RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive69

This is an archive page, last updated 8 August 2023. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, < List>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>

, (back)

Smith/Kane drama[edit]

It was my former firm opinion that the Emily Willoughby article should be kept but having seen the amount of disruption, conspiracy theories, user misinformation and nonsense written about the article on and off site, I think it might be worth-wile to delete the Emily Willoughby and Jonathan Kane articles. I ported some information onto the Kane article from the Willoughby article but this Kane person doesn't want his article.

Another issue, is the boar account that created the Emily Willoughby article. Smith has emailed me and told me the account is not him and he has filed a lawsuit against the institute that are claiming he owns that account. I am not convinced that the account was ever him. I don't think that account should be blocked as a Smith sock as there is no evidence who owns it.

My suggestion is to delete the Willoughby/Kane article. Smith and Kane should also be banned from this website if they appear on any other accounts. Johns (talk) 17:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

We should not be bullied into deleting our articles. A somebody. (talk) 17:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

This is an idiotic post that only serves to make the trolls believe they are succeeding in drawing our attention.

Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 18:09, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Didn't this Smith guy get banned in a coop a few years ago? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 18:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive110. Bongolian (talk) 19:51, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I oppose deleting the page on the basis that it's attracting trolls (we've had worse, and we can always protect the page if it gets bad). Deleting the page on that basis will only attract others to get their pages deleted on the threat of long-term trolling. Willoughby is missional based on her being a former YEC who wrote a book opposing, creationism and for racialism. Bongolian (talk) 18:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

All this "what others want or don't want" is irrelevant. The article should stand on its own merits or not. It should neither be kept nor deleted based on how happy/unhappy some people or groups are with it.Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

The Willougby article probably need a rewrite (too much wiki drama). However, the Kane article is better balanced, it is still too Wikidrama for my taste, but not so bad. I agree with Bongolian, the most notable thing about both is their book criticizing YEC from two people who were former YECs. With this information, I could filter things better (eg there are other better known Jonathan Kanes such as the Swans drummer) and get plenty of references that shows that this book was reasonably notable and certainly mission oriented. The problem is, as long as dueling asshole trolls are engaged in troll battle, this can't be done in good faith - I also agree that bullies should not drive edits. It's not like the Wikidrama isn't notable enough to mention at all, and it's easy to find blog articles by Cain defending IQ and hereditarianism, so these positions are indeed worth mentioning. BobJohnson (talk) 20:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree. And this discussion would be better on the talk pages.Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 07:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

We have indeed had it much worse in the past from people who didn't like the articles about them. We don't delete them just because they don't like them. We don't bow to trolls. And you can't trust Oliver D. Smith as far as you can throw him. The sockpuppeting little turd loved taking the credit for articles he didn't create when it suited him and denying creating articles he had created when it suited him. Pay no attention to him. Spud (talk) 11:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm glad to see there's a consensus here that the articles need to be modified to reduce the emphasis on Wikipedia drama, and to add more detail about our anti-creationism work. However, nobody seems to actually be doing that, so sometime in the near future I'm hoping to make a few of the necessary changes in the article about myself. I would much rather this be done by someone else, but in light of the discussion above indicating that it needs to be done, I think it's better for me to do it than for it to not happen at all.

Everyone else, you're welcome to get to this before I do. The Smith ipsocks seem to have gone away now, so there likely won't be any more bickering between him and me to get in the way of improving the article. --Tetrapteryx (talk) 09:20, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I am going to be super honest with you again, I do not give a singular damn about your anti-creationism. A somebody. (talk) 18:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

So far, so good. The added part to your article looks fine. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 21:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand why we are even entertaining this. We should only care if the articles in question are factually accurate and relevant to our mission. I don't think we should be putting too much effort into keeping things "balanced" to the satisfaction of the article's subjects. I think that sets a bad precedent as it may leave our audience confused about our community's feelings towards people who promote harmful pseudoscience when we present them as if they have both "good" and "bad" sides. I am much more concerned about the bullshit people peddle then the moments they are a stopped clock. Being "anti-creationist" should not be something we treat as novel and worth as much attention as someone being a promotor of racist pseudoscience. This sets a pretty low bar about the acceptability of someone's views. I wouldn't want us adding to every grifter's ratwiki page how they dunked on flat earthers for a period of time; as if believing in a globe earth is not utterly normal and trivial. You believe in evolution? Congratulations on having basic scientific literacy. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 22:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Your point is a bit contradictory, and I think this is a false dilemma. Firstly, allowing mentions of positive stuff relevant to our mission alongside negative stuff relevant to our mission in no way goes against your, "We should only care if the articles in question are factually accurate and relevant to our mission.". Secondly, there is a distinction to be made between balance and inclusion to our own standards (per discussion and consensus) and to the personal standards of the people described in articles; a partial agreement between the two in the midst of a disagreement does not imply having to bend backwards towards a full agreement. Thirdly, mainspace articles do not exist primarily to express one feeling each, and ideally ideas, and straightening out what is, should be cared about more than the people, whether the people are agreeable or disagreeable. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 00:11, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I am trying to say that “moral balance” for the satisfaction of the subjects being written about can undermine our missional aims and mere factual accuracy. Not every “praisable” skeptical thing a person does needs substantial focus. We are about documenting crank ideas, and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement, with a touch of exploring authoritarianism, fundamentalism, etc. We also communicate science, and topics relevant to critical thinking as all scientifically skeptical communities tend to do. That is something we should do, though not explicit in our 4 main goals. There is a problem though when the pseudoscientific promoters (especially hateful ones) are granted significant influence to how they are presented. We aren’t talking a mere character flaw here, this isn’t pseudoscience as asinine or harmlessly silly as flat earth. We shouldn’t be treating racialism, and hereditarianism as if they mere “controversies” of a man who promotes anti-creationism. This is pseudoscience we need to refute, that is our main goal, that should be our main focus. This can easily be undermined if the significance of the pseudoscientific claims are downplayed in praise of some relatively minor skeptical virtues. Creationism is a joke, its not particularly praisworthy to reject it, in so much, it is simply absurd to believe in it. Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:49, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

