RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive70

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 20 September 2023. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: , (new)(back)

Ariel and edit-warring[edit]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

Ariel's been whitewashing and edit-warring on our article on Sam Harris, who holds bigoted views as described by our own article pushing racialist pseudoscience and Islamophobia including the defense of racial profiling. I called them out for this on the talk page. I am loathe to make anymore edits on the article as that would be edit warring but as it stands Ariel is whitewashing our article about an unambiguous bigot. And, y'know, edit-warring. Carthage (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

They also removed content and a quote critical of Harris out of spite. Carthage (talk) 22:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
As of now, the edit war is over, Ariel's changes reverted and the intro then rewritten by another editor. The episode is discussed by you and others on the talk page, and I don't think it calls for more than a warning not to engage in more edit-warring. It would be a bigger problem if it repeats though, especially if unmotivated removals of material repeat.
Personally I agree with those who made the point on the talk page that it's bad when an article reads too ranty (that it makes it less effective as communication). But anyway, the edit warring about the word "bigot" at the start (now seemingly resolved with a better edit) was merely about style, unlike (in a smaller portion of Ariel's edits) removal of facts reflecting poorly on the subject which is whitewashing. Seems like an unusual case of bad temper for Ariel. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 09:38, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I support archiving this badboy. Carthage (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Rational Dude[edit]

@Rational Dude, well, I'm not even sure about how to proceed actually. He just put in his user page a userbox calling another user a "racist pedo". I think taking a break from the Wiki will be good for him. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 03:19, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I’ll just chill for a while. Rational Dude (talk) 03:22, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
He's also ignored his topic ban, which alone calls for further sanctions. Plutocow (talk) 04:52, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
That userbox shocked me speechless. If I were king of the wiki and answerable to no one, Rational Dude would be permabanned by now. As things are, I think a punishment, rather than just allowing him to take a wiki-break, is in order. Spud (talk) 07:19, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
+1, I think some kind of punishment is warranted, especially because it seems this came out of nowhere, after reading the RC feed. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 11:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
For the record, when I said "break", I wasn't necessarily talking about a voluntary break. I agree that some sanction is warranted. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 12:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
I'd support some harsh sanctioning too.-Flandres (talk) 13:09, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
I suppressed an additional 2 revisions, calling another user "creepy" and the original revision calling them "racist pedo". Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 11:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Wait, I thought I had supressed them yesterday. Did I do something wrong? GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 15:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
He has 33 Sections in his talk page while I have only 10 ←§ Edward the eight (talk) 12:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
HE CALLS ME CREEPY? I DID JACKSHIT! HE SHOULDN'T EVEN BE TALKING! ALSO,POT & KETTLE! Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 17:20, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
I think it's time to consider a ban, either temporary or permanent. RD seems to have compulsive behavior that he has trouble channeling into strictly positive goals. Bongolian (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Permaban is off the mark, but I would vote for pi weeks. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 20:05, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
What did they think they could accomplish with such awful behavior? A ban of some type is an appropriate response. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 20:32, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Interaction ban with (Ir)RationalDude[edit]

Can I ask for an interaction ban with this piece of shit? Like he's been obsessed with me since June. Ever since I agreed to help him with his page back in June (I thought it would be a good way to find out how to create a page), he's been seeing me as his "Partner in crime against Fascism", lots of pings on Discord and constantly asking for sources, because he couldn't find any and "I was so good at it", despite me literally telling him that I got those from wp. He's obsessed with Politics and Politics stress me out and he couldn't keep his mouth shut (which I did mention in the past).

So at first I ignored his chat talk, but that thing kept popping back up despite me clicking it away and then he decided to butt in while me and Tech were having a discussion and I was thinking: "Who the fuck is that?". After googling her, I thought: "How am I supposed to know who this is?". And that's when I decided to block him on Discord (Yes, RD is pushing Discord drama (on his part, since I'm just not taking the bait)) on the site) and I felt relieved.

He's the first person to go full drama mode over getting blocked on fucking Discord, so of course this escalated. Starting with him buggin' GeejayK over this matter, who afterwards told me that he (RD) understood the situation, only to completely feign ignorance a few days later on my talkpage. The next day, Duce posted this in the discord. I told Geejay to inform Duce about the situation (which he did) to Duce and hoped it was finally over... except it wasn't.

