point where it's unsalvagebly toxic I would agree we should try to avoid each other. I don't know if an I-Ban is necessary in that case, but if it does continue an I-ban might be the correct solution. CorruptUser 13:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
RW is not the United States government. If RW's system of governance is broken and ineffective, it is entirely feasible for RW as community to change it. There is no reason to take this sort of "What can we do? 🤷" attitude here. And setting Holocaust denial as the bright lineWikipedia is completely untenable. There are many forms of disinformation and bigotry that are less overt but pernicious in their own ways. Vaccine hysteria. COVID denialism. QAnon. Homophobic and transphobic conspiracy theories. Countering disinformation and bigotry is core to RW's mission. And I'm not sure how you would expect me and OSD to contribute to RW while under an interaction ban with a mod. Functionally, that would be like taking out restraining order against a police officer. If the system isn't actually willing to scruntinise and hold its own to account, it's a meaningless bit of theatre that tacitly enables bad-faith actors and disempowers those who complain. Nope Rocket (talk) 13:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
You've been nothing but hostile to me for the past few days. CorruptUser 14:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
For clarity, I do not recommend taking away Cory's mop. I'm with GJK here. Mods don't have the same role here as they do in other communities - they have much less power (and also don't work as a team nearly as much - every mod is free to make their own decisions). They're ultimately beholden to the mob - if Cory were to start banning people he'd disagree with or other stupid shenanigans like accusing random accounts of being people he disagreed with, then we would have a case for that and we have plenty of people capable of getting rid of a rogue power-trippimg moderator. As is, I think he said some really stupid shit in the bar (which I warned about it becoming an issue when he was nominated) and has done a poor showing as a mediator, which are all things that imo make him a bad moderator. That said he's done nothing wrong with his elected powers so his mod status shouldn't be removed. I will probably not vote for him come November because I think he's incompetent for the position (unless something changes), but demopping is very frustrating and imo a step too far. -- Techpriest (talk) 14:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Also, @Nope Rocket we've enacted IBANs on mods before. As you may notice, there's 5 other mods who are perfectly able to handle your cases as needed. IBANs are 2-way, so Cory wouldn't be allowed to interact with or talk about you either. -- Techpriest (talk) 14:23, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Is there such a thing as a temporary Iban? I think OSD and I do need to cool it for a bit, but I'd like to be able to work with him in the future. CorruptUser 14:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
You can always appeal, like you did when you and Oxy were i-banned. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 14:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
CorruptUser: The first time I had engagement with you was when I posted this thread two days ago. In other words, I called attention to a moderator spreading Libs of TikTok hate propaganda through the "official" channel in a constructive, de-personalised way. You attempted to summarily shut down this inquiry as "drama." I voiced my objection. Minutes later, you decided to post on my talk page, completely ignoring my objections. I told you not to post on my talk page. You refused and stated I had made you an "enemy." Sorry that your reality distortion game isn't going to work.
TechPriest: I will no longer contribute to RationalWiki if a person who posts Libs of TikTok hate propaganda is given a free pass and allowed to hold an unchecked position of authority over other users. Something needs to be done. If it isn't RW is as good as admitting that it cares more about providing a safe space for bad actors to spread bigotry and disinformation than retaining constructive contributors working to create encyclopedia content. Nope Rocket (talk) 14:58, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I hate to have him mod for his subpar arguments and conduct (I anti endorsed him and also either left him out of voting or put him dead last) but I don't think he makes most use of the position and doesn't sway policy or voting positions very much so waiting until November to cast him off would be viable. There's not much I can personally do. I tried to vote out moderators based on poor conduct but failed; it's not worth the energy. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 15:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Goodbye Nope Rocket. I guess it's time to take off. Encountering you here has been a paradigm experience. UncleKrampus (talk) 15:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Please, don't fan the flames. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 15:44, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I will try not to do so. Nopey did just write "I will no longer contribute to RationalWiki, if..." We are not, after all, removing Corey, so,... bye.UncleKrampus (talk) 15:49, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Aaaaand the HCM countdown has begun. Great. Just great. This feels like Wisconcom all over again. --Luigifan18 (talk) 15:49, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
There’s really not much reason to keep this mod page case open. Nobody wants to de-mod Cory, so that’s the end of it. Although I hope Cory learns not to do dumbass shit like this anymore. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 16:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