The argument others were making here and elsewhere is that if it weren't for my anti-creationism work, I simply wouldn't be notable enough for RationalWiki to cover at all. The "Hereditarianism" section of the article includes a quote showing that I argued against calling Rushton a racist on Wikipedia fourteen years ago (the diff is from 2009). That comment isn't even reflective of my current opinions. And as I explained on the article's talk page, the "Quillette" section is based entirely on a misrepresentation of the Wikipediocracy thread that's cited there; nobody in that thread (or anywhere else, aside from on RationalWiki pages) is arguing that I and Shuichi Tezuka are the same person.

The one thing that does make me notable is the fact that I'm a former creationist who's become a critic of creationism. That's basically the entire reason the article was allowed to be recreated, despite a previous consensus that it should stay deleted as an attack page created as part of the Smith drama. My understanding of the consensus is that, since my anti-creationism work is what makes me notable enough to be the subject of an article, the contents of the article ought to reflect that. --Tetrapteryx (talk) 02:44, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

The thing that makes you notable is inclusion in the Racialism categories. No one gives too much of a shit about the wikipedia drama or whether or not you are Shuichi Tezuka, and certainly, everyone in the fucking universe is tired of the smith drama.^{[citation NOT needed]} The article bearing your name reflects the consensus of the editors here and the sources they use. This will evolve over time, but this is normal. Get used to it. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 04:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

UTC)

Racialism, “human biodiversity”, “race realism”, or whatever people want to call it is nothing more than retarded pseudoscience that only exists to justify evil. Its proponents are either morons or bad people, and they deserve that to be their primary legacy.

Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 05:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

@Tetrapteryx If you're an ex-racist and an ex-creationist without much of a media presence, then there probably shouldn't be a RationalWiki article about you at all. I'll warn you that any attempt to turn that article into a puff piece and use it for self-promotion will not be tolerated. Spud (talk) 08:54, 23 July 2023 (UTC) ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Just cover Kane's anti-creationist activities in a stopped clock section of his article. Carthage (talk) 11:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

The Emily Willoughby has been updated and will be kept. I believe the Jonathan Kane article should be deleted. I apologize for re-creating the article from a redirect. It's probably best to flush the article and just redirect it to the Willoughby one. The reason I re-created it was because I was trying to expand on Quillette authors. It's obvious to me that Shuichi Tezuka is Kane (apart from writing in Quillette he's also published an anti-creationist paper citing Emily Willoughby research [1]) but he doesn't want to be identified under his pseudonyms. Per this conversation [2], it's likely that Kane was also the Wikipedia user Gardenofaleph because he has been promoting a weird theory on Wikipedia and RationalWiki that an account NightHeron is Emil Kirkegaard. I agree with Cosmikdebris I don't think anyone here cares about this Wikipedia wars drama. In regard to the old consensus about deleting the Kane article it should be discarded because D/EK were the same person and a personal friend of Kane on discord. So there is conflict of interest and socking there. I will open up a new deletion request for Kane's article. Johns (talk) 16:47, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Kiwi farmer is a sysop here[edit]

Moderators and others might want to take a look at this: User talk:AAE#Warning. AAE apparently admitted to transphobic shitposting on Kiwi Farms under a different name. I took a cursory look at AAE's trans-related edits on RW, but I didn't see anything overtly transphobic. Bongolian (talk) 02:03, 31 July 2023 (UTC) The evidence links given on that page:[3][4] Bongolian (talk) 03:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Until just now I had no idea that User: AAE existed, although I now see that they've been here since 2014.