Since nobody would become his new "partner in crime" (read: Robin), he decided that he wanted his "senpai" to notice him. How? By acting like some discount grammar nazi on my userpage. The next day, he posted this in fivefold, despite Geejay already telling him earlier to leave me alone, on my talkpage & buggin' Geejay again.

Yesterday, I was having a DM conversation with Blakegripping.ph on Discord (he's called Huckleberrypie on Discord) who mentioned this. Ignorance is bliss, I guess? Today, I checked ATIM, because I left a comment on the minimum subs a yt account should have to be considered for a page. So, I saw Geejay's topic here and I was like: "Someone did an oopsie again (RD called North-Korea & Juche "fascist" in the past)", but then I thought (since he's literally this meme): "...did he say that about me? I'm going to ask Geejay who he called a "Racist Pedo." And he confirmed.

So, this shit has been going for almost 3 fucking months, because I blocked him on Discord. Also, I was thinking about mentioning this shit to Bongolian or Spud yesterday but completely forgot about it since I knew sooner or later it would escalate towards the site. And yes, he's giving me Neltyson1fan vibes. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 17:19, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd support this iban. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 17:29, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Oh jeez. Yeah I'd support an IBAN on the site. -- Techpriest (talk) 19:19, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
iBan between these users is warranted. This is gross behavior from RD. I am very disappointed to see this conduct from him. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 20:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm surprised that this situation took this long to boil over to here. An interaction ban is certainly justified in this case. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 20:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
I'd support an Iban at least.-Flandres (talk) 21:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Of course there should be an interaction ban. Spud (talk) 06:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Voting on sanctions for Rational Dude[edit]

This vote has been closed. Please do not add, remove or change votes.
The result of this vote was: Permaban fails 0-2. All other sanctions pass.

Pi weeks ban[edit]

Yay[edit]
  1. The minimum. Bringing Discord drama here is not something that should be encouraged, plus he violated his topic ban. Plutocow (talk) 03:19, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
  2. That kind of false accusation could destroy an innocent person's life. Although I'm not calling for a permanent sysoprevoke, I would also like to see a desysoping that would continue after the block expires. Spud (talk) 07:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
  3. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 08:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
  4. (っ◔◡◔)っ ♥ Natsuki Marx ♥ (talk) 09:39, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
  5. Scream!! (talk) 10:15, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
  6. --RWRW (talk) 10:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
  7. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 14:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
  8. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 14:13, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
  9. This is appropriate. I was very disappointed to see RD’s conduct here. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 19:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
  10. It will give him a chance to reflect on his behavior and focus on real life. Bongolian (talk) 19:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
  11. This is abusive behavior, behavior against which we must take action--April Chat? 04:46, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
  12. Per plutocow. -- Techpriest (talk) 20:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
  13. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 13:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
  14. I agree, this seems to be a reasonable course of action CorruptUser 05:41, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Nay[edit]
Goat[edit]

Pi months ban[edit]

Yay[edit]
  1. Given that he broke the topic ban... Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 08:32, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
  2. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 14:13, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
  3. -Flandres (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
  4. I spent the last minutes thinking about this option, and I believe that a longer break is the best not only for the community, but also for Rational Dude. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 16:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
  5. For a combination of the topic ban violation and the abusive behavior. -- Techpriest (talk) 20:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
  6. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Nay[edit]
  1. Seems excessive to me. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 19:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
  2. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 13:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
  3. Too extreme, unless we've given him a pi-week ban before. CorruptUser 05:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Goat[edit]
  1. I've not voted on any ban time as I have been hoping for some comment here from RD. In the absence of any comment I'll be inclined to go for this.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:37, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Permaban[edit]

Yay[edit]
Nay[edit]
  1. Excessive. -- Techpriest (talk) 20:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
  2. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 13:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Goat[edit]
  1. Frankly don't care. If he ends up getting permabanned, so be it. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 08:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Sysoprevoke[edit]