I too, am hoping to not be as much as dumbass in the future. I guess I was the asshole after all. CorruptUser 16:10, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Good Corey. Let's try harder. It is true that Moderators have less power than other admins wrt the assertion of ethical priority. Moderators must seek to encourage an agreeable consummation of arguments.. UncleKrampus (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
My quick 2¢: Cory exercised poor judgement by posting the LOTT video. Yes, I know, "diversity of opinion" and all that, but being a mod of RationalWiki, I feel like that comes with a responsibility to be aware of whether you're posting misinformation. If you aren't willing to do a cursory search to determine whether something shady is misinformation or not, you shouldn't post it. Also, I feel like Cory really should've apologized to OSD for the unfounded accusation, that's on the level of FD's unfounded doxing accusation. Still, I don't think NopeRocket handled this well either, this is an unnecessarily hostile reaction to Cory leaving a helpful comment, and just results in the drama being spread further. Overall, as long as Cory apologizes for their unsubstantiated allegation I'd be willing to settle this with a trout all around, although if these incidents continue I feel action could be taken. While it's not technically against the rules, I feel like RW mods should be held to a higher standard, and if a mod repeatedly posted anti-vax disinformation and stories from RT as if they were fact, it would be a removable offense. Basically, do better next time, CU. Plutocow (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Fair enough. But if we did replace mods, I think you're one of the alts, and you'd have my support.
@OnlySortaDumb. I made a rather vitriolic accusation against you, and that was uncalled for. I was wrong, I went over the line, and will work to do better in the future. CorruptUser 16:43, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Cory's bad judgment has not been with regard to his being a moderator as far as I've observed, so if he were not a moderator, this would still have happened. Not to draw a comparison to Cory here, but I remember hearing that there was once a very bad moderator before my time on RW. The other moderators were able to keep things under control. Bongolian (talk) 16:55, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Cory is a good mod, I think. He just needs to A). think harder before he types, and B). know when it's time to shut the fuck up. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 16:58, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
That's kind of why I brought up the discussion in the first place, asking the other mods if I was being an asshole. I was. CorruptUser 17:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
I agree. In addition, let me say that Corey's folk-morality is fairly consistent with what is ordinarily thought and believed in the wilds of North America, specifically by republicans and independent types. It's hard to be influential when you restrict your attention to your own flock. Make better arguments, avoid capitalizations and red letters. Be a philosopher, but above all, be a real person.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Since Cory has seemingly learned the lesson here, I'd like to withdraw my proposal of iban and if no one has anything else to say, I think we can archive this topic soon. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 17:12, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Nothing has been learned. RW has collectively circled the wagons around a Libs of TikTok promoter because it doesn't want to make the difficult but necessary decision of acknowledging some views are so pernicious that they should preclude someone from holding a position of authority. FReEdDom oF sPeeCh and DiVerSitY of OpInions are valued more than people who actually want to work constructively toward building an encyclopedia. Look at how much me and Chillpilled got done in just a few hours versus the Saloon Bar regulars who seem to do little on RW but tirelessly air their edgelord grievances. Nope Rocket (talk) 17:24, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Mate, look at my userpage, and you'll see that I am one of the wiki-builders. And I agree with the mob here. Cory gets a slap on the wrist and a finger-shake. Some views are pernicious enough to preclude one from being a mod, but Cory isn't someone that rule applies to. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 17:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
I wasn't referring specifically to you, but to people whose only involvement in this affair has been dismissal, heckling, and exonerating Cory. People whose RW activity seems to comprise a lot of talk page agitation with little to no mainspace contributions. Cory promoted Libs of TikTok hate propaganda. This is utterly indefensible. I should know precisely how indefensible it is given that I researched and wrote the LoTT article top-to-bottom. (Well, excepting the lede, TBF.) If RW would rather let edgelords spew bile than retain constructive contributors, well, I can't stop that. I've done what I could to support RW's mission. I can't single-handedly salvage it from a toxic culture sabotaging said mission. Nope Rocket (talk) 17:41, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, LoTT is indefensible... and Cory is no longer defending it. If this were a recurring issue, I'd understand, but for now it's time to move on. Plutocow (talk) 17:51, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
One instance of spreading Libs of TikTok hate propaganda is too many. It doesn't need to happen again. There should be meaningful consequences to ensure it doesn't. But if RW is content to give someone who promotes Libs of TikTok a "slap on the wrist" it is ensuring that it inevitably will happen again. Have fun with that, I guess. Nope Rocket (talk) 18:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