If it were entirely up to me, I'd just ban AAE here and now. As things are, I think they should be stripped of sysop rights. Spud (talk) 05:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

As a general rule we have usually only taken action against people for things they have done on this site. This is sorta covered by our privacy standards Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 06:04, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps those rules should be updated. Carthage (talk) 06:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Go ahead and ban me. I'm trans myself and have a history of self-deprecation. Had no idea the thread would get huge. (I also didn't use the six-letter T-slur when I started it, and my OP had been partially changed. But still, that doesn't excuse the fact that I'm indirectly responsible for so much harassment towards fellow TGNC folks) My contributions to KF are hypocrisy in the literal and figurative sense. And I want nothing to do with the Kiwi Farms and am deeply regretful for what I started. I am going to make a clean break from KF since their radicalization had been hitting me. I don't know what to do. At the very least I'm stepping down from Sysop. I think I have some kind of DID/MPD. AAE (talk) 08:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Since AAE requested it, I have gone ahead and removed their sysop status. Not put them in sysoprevoke, just removed their sysop status. Spud (talk) 12:24, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

This person hasn't been disruptive here as far as I'm aware. Fully support removing their sysop rights, but I'm not sure if we should ban them right now. GeeJayK ^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 15:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Actually, since they've asked, maybe we should ban them. GeeJayK ^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 15:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘We generally have not punished people for off-site behavior. On AAE's talk page, AAE stated, "i request removal of my sysop privileges at the least". I'm fine with that, but I'm not so sure that a ban is necessary at this point. Bongolian (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

And in spite of what I said early, and considering that this is mobocratic RationalWiki and not my own private fiefdom, I don't think a ban is the right thing to do right now either. Spud (talk) 16:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that's fine. This person is not even very active. GeeJayK ^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 16:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

What happened offsite happened, well, offsite. If there is evidence that they engaged in harassment or doxing of RW users, then there may be a case, but otherwise there's nothing really actionable here. Plutocow (talk) 16:27, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

This user seems to be bringing their Kiwi Farms drama to RationalWiki [5]. I believe some of what the IP posted there is probably true, it seems AAE is impersonating someone called Natalie. The account appears to be a troll/impersonation account associated with the Farms. I would support a block. Johns (talk) 19:46, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Natalie Wynn is the Youtuber Contrapoints. Carthage (talk) 20:04, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm also leaning towards ban at this point due to 1) apparent insincerity and 2) bringing Kiwi Farms drama to RW. Bongolian (talk) 23:53, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Vote on permabanning AAE[edit]

This vote has been closed. Please do not add, remove or change votes.
The result of this vote was: AAE is permabanned by an 8-3 margin.

Yes[edit]

While I don't think we should ban people for offsite drama, this person seems relatively known outside the Wiki, and having a notorious transphobic troll in our middle does not reflect well on our image. GeeJayK ^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 12:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
This user is heavily involved with Kiwi Farms and attacking trans. They are also involved with impersonation and other drama that has come to the Wiki, so this is not just an off-site issue. Johns (talk) 15:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, KF scum. Also, the BoN edits show that this person was still active after leaving, despite her saying otherwise. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 17:35, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Bringing drama from other sites here and AAE's insincerity has made AAE's continued appearance on RW untenable. Bongolian (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Probably for the best. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 18:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, they're full of shit. They posted transphobic crap on that website four days ago. Normally I wouldn't even care about stuff that happened offsite (besides doxing and other extreme exceptions like that), but why lie to us? Plutocow (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
I don't think we should associate in any way with people who openly participate in such a vile place as kiwi farms. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 22:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
They're most likely mocking us on kiwi farms already. Rational Dude (talk) 00:05, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

No[edit]

Despite the strange and somewhat trollish behavior (mostly off-site), their activity here appears usually constructive. A skim of their edits showed 2017 contributions (e.g.) to the Kiwi Farms page indicating their potentially complex relationship to the site. Removing sysop privileges was probably appropriate however as a precaution. Chillpilled (talk) 13:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
I don't like banning people for offsite drama ←§ Edward the eight (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
When somebody can post evidence showing what this editor has done wrong here I will be all for a ban here.Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 17:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

I left this as a simple yes/no vote for permaban, firstly because lesser penalties would probably be meaningless given the user's low activity and secondly because the main question here is whether this person is to be considered persona non grata. Plutocow (talk) 03:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm going to have to stay in the goat zone for now. At least nobody can say that we have a Kiwi Farmer as a sysop anymore. Spud (talk) 15:07, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Right now I'm leaning towards no, but if someone could provide evidence that they are being deceptive about how much and how recently they have used Kiwi Farms, I might reconsider. Plutocow (talk) 17:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Other ex-Kiwi Farms members have been contributors here before. I don't like banning someone on anonymous random accusations being made through a TorGuard VPN IP, particularly if the user seems remorseful. Sysoprevoke is fine, but I'd like to see what makes this case special for a ban. ^{— Unsigned, by: BobJohnson / talk / contribs}
AAE admitted to this behavior, so it's not just a case of anonymous opinion (hence guilt confirmed). AAE observed continuing this behavior on a KW-adjacent site[6] (hence insincerity). Bongolian (talk) 20:18, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

This and this, the latter of which is from 9 months ago, combined with their recent low activity on CWCiki tell me they may be somewhat sincere. The ContraPoints impersonation is strange and is the thing making me question them, but ultimately could be explained by any number of things (maybe that's one of their "DID personalities", maybe they're trying to troll KF, who knows, don't see how it's very troublesome for us though at current). I get why using a site you hate could be addicting, a lot of 4chan users are this way. Chillpilled (talk) 21:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I tried to look through the Kiwi Farms links the BoN provided for evidence, but their servers are so shitty that I couldn't even access the site. Plutocow (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