Yay[edit]
  1. After the shit he pulled, shouldn't be a surprise I'd vote for this. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 08:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
  2. Scream!! (talk) 10:15, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
  3. -Flandres (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
  4. Christopher (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
  5. This is for the best. I was planning to propose this myself. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 19:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
  6. Bongolian (talk) 19:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
  7. Deserves to lose sysop privileges for now. They may be restored in the future. Spud (talk) 02:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
  8. Never treat people like thisApril Chat? 04:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
  9. These kinds of people don't deserve sysop ←§ Edward the eight (talk) 08:02, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
  10. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 17:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Nay[edit]
  1. As far as I can tell, he did't abuse sysop tools. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 14:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
    I don't think abuse of sysop tools is a requirement for sysoprevoke. Bongolian (talk) 19:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
  2. Don't think this is necessary right now? (っ◔◡◔)っ ♥ Natsuki Marx ♥ (talk) 15:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
    Sysoprevoke makes it much easier for the rest of us to enforce the interaction and topic bans. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 19:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
  3. Pretty sure he didn't violate his sysop powers and it's generally understood that interaction and topic bans wouldn't necessarily be needed to enforce this. -- Techpriest (talk) 20:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
  4. As long as he doesn't abuse his sysop rights, I'm opposed to sysoprevoke him. Monet Ye 10:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
  5. He hasn’t abused the tools. If he uses them to avoid other sanctions, that will constitute an abuse, and I won’t oppose removing them. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 13:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Goat[edit]
  1. As I said before, I would not call for him losing the right to ever be made a sysop again at this stage. But I think he deserves a desysoping that will continue after his block expires. Spud (talk) 01:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
    He can always appeal it. Though if you want to, you can start a vote on a shorter time. Plutocow (talk) 01:58, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
    I can't think of what would be an appropriate time as it all depends on Rational Dude's future behaviour. So I'll vote for sysoprevoke and hope it won't be forever. Spud (talk) 02:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Interaction ban with Arcadium Trancefer[edit]

Yay[edit]
  1. Definitely Spud (talk) 07:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
  2. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 08:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
  3. (っ◔◡◔)っ ♥ Natsuki Marx ♥ (talk) 09:39, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
  4. Scream!! (talk) 10:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
  5. --RWRW (talk) 10:26, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
  6. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 11:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
  7. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 14:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
  8. -Flandres (talk) 15:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
  9. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 15:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
  10. Of course. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 19:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
  11. Bongolian (talk) 19:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
  12. Without a doubt--April Chat? 04:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
  13. Strongly advised. -- Techpriest (talk) 20:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
  14. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 13:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
  15. ←§ Edward the eight (talk) 18:22, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Nay[edit]
Goat[edit]

Quora notability guidelines[edit]

I recently proposed on the Draft talk:Alexander_Finnegan talk page that we should have some notability guidelines in place for Quora like we do with Youtube. @Edward the eight suggested this be one million views for any given author. Thoughts? Carthage (talk) 12:31, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'd also like to update our threshold for who's a notable enough YouTuber. Spud (talk) 12:35, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Another guideline I would propose is that of the minimum required members for a Quora space being 1,000 ←§ Edward the eight (talk) 12:39, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
This proposal should probably be in CS. It might be a good idea to review the 1,000 followers need to justify a Youtube article as it seems a bit low to me. It should also probably be added to CS or in some place in addition to the Youtube cat.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:35, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
I would support that a cutoff for Quora, possibly also raising the cutoff for YouTube. Bongolian (talk) 17:31, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
How about 10,000 for both instead? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 19:10, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
I think you should have at least 100k subscribers on YouTube before being considered noteworthy for RationalWiki. Any less and we are giving cranks free publicity. Not every crank needs to be remembered or immortalised! Ψ (talk) 03:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
I would also say 100K.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:20, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Another consideration to be made is what counts as a "YouTuber". Could someone below the required number of subs still qualify for an article if they have a significant presence outside YouTube? E.g. Caleb Maupin has only around 25k subscribers, which is below Psi's cutoff, but he has written articles for RT and ran the Center for Political Innovation. Plutocow (talk) 04:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
The 100k rule should only be enforced if the person is known primarily as a YouTuber. Since Caleb Maupin is also a reporter for RT, I think that would qualify him for a RW article. I think all current politicians should qualify for a RationalWiki article (if anyone ever wants to write about them) however former politicians should only be given a RW article if they have lasting legacy that affects today politics. Ψ (talk) 07:14, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly support the idea of YouTubers (people who are best known because of their presence on YouTube) needing 100,000 subscribers to merit a RationalWiki article. That obviously would not apply to people who are demonstrably notable and missional in other ways who have less of a following on YouTube, as is likely to be the case for several people more associated with traditional media who appeal to an older audience. Spud (talk) 07:19, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
I would propose a 50k-sub cut-off. People with 50k subs can still be pretty influential. For Quora I would propose a 100k view count. I tend to take a more "minimalist" rather than "maximalist" approach. There's a difference between subs and view count, as individual videos can still rack up millions of views even for someone with a sub-count in the mere triple digits. Carthage (talk) 12:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Voting on notability cutoffs[edit]