OK. I think it's time to archive.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:50, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Wait, I have some stuff to get off my chest because this is nothing new and I honestly have run out of patience for CU's and Blade's bullshit. I'm tired of pretending CU deserves his position because he doesn't. I've been silently lurking in the Bar (as one does) wnd every time any discussion regarding queer people pops up, CU has to take a big wet shit into it. I'm not gonna engage with Nope Rocket's comments because they're harsh and warranted but also not for this wiki. CU, you need to learn to shut the fuck up about queer people. You are out of your depth. You're a thinly veiled homophobe with bad arguments and even worse moral standards. I hope to God all this bullshit has taught you to keep your mouth shut about this topic in the future. I know you won't, because I took you to ATIM for your transphobia months ago, and asked to end it because I thought it wasn't as big a deal as I initially expected, and that you'd improve over time. You haven't. You've gotten worse. Do better, or stop engaging with queer issues. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 19:05, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Then don't vote for him next time. No offense but Cory's consistent cruddy behavior surrounding trans issues is a big annoyance to me as much as anyone here (I seriously don't think Pluto or LGM fucking likes the fact that Cory keeps walking into this). At the same time he is not hostile about it, he doesn't crud up mainspace and he's not disruptive about it (besides I guess causing ATIM cases which are annoying - Cory next time if you have the feeling that you might be in the wrong, just shut up instead of asking ATIM if you're in the wrong or firing up these issues further - you have a clear massive blind spot on trans issues in general). Nope Rockets comments are emotional and inflammatory. They serve little purpose outside of threatening the mob with their LANCB, which is not an argument that has historically worked if you wanted to get your way here. CU is not getting banned for this for the very simple reason that we don't ban for having shite opinions, we just ban you if you are extremely uncivil, bad-faith and disruptive about it. CU got rebuked hard both here and in the bar, which is as far as I'm concerned the best outcome (especially considering he finally admitted to being wrong - which is one of the few things I do somewhat respect about Cory - he does acknowledge being in the wrong, a rare quality these days. Just wish he'd step on every rake less often. His idiocy isn't bad faith, it's just well, idiocy.) -- Techpriest (talk) 19:53, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Cory's problem is that he tries to be rational about everything, but everything is not rational. When someone is offended for whatever reason one should not expect to find a logical cause for it. If people concerned with trans issues are offended don't expect a deontological explanation for the discomfort, pain, or fear they may be experiencing. Pain and fear are not the products of rationality. Try to be sensitive to feelings as well as deterministic arguments. You are not an idiot. Ariel31459 (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
This problem isn't going away just because RW is collectively too timorous to confront it. I can't force the "mob" to realise that empowering a Libs of TikTok promoter is not only creating a toxic environment but setting itself up for entirely avoidable Chicken Coop/ATIM cases down the line. The only thing I can do is remove myself from a system that tolerates and forgives promotion of extreme anti-LGBT hate propaganda. To vote with my feet, as it were, and take my time and labour elsewhere. Do I need to put the fact that LoTT has incited bomb threats against children's hospitals in flashing letters this time to drive home that this is not simply a low-stakes rhetorical game in which having a bad take merely exposes the nature of one's character? This isn't fucking high-school debate club. The unprecedented rise in anti-LGBT hate and violence is real. Actual people are being hurt. History will not remember complicity through inaction kindly. Nope Rocket (talk)
I agree with Nope Rocket. LGBTQ+ folks are supposed to keep a straight face and be civil when faced with toxic rhetoric. But as soon as they stand up for themselves, their arguments are deemed "emotional and inflammatory" and that "[t]hey serve little purpose" and that voting with your feet "has [not] historically worked". I will be blunt: fuck this wiki. MayGodSaveUsAll (talk) 20:47, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
JFC Cory admitted that LoTT was a bad source and that it made him an asshole to link it. Nope Rocket chose to keep inflaming the matter by threatening a LANCB. Maybe you haven't been here for very long yet but threatening to LANCB in any discussion is going to make people less inclined to listen to what you have to say. Your complaint has been noted. We've confronted it - linking LoTT is no bueno, CU knows that now. If he does it again, drag him back here but you should also assume some good faith. For now I recommend not further escalating it unless you want to risk the community turning on you. -- Techpriest (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