So, you think that using the word "Troon" is normal, then? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 21:39, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Based on their CWCiki essay about CWC's gender, seems like they were using that to fit in over there. (Quote from the essay I'm referring to: "It is my personal belief that Chris is a genuine trans woman, a 'troon' if you prefer. She just has some obstacles that not all trans women have to face.") It's an internalized discrimination case certainly, which is unfortunately common enough these days that I do run into this occasionally. And among those, I've seen a lot worse. Chillpilled (talk) 22:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps it's a case of emotional suicide-by-metaphorical-cop? Carthage (talk) 22:25, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

A Somebody[edit]

Permabanned four or five users without community support. This is clearly abuse of sysop tools. I've stripped them of his privileges (which I gave in the first place). I stand by my actions, but if the community disagrees, we can give them back. GeeJayK ^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 16:32, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

My bannings were of either people who really should have been banned long ago, or of vandals. And you are just doing this because you are salty pulled out that Mussolini quote on Keynes. A somebody. (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, it's still abuse. And I don't even know which quote you're talking about. GeeJayK ^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 16:38, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Do you really think a transphobe should be existing and editing on our wiki? A somebody. (talk) 16:38, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

No, I don't, but that's for the mob to decide. They've decided not to ban those. We don't unilaterally ban people here, especially when coop cases decide that only a long block is enough. GeeJayK ^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 16:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Plutocow banned a self proclaimed pedophile a few months ago in October 2022, and yet you are not yelling at them for doing that unilateral ban. A somebody. (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

1 That pedo was dead, they banned them because there was no reason for that account to remain unblocked (someone could hack that account, for instance). 2 I gave you a pass for the first cases of sysop abuse. 3 whataboutism. GeeJayK ^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 16:45, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

So why are you yelling at me? Because all of the accounts that I have banned were long, long dead. A somebody. (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Personally I think that our policies should be revamped, they reflect a libertarian ethos that allows for harmful agents to exist here and should really have been updated a long time ago. Also yeah, this really seems to be bothering by the book considering none of the accounts A. somebody banned were active anymore. If they were still active it'd be prudent for them to be brought into the Coop or ATIM, but they're not here. I don't think this deserves anymore than a warning, although I personally have no problems with A. somebody's actions. Carthage (talk) 16:53, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

(ec)There are a couple of other reasons why I banned that account; firstly, because Larson's original account User:Tisane was banned, so they were guilty of ban evasion. Secondly, having an admitted pedophile on the site can lead to legal issues, and just makes our site look bad besides. Plutocow (talk) 16:55, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I meant, the guy was dead, he's name is Nathan Larson. I'm yelling at you because you're banning people without community support and that's not how we do things here. GeeJayK ^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 16:53, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I was not talking about Nathan Larson. A somebody. (talk) 16:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, I don't know who are you talking about then, but that's still whataboutism. GeeJayK ^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 16:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I was talking about user:Ukuphendukela, who i'm 80% sure is a different pedophile than Nathan Larson. A somebody. (talk) 16:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, the potential legal issues are enough to keep that guy banned. Banning pedophiles is something that every site with half-decent moderation does, so I'm not sure that's the best comparison to your case. Plutocow (talk) 17:03, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

If potential legal issues is why he got banned, why didn't the moderation of this site ban him when he first came to this site? A somebody. (talk) 17:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Because this was more than 10 years ago, when this site was an anti-conservapedia caricature (they ban everyone, we allow everyone!). Now we're all post-Conservapedia. Not that the fact that they were wrong 10 years ago means you're not wrong now. GeeJayK ^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 17:09, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

he came in this site in 2015, that is not over a decade ago. A somebody. (talk) 17:10, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Ok, you're trolling. GeeJayK ^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 17:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I am not a troll, I am simply stating factual information that you can find. A somebody. (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Not acknowledging that you were wrong and saying things are are completely in the weeds are even worse than the fact that you've abused your sysop privileges. GeeJayK ^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 17:19, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I didn't know that we were in 2026 already! A somebody. (talk) 17:20, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Be a model user and you'll get your tools back. Complaining here isn't going to do it.UncleKrampus (talk) 17:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

GayJayK removed my moderation powers for an unjust reason, and when I pointed out why it was unjust, he just claimed 'whataboutism' and that banning a transphobe, a few vandals, a far-right red-baiter, and a libertaryan is unjust. A somebody. (talk) 17:27, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

As I said, I was going to give you your user rights back if you realized that you were wrong and you couldn't have blocked these people since they were acquitted by the community. Not anymore. Also, calling me "gay" is not doing you any favors. GeeJayK ^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 17:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I am deeply sorry for calling you gay, it was a complete accident. A somebody. (talk) 17:34, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

UncleKrampus, you don't desysop someone either without community consensus or other justification either, you should know that.

Seems like there are two issues:

A) Why the fuck was Bezzle permabanned by A Somebody? I don't see a reason at a quick glance.

B) Why the fuck did that, even if wrong, justify a demop by GeeJayK? BobJohnson (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

A) Far-right red baiter.