Each vote will count as a vote for all lower cutoffs (so you only need to vote once for each category). The highest cutoff that has the support of two thirds of voters wins. Plutocow (talk) 02:43, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Quora[edit]

This vote has been closed. Please do not add, remove or change votes.
The result of this vote was: By a 2-0 vote, 100,000 views is now the notability cutoff for Quora.
No cutoff (status quo)[edit]
10,000 views[edit]
50,000 views[edit]
100,000 views[edit]
  1. I know about more than most people on this site because I have been a Quoran for 2 years now. We could write many articles about the Wumaos and Vatniks on that website, there are also neo-nazis on there like RaCOON ←§ Edward the eight (talk) 10:59, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
  2. That'll do for me. Spud (talk) 08:59, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
1,000,000 views[edit]
Goat[edit]
  • I don't know enough about Quora and its analytics to be able to make a judgement. Ψ (talk) 02:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Neutral on if this is an actual issue. Do we have too many pages on random Quora users? -- Techpriest (talk) 20:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
  • If not enough people vote on the Quora vote above will the result be "no consensus"? Ψ (talk) 06:50, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
  • I also don't know enough about Quora or its impact on the site. How many Quora articles de we have? (Edit) We actually do have a Quora article. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:56, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
  • I'm not certain "views" is an even decent metric to judge notability by. Quora does get insanely good search engine rankings, so it may well be that low-follower accounts there have an outsized influence. I'm not sure about covering such people... are they unique in some way, or especially prolific? In the case of Twitter, I know that view counts are an utterly horrible metric to judge notability by, for comparison. Because you get a view just for someone scrolling past your post incredibly briefly. I have no reason to suspect Quora registers views any differently (it actually might be much worse, since it randomly shoves "related" Q&As onto the page you didn't ask for). Quora does have follower counts, for the record, but I don't think most of the people reading the site are registering accounts (despite Quora begging everyone to), so... Chillpilled (talk) 11:35, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
    Good post! Ψ (talk) 12:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)


YouTube[edit]