You think I care about fucking respectability politics at this point? You think I care about the possibility I might be shunned by a community that has already thrown LGBT people and allies under the bus to appease reactionary bigots? I volunteered to document bigotry and disinformation by creating articles on this wiki, but I'm not being drafted into an endless struggle against bigotry and disinformation on the wiki itself to do so. This is precisely what you are suggesting when you say we should resign ourselves to "drag [CU] back here" every time he wants to put on his reactionary hat. I'm not "threatening" to leave. I am leaving. That is the cost of this hill the "mob" has chosen to die on. And maybe my departure will spur someone else – someone braver, more patient, less hardened by four decades of bullshit – to stick it out and fight the good fight. Maybe that person will bring about the change that needs to happen. But it won't be me. Nope Rocket (talk) 21:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
I didn't know RW was founded in 1983? You learn something new everyday. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 21:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Right, because RW is the only source of "bullshit" one might ever experience. Nope Rocket (talk) 21:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
I thought it started in 2007.Ariel31459 (talk) 21:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Honestly, continuing to dogpile Cory, or any user, will just make them less cooperative with the mob's wishes. Let's just end this now. Cory did a stupid, and he knows it. If he does it again, we'll yell at him some more. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 21:49, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Point of information: this page is restricted to autopatrolled users. The "fuck this wiki " guy is not an autopatrolled user. Anybody? Ariel31459 (talk) 21:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
You're mixing up autopatrolled with autoconfirmed. This page is restricted to the latter. The requirements for autoconfirmed are listed here. -- Techpriest (talk) 21:55, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. As Arcadium said, I learned something today.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:00, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
We all took a turn yelling at CorruptUser who has been yelled at in the past. If you want to curtail his moderator abilities, vote against his shitty votes. If enough people want to have him shut up ask a plumber to plug the discussion. That's all I can do for this matter. I'm sorry. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 22:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Can't wait for nazi shit to be posted and told "He didn't mean anything by it, stop having a temper tantrum!" Libs of Tiktok is explicitly called out on this site. If I posted to Conserveapida, anyone taking me serious? Another A+ Mask off moment, I suppose. Revolverman (talk) 23:32, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Now that Godwin's Law has been reified, perhaps we can finish here. Ariel31459 (talk) 00:08, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
I think this is the end of the discussion since no one has called for a vote. Bongolian (talk) 01:51, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I think everyone had a bit of catharsis here, or something. Archive away. CorruptUser 03:20, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Machina (yet again)

This dude just came back from a three month ban from the Saloon Bar due to the fact that he constantly edit warred over the collapse templates of his topics, and guess what he just did again? I've lost count of how many times he was warned and blocked over this yet he just comes back and does it again every time. This is just getting ridiculous, and since he clearly isn't getting the professional help he clearly needs, I think a permaban from the Saloon Bar is the only option at this point. We can't keep having this same discussion every three months. Plutocow (talk) 04:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah just ban him from editing Saloon Bar indefinitely. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 05:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, it's endless. Bongolian (talk) 06:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
A Saloon Bar permaban has my approval. Spud (talk) 09:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Hold on, Plutocow just asked to give him a permaban, yet Bongolian already did this 3 hours ago: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=block&user=Bongolian&page=&wpdate=&tagfilter=&subtype=

Why the fuck does this topic even exist? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 09:26, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Pay attention to the timestamps; Bongolian blocked Machina two hours after I posted this topic. Anyway, this is now archived. Plutocow (talk) 17:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Umaru16 (again)

I know some people are going to complain about me taking this to ATIM, but Andrew5 has been taken to ATIM for similar offences before so I feel this is fair. Basically, Umaru16 has been going on a multi-article crusade for a while that originally started with the Hiroshima article but has expanded to anywhere where they feel they can promote their views. They will insert information that is often irrelevant to the article that is there to try to downplay the bombings, and they have a bad habit of saying that their opinion is the opinion of all South Koreans. Inevitably these get reverted, but then Umaru will edit war, and when taken to the talkpage, they won't provide any sources and will ignore any points you bring up in favor of repeating the same two arguments ad nauseum (typically a whataboutism and a claim that what they say is the opinion of all South Koreans). They then continue this until the other person is too tired to continue to argue, and then repeat this process on the next page. I'm getting tired of this, so can someone please ask them to stop? I know that arguments can sometimes be important for improving articles, but Umaru16 never engages with any of my points and no conversation with them ever goes anywhere. I feel they need to be told to at least argue in good faith, because I feel this user is more interested in pushing their perspective onto this wiki than anything else. Plutocow (talk) 04:49, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