B) I don't know, probably Because I got into a nasty debate with him on the Criticism of socialism talk page. A somebody. (talk) 17:32, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

(EC) A sysop can promote another when they're abusing their privileges. This has happened many times before. GeeJayK ^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 17:34, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, I would like to note that there was no community consensus on removing my sysop powers, GeeJayK did it completely on his own on a reason that falls apart once you look a little bit deeper. A somebody. (talk) 17:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Community consensus is needed to ban people, not for remove the mop of someone who's abusing their rights. Again, the fact that you can't understand why you're wrong here is part of the problem. I even said that, if the community disagrees, we can give you your mop back, that was necessary from stop you from banning people, even if they were old accounts. GeeJayK ^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 17:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

A Somebody, really? Where's your evidence?

And no, GeeJayK, from what I've seen, usually people take it to ATIM first to get "promoted" consensus. Aside from the Bezzle ban I have no idea what "abusing their privileges" you are talking about. In fact, I consider weakly justified demops "abuse of privilege", so you need to come up with something better. One bad ban is hardly justification in my book. BobJohnson (talk) 17:42, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

A somebody just made one questionable ban today. I do feel like this is a situation that could've been handled without unilaterally promoting them, even if GJK as a moderator technically has the right to do so. Plutocow (talk) 17:44, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

(EC) @BobJohnson It wasn't just one ban. From my account, this was fourth time at least. If it was the first time, I wouldn't have bothered. Onced again I'll say, I don't mind giving them the mop back, as long as they realize they can't just ban people. GeeJayK ^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 17:46, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Do you disagree with the banning of Transphobes, libertaryans, and vandals? A somebody. (talk) 17:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I've alrady said that I don't, but what I think is not important, the community consensus is. Just say you won't do this again and I'll give you your mop back. GeeJayK ^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 17:49, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think I needed community Consensus is ban some guy named AVERAGEJOE831 who is replacing half of the donald trump page with the word 'penis' A somebody. (talk) 17:50, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Those weren't the guys you were banning and you know it. GeeJayK ^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 17:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

you're right, most of my bans were some IPs doing vandalism. But the bans you really got up in arms about were the transphobe, libertaryan, and the far-right red-baiter. that REALLY makes you angry for some reason. A somebody. (talk) 17:53, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

(EC)Because GeeJayK clearly utterly hates me, I would like to request my sysop powers back. A somebody. (talk) 17:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

(EC)Ok, so, supposing I give you your sysop rights, you'll still ban people that were acquitted by the community? GeeJayK ^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 17:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean 'acquitted' by the community? Do you just mean yourself? Is that what you mean? A somebody. (talk) 17:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

No, by ATIM and Chicken Coop, for instance. Also, I don't care about you any more than I care about any 4chan troll, get a grip. GeeJayK ^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 17:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

If you are going to keep calling me troll even when I'm fucking not, I will call you by your preferred name: Benito Gee. A somebody. (talk) 17:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

A Somebody, where is your evidence for that account was a "red-baiter"... and more importantly, why the fuck should we care? Mere "political differences" is not reason enough to permaban someone. BobJohnson (talk) 18:55, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

That account's edits on Salvador Allende are... not good, to say the least. It's not bad enough to be worth banning over though, especially as they have not been here in years. Plutocow (talk) 19:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

They are indeed of poor quality, but we don't ban people for that. GeeJayK ^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 19:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Al.so, for anyone reading this, please, read the whole thread before making any judgment regarding this case. See A Somebody's behavior and maturity (or the lack of if) before giving them their mop back. GeeJayK ^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 18:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC) ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Also, I never called you a troll. I said you were trolling on that Larson conversation and that you are as relevant to me as a troll. Call me a fascist again and I will open a coop case against you. GeeJayK ^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 18:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

(ec)A somebody's behavior is pathetic but I do feel like you escalated the situation by desysoping them when they weren't being an active problem. Also, comparing them to a 4chan troll was also a little uncalled for. Plutocow (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

A somebody also changed Epic Games ban settings to permabanned, despite this user's last contribution being on the 24th of February last year and that the mob decided to give them 3 months in this ATIM case. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

You are right, on the desysoping part, that was a mistake, but look at their behavior now. That's a lot worse. And again, I didn't called him a 4chan troll., I just said that I care about him as much as I care about one. GeeJayK ^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 18:09, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

(EC) I'll just quote our blocking policy here.

Duration Sysops should almost always try to avoid blocking for long periods of time, such as year-long or infinite blocks. It is very unlikely that a block of more than a few days will ever be necessary, because most vandals just get bored after waiting for a few days and forget about RationalWiki.
When a sysop is in the blocking window, a sysop can see the block history of the person being blocked. If somebody is a repeat offender, then the duration of the block can acceptably be increased.
Non-obscene human vandals can be blocked for up to 1 day, depending on how annoying their edits are.
Obscene human vandals can be blocked for up to 1 month, depending on how hateful/illegal/disgusting their edits are.
Vandal Bin
RationalWiki has a special feature called the vandal bin. Sysops can put vandals into a special list which limits them to 1 edit per 30 minutes, thus discouraging them from doing further damage. This allows RationalWiki to restrict the abilities of vandals, while still allowing them the opportunity to edit the wiki (and maybe even contribute) should they have a change of heart. The vandal bin is very effective at making malicious editors get bored and go away.
Vandalbinning IP addresses and using the autoblock feature is discouraged because those IPs will remain in the bin forever (that is, until somebody notices and takes them out), and this could potentially affect innocent users in the future. Using short blocks for IPs is preferred.