This vote has been closed. Please do not add, remove or change votes.
The result of this vote was: 100,000 subscribers wins 11-5 among eligible voters.
1,000 subscribers (status quo)[edit]
10,000 subscribers[edit]
20,000 subscribers[edit]
  1. Going to add this suggestion and throw my hat in this ring. While a vast majority of people with this amount of subscribers aren't notable, someone with a very dedicated fanbase (e.g. Haz/Infrared) can still have influence comparable to a much larger channel at this level of subscribers. Plutocow (talk) 03:33, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
  2. I immediately thought 50,000, but, to be fair, that Haz/Infared example is pretty convincing. (っ◔◡◔)っ ♥ Natsuki Marx ♥ (talk) 07:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
  3. Agree with Plutocow ←§ Edward the eight (talk) 08:37, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
  4. A wiki isn't paper. But this is probably a good minimum. There are a couple people I thought of who are kind of notable and just under 20k, but neither of them are so notable we're missing much by not having a page. Now as for above 20k, other than Infrared as an example I can think of Alternative Hypothesis, a racialist whose page was (in my view erroneously) deleted. He has 57k. Chillpilled (talk) 10:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
  5. I am pretty confident that people have used the internet to establish cults with online followings much smaller than this. I question the assumption of “notability” being measured in subscriber counts even if we are talking about youtube in particular. A crank with a small following even on youtube can still result in people’s lives being lost. Is a single dead cancer patient who got convinced by a YouTuber that a plant-based diet would cure them not notable if the subscriber count is below 100k? I think 20’000 is a good cut off baring anything possibly news worthy. We should be vigilant if our approach to scientific skepticism is to be expressed as an ethical motivation. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 19:50, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
50,000 subscribers[edit]
100,000 subscribers[edit]
  1. As Ψ said and as I've said before. If someone is demonstrably notable and missional in some other way, they can certainly have an article here. It's likely that some influential figures from traditional media who appeal to an older audience currently have YouTube channels with fewer than 100,000 subscribers. Spud (talk) 03:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
  2. It should be 10 million but whatever we’ll see how this works. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 07:02, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
    Yes, Duce. We know about your murder boner towards Youtube. Do I need to remind you how influencial this medium is or are you going to keep ignoring this? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 12:36, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
    Nah, 10 million is way too high. Ψ (talk) 13:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
    10 million would mean that the only YouTube article we have that qualifies is PewDiePie LOL. Plutocow (talk) 16:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
  3. Those are the channels with the most influenza, so. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 12:36, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
    The others are nothing to sneeze at! Bongolian (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
  4. This should be guidance, not hard policy. There may be exceptions in some cases that we could consider. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 13:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
  5. Monet Ye 15:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
  6. I also dislike YouTube articles. Moreover, I think that even though YouTube perhaps "democratized" knowledge, it also had a deleterious effect on the public debate, not only because of the many fake news creators and extremists on the site, but also because people believe that the shallow, slanted and often poorly-researched content on YouTube could be used as a substitute for academic sources. But if someone could convince more than 100k people to click on the subscribe buttom, they are doing something right and are probably more relevant than others that we have on this site. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 17:38, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
    @GeeJayK Since most of our YouTube articles are about the people who spread fake news, extremism and poorly researched woo-peddling, it's not really a question of doing something right. It's more a question of doing something very wrong that is appealing enough to reach a large audience. Spud (talk) 02:07, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
  7. This is my personal preference for notability - I'm pretty sure I'm the one that bumped up the notability requirements on our old breadtube page for randoms to 10k subs. 100k is the minimum IMO - it's somewhere around the point where "being a jerk on youtube" becomes a paying job and that's probably the point where our coverage becomes warranted. -- Techpriest (talk) 20:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
  8. Concur with @Cosmikdebris. Subscribers aren't necessarily indicative of missionality as there are some who may have relatively fewer subs but have otherwise gained notoriety through other means. Blakegripling ph (talk) 05:50, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
  9. Sounds about right to me for people who are only known on YouTube and fit the mission.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:53, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
  10. Like Cosmicdebris said, with exceptions for example if they get intense media coverage. IluzasipalStone them! 10:37, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
  11. Yes. Moon Sock (talk) 18:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Goat[edit]
  1. If anyone has any other proposals, feel free to add them. I feel a median vote should be fair to settle this (although the median might have to be set to 2/3, given that's the amount required to change CS). Plutocow (talk) 02:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
  2. More generally, I don't think these rules should be considered absolute. There will probably be people under the limit who should have pages and people above it who absolutely shouldn't. It should be seen more as a guideline than a rule. Maybe wherever this is written already agrees with me but I don't remember what page it's on. Chillpilled (talk) 11:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
  3. I do kinda get Duce's dislike of RW pages on relative YT randos. But like Ψ/Spud point out, there's going to be people where their YT presence is actually smaller than their actual 'overall footprint'; not just older 'Boomer Era' folks but those who utilise other social media [I mean, they might focus on Insta/TikTok/etc]. Therefore these numbers shouldn't be an absolute for afd'ing RW pages alone - that there should be a rider that a wider 'notability' search should be done too. Also, a kind of 'niche exception' should be allowed at times; possible a 'small' YT account might be the best example we can get hold of a particular type of crankery. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
    @KarmaPolice In which case, it would be better to make the article about that kind of crankery and give the small YouTuber as an example of one of the people who push it. Spud (talk) 02:07, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
    Good post! I've always thought that RW focuses too much on personalities when it should be focusing on ideas and patterns of behavior. Many of these youtube cranks don't warrant their own article but can be used as examples of their particular type of crankery. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 03:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
  4. I personally think that notability should not defined by subscribers. I think it should mirror Wikipedia's general notability guildlineWikipedia, guidline for any biographical articleWikipedia and notability guidline for YouTubersWikipedia. Furthermore, see Wikipedia's WP:WAXWikipedia. Notability is not about how many updoots, subscribers, views or imaginary internet points someone has, it's about how much attention someone or something gets from mainstream media, and how much information we can extract from it. Wave Music [5] has over 40 billion views, but almost no actual information on it exists in mainstream media, so it's not notable. WetWilly (talk) 17:14, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
    We aren't wikipedia... Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 17:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
    Read my suggestion. I think it should mirror Wikipedia's general notability guildlineWikipedia, guidline for any biographical articleWikipedia and notability guidline for YouTubersWikipedia. I am suggesting we adopt 3 of their policies. — Unsigned, by: WetWilly / talk / contribs
    On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 18:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
    There are probably more criticisms I could pony up if I really thought about it, but for a start: I think this would be detrimental to the fourth point in RationalWiki's mission. If we limited ourselves to covering only topics deemed notable to traditionally published sources, our ability to criticize coverage (about the topics mentioned in the other three points of RW's mission) by those same traditional sources would be severely limited. Chillpilled (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
    Good post!Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 19:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Ineligible[edit]
  1. Only if the person is primarily notable for being a YouTuber. There are tons of famous people out there who do not have 100k subscribers. Ψ (talk) 02:46, 8 September 2023 (UTC) Too new Monet Ye 10:45, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
  2. Plutocow makes a good case. Carthage (talk) 16:02, 8 September 2023 (UTC) Too new. Plutocow (talk) 19:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)