@Plutocow Would you suggest a topic ban? Spud (talk) 06:47, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
I think topic ban is unfair. There may be a view that many Koreans agree with among my arguments, but I don't think that's the opinion of all Koreans. However, considering Plutocow's concerns, I will not add the 'Korean view' as it is not a very important part of the Hiroshima article in the future. However, in modern Japanese politics, the Hiroshima issue and Japanese nationalist sentiment are clearly correlated. We should respect each other's opinions if they are acceptable in academia, and we should not censor them because we disagree. Umaru16 (talk) 11:44, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Keiji NakazawaWikipedia, the author of the very famous Barefoot GenWikipedia and an actual exposed individual from Hiroshima, interviewed the South Korean human rights group People's Solidarity for Participatory DemocracyWikipedia (참여연대). He said, "It is natural for Koreans to think of the end of the war or the meaning of liberation in the [atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki] nuclear issue that we think of." (우리가 생각하는 핵 문제에서 한국인이 전쟁의 종식이나 해방의 의미로 생각하는 것은 당연하다.) I brought the source because you said I didn't give the source.# I have no good reason to be subject to topic ban. Umaru16 (talk) 12:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
I think Plutocow's main concern was the fact that you weren't posting sources (which gives the impression that you were using your your own experience as evidence) and the fact that you weren't addressing some of their questions. You did a bit better now, but let's see their answer before archiving this case. That's my opinion so far. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 13:35, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Your source still has the problem of treating one speaker as being representative of an entire group, but that discussion belongs elsewhere. My problem is even when you make promises to improve you go back to your behavior anyway. Your response also seems to ignore some of my problems (your response is basically an appeal to authority, which I've called out multiple times), and you acknowledging my points would go a way to help. Although I don't support a topic ban, I do think it would be wise for Umaru to distance themselves from topics regarding Japanese nationalism for a couple weeks, as they get way too invested in this topic, and work on other areas so they can improve their behavior. I don't want to be in conflict with you, but I want to be sure that you're engaging in good faith. Plutocow (talk) 04:51, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
The only reason Umaru avoided a topic ban vote for previous behavior surrounding the matters of the atomic bomb last time is because they took a willing leave until January this year. I personally advise a topic ban vote. -- Techpriest (talk) 20:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
(EC) I'd actually advise a topic ban here, given that we had a bit of an issue with him over this same topic before.-Flandres (talk) 20:37, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
In that case a topic ban vote is reasonable. For future reference, citing a single individual is perfectly acceptable in some cases, but not others. Acceptable cases (not necessarily exhaustive) would be when the the topic is the individual themself, when it is an individual closely associated with the person, when it is an expert in the field. Bongolian (talk) 23:03, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Can someone post some diff links to the controversy in question? RW resident history guy wants to weigh in. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 23:24, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
I would like to see more explicit reasons for the ban also. The last struggle with PC seems to be over a statement asserting that Koreans were glad to see the atomic bomb was used on Japan. I don't see why it is wrong to say so. The attitudes typical in 1945 are not entirely irrelevant. Those were bloodthirsty times. UncleKrampus (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
I think objection is that it's a hasty generalization, though it would make sense in the historical context. There is the allegation that being critical of the bombing works to reinforce Japanese nationalism (with it's expansionist and anti-Korean elements). This is used to kind of shame PC for having the objection that maybe cooking alive babies with intense ionizing radiation should be seen as a bad thing. Also I don't see the methods or sampling to the link you provided Kramp. Also with the title being "imaginary savior" the link you provided seems to be implying that the Korean view of nuclear bombing is actually mistaken. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 16:12, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
Well, I don't disagree. You are correct in your view of PC. The link is meant to show that at least one social scientist thought that the pro-bomb attitude should be addressed. The modern view is, of course, that such drastic acts were unnecessary and even immoral. That it should be referred to as a psychological effect does not dispose of its reality. I do not here argue for its inclusion, only that there is an underlying tone of denialism, as if to say "don't associate me with the use of atom bombs." And yet it seems to have been an all-too-human behavior.UncleKrampus (talk) 16:33, 27 May 2023 (UTC)°
Retrieved from "https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=RationalWiki_talk:All_things_in_moderation/Archive67&oldid=2556451"