That should explain how A Somebody abused their tools. Although, again, I've already admited that removing their user rights was a mistake (though their behavior is making me changing my mind). Also, let's keep in mind that this person didn't block only one person, but several, without reviewing our guidelines. GeeJayK ^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 19:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The criteria for sysop on this website is too weak. A Sombody created their account at the end of May. They have hardly been on RW for 2 months, they have created no articles and not made any good edits in main space. Users should have to prove themselves. Create 5 good articles then be given sysop status. New users are being given these tools far too easily. Johns (talk) 19:38, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@Johns I wouldn't support that. The only way to enforce that is to have sysopship be granted by for example the mods and thus making it a big deal, compared to our current decentralized way. I think the current system works fairly well, if they abuse sysop it doesn't take long for them to lose it anyway. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 14:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I would like to note that I am not the only person not following blocking policy, if annoying vandals are supposed to only get one day, then Spud has broken the rule by permabanning an annoying vandal (sun is fun). A somebody. (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Also GeeJayK again, hates me and blocked me for a bullshit reason. A somebody. (talk) 20:19, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

(ec)Spud only blocked that vandal for 3.6 days. Still, I do agree that the blocking policy is a little outdated in that regard, in that the community has come to the understanding that it's not worth litigating every single troll or vandal and that the vandal bin only reduces the frequency of bad behavior and does not prevent it. Plutocow (talk) 20:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

How old are you? Whining is not an effective strategy. It seems you think you should be treated the same as everyone including well-respected moderators. I don't know where that happens. I suppose we could start. My own opinion is that sysops should only ban vandals. People who come here to practice censorship are wasting everyone's time.UncleKrampus (talk) 20:25, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

You are the one whining about censorship. Not me. A somebody. (talk) 20:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

That reminds me, Peewee Herman passed away today. RIP UncleKrampus (talk) 20:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

why are you saying Rest in peace over a man who was convicted of having child pornography in 2002? A somebody. (talk) 20:32, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

It's just something a guy says, like "Why, I'll pound you!" You know...I hope.UncleKrampus (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I have some bad news and also censorship my ass. A somebody. (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Now I think I should be given my Sysop powers back. I still think that GeeJayK did it solely because he hates me. A somebody. (talk) 22:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

You give yourself too much credit, don't you? I don't hate randoms on the Internet, I have a life outside RW. I've already said a couple of times, I am willing to give you your sysop rights back if you acknowledge your mistake and make a commitment that you will not abuse your tools from now on. You still haven't. That being said, if someone wants to give them back to you, I won't oppose either. GeeJayK ^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 22:19, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not opposed per se to giving them their tools back, but I would like to see more constructive edits from them in the future. Carthage (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

you started this whole mess by removing my sysop powers, you made it worse by calling me a troll and blocking me for the mildest nickname I have ever created. A somebody. (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Your refusal to admit that permabanning random accounts is improper conduct for a sysop doesn’t make me want to see your mop returned.

Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 22:25, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Do you believe that transphobes, far-right red baiters, and libertaryans should be allowed on this wiki? A somebody. (talk) 22:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I've said before that I personally don't have a problem with your actions, but as our guidelines currently stand you can't ban someone without community consensus. I think this calls for a warning at the most, and if this behavior is continued we could consider other disciplinary options. Carthage (talk) 22:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ A. Somebody keeps reverting my contribution to WIGO Blogs. I think until they learn to engage constructively with the community they shouldn't have mop. Carthage (talk) 23:50, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

That blog was not posted in July 2023. A somebody. (talk) 23:53, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

So? The literal statement is "for all things interesting or relevant to RW's mission." Carthage (talk) 23:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Now they're vandalizing my user page and reverting my comments on their talk page. Carthage (talk) 00:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

YOU FUCKING STARTED IT YOU PIECE OF SHIT! A somebody. (talk) 00:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Have a snickers, buddy. Carthage (talk) 00:49, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I have changed my mind, GeeJayK was completely right and your neocolonialism is pure and utter bullshit. A somebody. (talk) 00:50, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Carthage (talk) 00:52, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

'HEIL HITLER! HEIL HITLER! HEIL HITLER!'-Carthage when asked what their favorite political leader is. A somebody. (talk) 00:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

1) I'm not a he and 2) thanks for more contributions to the peanut gallery. Carthage (talk) 00:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

You would happily push the Jews into the gas chambers. A somebody. (talk) 00:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm starting to think a ban is more appropriate than a warning or a temporary loss of rights. To think all of this could've been avoided if you just owned up to admitting a mistake... Carthage (talk) 00:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