Plutocow[edit]

Moved from User talk:Plutocow

YouTube vote fails the 2/3 majority[edit]

Where does it say, that a CS change needs a 2/3 majority? Monet Ye 10:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

RationalWiki:Community Standards#Common guidelines Plutocow (talk) 15:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Those only concern policy votes that involve banning other users. Not policy votes in general. -- Techpriest (talk) 17:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

In policy votes and penalty votes dealing with a user's removal from the site (temporarily or permanently), a positive option (an option that is not "nay" or "none of the above") must accrue a two-thirds majority of votes to pass. In all other types of penalty votes, a positive option must accrue a simple majority of votes to pass.

The bolded text shows that the italicized text applies only to penalty votes, not policy votes (otherwise the text would be "In all other types of penalty and policy votes"). The syntax of the first sentence is admittedly ambiguous, but the context makes the meaning clear. Plus, CS changes have historically required two-thirds majority, and it was made clear from the outset of the vote that two-thirds would be required. Plutocow (talk) 17:25, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

20k did not get 2/3rd either. In that event, we failed to get quorum and go back to status quo. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 17:59, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

From the vote:

Each vote will count as a vote for all lower cutoffs (so you only need to vote once for each category). The highest cutoff that has the support of two thirds of voters wins.

Thus, 20,000 does have two-thirds support, as it is assumed everyone who voted for 100,000 would support 20,000 over the status quo. If one person voted for 50,000, that would be the new cutoff, while conversely one person voting for 10,000 would not have changed the result. Plutocow (talk) 18:03, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

And it's worth noting that nobody disputed this during the vote, so these were the terms that were agreed to. Plutocow (talk) 18:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
This is clearly not what happenened. If the majority believed that 100 is better than 20k, then the majority also favored 50k over 20k. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 18:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Any vote for 100k was also a vote against 20k. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 18:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
(ec)But not a supermajority, which is the key to policy votes. 100,000 just needed one more vote to win, but it fell short of two-thirds, so the next highest vote, which in this case was 20,000, settled the matter. Plutocow (talk) 18:19, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
That's not what the terms of the vote were. It was essentially a median vote. Plutocow (talk) 18:19, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
(ec)Let's make a test then. Ask anyone who voted for 100k if they weren't voting just voting against the status quo or if they were also voting against 20k. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 18:21, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Read the very first sentence of the vote. Nobody disputed it during the vote, so that is what everyone agreed to. Plutocow (talk) 18:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
I think the fact that you are having to revert this yourself even though four users have already disputed your understanding of the vote shows that this is not the case. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 18:24, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Then it's a good thing that the truth is not a popularity contest. Plutocow (talk) 18:26, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Sure it is. But in a mobocracy like Rationalwiki this matters very little, and that the community doesn't agree with your understanding of how the vote works. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 18:27, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