This started because you cannot admit that the abolishment of slavery and feudalism is good, you cannot admit that democracy is good because you are a neo-reactionary neo-nazi. A somebody. (talk) 00:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

and you DEFINITELY fucking knew about my anger issues. A somebody. (talk) 01:00, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, buddy ol' pal, no I fucking didn't and no I'm fucking not on all three of those counts. I also have anger issues. That's not an excuse for being an ass. You misgendered me, y'know, like an ass. Carthage (talk) 01:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

you are a poor liar. A somebody. (talk) 01:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ This is my first contribution to that shitshow of a thread for inquiring minds btw:

Removing ableist language and accurately describing the revolt in the Vendée as a counterrevolution doesn't equate to whitewashing. Wikipedia calls it a counterrevolution ([1]). That being said, yeah the violent crushing of the Vendée revolt was an example of revolutionary terror (almost as if terror is a political tactic used to crush dissent a la the violent oppression of the Loyalists during the American Revolution). Also Robbespiere was a historical liberal, remember at this time liberalism was an extremist ideology that advocated for the violent overthrow of feudalism. I disagree that this is whitewashing. Just call him a liberal dictator, historically speaking that's not an oxymoron. Napoleon was also a liberal dictator, just not a revolutionary one.

Does that look like advocating for slavery and feudalism to you? Carthage (talk) 01:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

you are using leftist language to hide your true leanings. A somebody. (talk) 01:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Spoken like a true conspiracy theorist. Do you wear tinfoil as an everyday fashion accessory? Carthage (talk) 01:12, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Defending the aristocracy, Leftistly. A somebody. (talk) 01:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

English, motherfucker! Do you speak it?! Seriously though, are you an idiot? Carthage (talk) 01:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Bevorzugen Sie hitlers sprache nazi? A somebody. (talk) 01:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

And besides it's exactly what you are doing, you are defending the pre-revolution aristocracy in leftist language. A somebody. (talk) 01:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

"The slaughter of counterrevolutionaries is necessary to defend the revolution." Spoken like a true left-of-center liberal. Carthage (talk) 01:19, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I said i was to the left of the center, I never said I was a left-liberal. A somebody. (talk) 01:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

What political arena are you to the left of center of? Stalinist Russia? Carthage (talk) 01:25, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Lol no. Stalinist russia was bad and committed ethnic cleansing. A somebody. (talk) 01:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

You do realize this advocacy for mass murder (I highly doubt the peasantry were tyrants and aristocrats) makes you sound like a tankie, right? Carthage (talk) 01:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

The counter-revolutionaries were again far worse, the catholic church was far worse, and as such the Revolutionaries were fight. Also A Tankie wouldn't call Stalinist Russia bad, and Modern day china horrific. So no, not everyone you dislike is a tankie get a better word. A somebody. (talk) 01:31, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

The irony here is thick. Not everyone you dislike is a Nazi, get a better word. Carthage (talk) 01:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I mean you are a nazi, that has been proven time and time again with your obsession with international banking. A somebody. (talk) 01:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

So Franz Fanon was a Nazi despite being a black anticolonial writer. Good to know. Carthage (talk) 01:51, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Here's a diff of them misgendering me Carthage (talk) 01:41, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I am deeply sorry for misgendering you and will try to do better in the future. A somebody. (talk) 01:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

A somebody is acting like such an asshole by trolling their ATIM that I would honestly be willing to advocate for a three week ban. Plutocow (talk) 01:52, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I AM NOT A FUCKING TROLL! A somebody. (talk) 02:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Based on this exchange, no, you shouldn't be getting sysop back. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 02:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Blocked A Somebody for a bit for blanking the Salon. Sigh.

And Carthage, please stop as well. BobJohnson (talk) 02:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

WHOA. I was going to comment a few hours ago but had to attend to something else at the last minute...things seem to have escalated a little. We have been given no reason to think sysoprevoking A Somebody was a bad idea.-Flandres (talk) 02:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Maybe A somebody. was not consciously trolling, but simply stuck in a blind temper tantrum. If so, such a lack of impulse control is also good reason to withhold sysop. As for Carthage, if you see where some repetitive dead-end exchange is going in an increasingly heated way, better stop baiting (taking that initiative as the person with more impulse control), by no longer responding/feeding it. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 02:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

(EC) For others puzzled by the way this escalated, some tension seems to have spilled over from Talk:French Revolution. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 03:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

That clarifies it a bit. But perhaps it's a funnier read not knowing that.Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 04:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

they started it with their bullshit! A somebody. (talk) 03:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore, I consider that Carthage must be destroyed. A somebody. (talk) 03:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Bro, calm the fuck down.

Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 04:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

In fairness… 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 04:12, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Though on the other hand. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 04:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Bro is affected by the cognitohazardous effects of SCP-2513.

Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 04:19, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

The 4th Punic War is upon us. Time to resurrect Hannibal. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Sysoprevoke[edit]

So based on this user's conduct, including vandalizing another user's personal page, I don’t think this user should be trusted with a mop at any point in the foreseeable future. Sysoprevoke is appropriate and should be voted on. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 05:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Also pi-week block for disruption such as blanking large talk page content in the midst of a dispute,[7] general trolling,[8] complete unwillingness to cooperate with other users,[9] and also for threatening to feud/combat with other users.[10][11], and violating Godwin.[12][13][14]. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 06:09, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

For my part I may have taken things a little too far (I'm a stubborn bitch who has a problem letting things go) but this all did start when I quite reasonably pointed out that pointless slaughter isn't necessary to enact positive social change. In the future I'll endeavor not to interact with this user, seeing as how they're clearly not here in good faith and whatnot. Carthage (talk) 06:18, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Duce and LGM. Spud (talk) 08:52, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I've had trouble with this user a while back, so I know all too well that they won't stop. Rational Dude (talk) 10:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

+1 to sysoprevoke, when we votin'? Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 15:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Carthage has extremely... idiosyncratic views, and does butt heads, but so far I don't see what she's done that's particularly egregious as far as this wiki goes. I could be wrong, but even if Somebody has the more "sane" views Somebody's not able to express them in a "sane" manner. CorruptUser 17:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks... I think? Carthage (talk) 17:21, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Basically, I'm saying you have fringe views, but I can still work and/or get along with you, whereas Somebody's views might be more mainstream but doesn't seem to be someone that can work well with others when there's the inevitable disagreement. Take from that what you will. CorruptUser 17:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Somebody was literally arguing that the Reign of Terror was a good thing and that if you deny this that must mean you're a Neo-Nazi. I was arguing that pointless slaughter isn't necessary for positive social change, and is in fact arguably counterproductive to revolutionary efforts. I don't know what's fringe about that. Anyways, yeah I recognize some of my views aren't necessarily in line with the majority (albeit that doesn't make it wrong, as for example my argument on the Founding Fathers talk page for is philosophically sound and based off of empirical evidence that the Founders were non-state actors who engaged in political violence), but in this particular case I don't really see what I argued as being fringe or unpopular in anyway. Carthage (talk) 18:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok, if Somebody was literally advocating for mass murder, well, that's not exactly sane. As for the founding fathers, which is off-topic but w/e, I think you were trying to equivocate George Washington with the Taliban and other conventional terrorists, while ignoring that this was occurring in the pre-Geneva Convention era where the rules of war were simply "win or die", they were fighting a force who outright declared any of the rebel leaders would be tortured to death in the most gruesome manners the British had developed (hung/drawn/quartered), Democratic institutions and other methods of resolving grievances were unavailable at the time, and of course ignoring that the end-goal (and result) of Washington was a society with far more rights than before rather than most terrorists' casus belli being that society allowed too many rights. You should be able to understand why a regular joe might see your view as a tad eccentric. CorruptUser 19:46, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I think you unintentionally catch the crux of the issue. From the POV of the established authorities the American Revolutionary movement absolutely was a campaign of anti-establishment terror and insurgency. If the Brits had won we would be discussing the Founders in a very different light. Remember, as our own article points out, and as I said many times on the talk page, terrorism is a value judgement ultimately that can be and has been applied to many movements including movements seeking national liberation and political separation. I "equivocate" the Founders to these movements because they were non-state actors engaging in political violence with a political goal. That is the academic definition of terrorism. They only received international recognition as a state in 1783/1776 depending on which definition of statehood you're using, after the Revolutionary movement began. So yes, I can see why the average person would view my arguments as fringe despite them being discussed and taught even in college lecture halls and whatnot. Doesn't mean it's wrong, and to argue that because it's unpopular it's wrong is a logical fallacy we cover on this wiki. Carthage (talk) 15:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

What muddies the water on "terrorism" is that some nations, probably inappropriately, throw around the definition well beyond "organization that primarily terrorizes citizens". You mentioned the PLO, for instance, in that thread. Most nations actually do not consider the PLO a terrorist organization; I think only Israel, the United States, and Britain (for a short time) have done so. The PLO has not been "squeaky clean" by any means, but it's hard to argue that the PLO primarily exists to terrorize citizens. Very few countries from what I can tell likewise classified the Provisional Irish Republican Army (Britain, but did anyone else?) as a terrorist organization. I would say similar; while by no means was the IRA "squeaky clean", their primary purpose was resistance to British rule, not terrorizing citizens.

If I had to guess (and this is speculative), if "modern geopolitics" was applied to the American Revolution, yes, Britain would throw the "terrorism" label on some of the Revolutionary orgs like Sons of Liberty. No one nation, however, probably would. You'd have to do the same sort of speculative what-if with any other resistance movement, like the Bolshevik and the French Revolution and whatnot. It would be an exercise that gets incredibly speculative and incredibly messy. BobJohnson (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

The US did, but yeah it's why I removed the terrorism label to begin with. Yeah the word "terrorism" has become increasingly muddled in recent years, no thanks to the War on Terror basically giving a greenlight to governments to label any group they don't like as "terrorism," and it became even worse when Trump labeled the IRGC as a terrorist group. Carthage (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Vote on sanctions for A somebody[edit]

This vote has been closed. Please do not add, remove or change votes.
The result of this vote was: A somebody is sysoprevoked by a unanimous vote and blocked for pi weeks by an 8-1 vote.

Pi weeks ban[edit]