My argument is in line with the CS and the terms of the vote that were agreed to by everyone. You can't just say none of that matters, especially when none of this evidence has been challenged. Plutocow (talk) 18:30, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
(EC) The community standards indicate that a vote can be left open for up to 14 days. Since this vote was close, and the outcome was altered only a few hours before it was closed by OSD's vote (the first new vote in several days), and there clearly wasn't a collective understanding about certain aspects of the vote, this seems like it would have been a good candidate to keep open a bit longer, or to reopen, given that it appears to have been closed unilaterally. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 18:32, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
How is 6 more then 11? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 18:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
You need 2/3 to ammend CS. Plutocow (talk) 18:36, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
So, those 11 votes are lamb chops, then? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

In case anyone does not understand: a vote for 100,000 was a vote for 100,000 over 50,000, 50,000 over 20,000, 20,000 over 10,000, and 10,000 over the status quo. Plutocow (talk) 18:36, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Just see this entire discussion, Pluto. Clearly those that voted for 100k weren't voting for 20k. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 18:39, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
They weren't voting for 20,000 over 100,000, but they were voting for 20,000 over the status quo of 1,000. Ask any of the 100,000 voters whether they would prefer a cutoff of 20,000 or 1,000. Besides, ever heard of median voting? That's what was used, with just a more straightforward way of explaining it. Plutocow (talk) 18:46, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
CS doesn't say anything about median voting. Also, don't you believe in me, Monet, Tech, Duce, Serene and Arcadium when we said that no, we were also voting against 20k? I think this is extremely disingenuous from your part. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 18:51, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘It's not CS, it's the terms that the vote was agreed to. And if not 20,000, then the cutoff remains 1,000, since 100,000 failed to get a supermajority. Do you really want that? Plutocow (talk) 18:54, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is happy with these ambiguous terms either, I don't remember we ever using a median vote system here. I agree with Serene, we should at least re-open the vote when the mob clearly disagrees with your reading of the situation and thinks that 20k, not 100k, failed. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 18:59, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
A small handful of users ≠ the mob. I'll post the terms that everyone agreed to again since you're still not getting the point:

Each vote will count as a vote for all lower cutoffs (so you only need to vote once for each category). The highest cutoff that has the support of two thirds of voters wins.

How is that "ambiguous"? Plutocow (talk) 19:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Well, just read this thread and you'll see that people didn't understand. Also, we've got more people here than we ever get on talk pages. I think this is support enough. Let's re-open the vote and make things clearer this time. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 19:18, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
You're the only one who has been pushing the issue this hard, so let's wait a bit. We should be careful before opening the door to letting any pissed-off majority overrule a vote that requires a supermajority. Plutocow (talk) 19:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
And also, if people couldn't read the first sentence of the vote, then that's not my problem. Or would you honestly prefer a cutoff of 1,000 over 20,000? Oh well, I guess it goes to show that people don't understand any voting system besides first past the post. Plutocow (talk) 19:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Dude, stop powertripping. You don’t get to override the will of everyone who obviously stated they were voting against 20k. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 19:31, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
(EC) I don't think insulting the community when you clearly innovated on the vote system will do you any favors. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 19:37, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
(EC) Read. The fucking terms of the fucking vote. That neither you, nor anyone else, disputed. So what I guess you're arguing for is that you want a 1k cutoff, because your head is so far up your ass because you lost the vote. Sorry if this is getting a little uncivil, but I'm getting sick of this. These were the terms everyone agreed to; people are only complaining after the result didn't go their way. Plutocow (talk) 19:39, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Oh fuck off. Read what we fucking wrote. You’re not even a mod. You don’t get to enforce this on us. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 19:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
The vote fucking says "Each vote will count as a vote for all lower cutoffs", but I guess you get to ignore that because the result didn't go your way. I'm sure that will not set a horrible precedent or anything. Plutocow (talk) 19:42, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
You sneaking something into the fine text doesn’t mean shit. You misled us. You are being dishonest and now you’re being a prick. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 19:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘It's not "fine text" when it was there from the beginning and on top of the fucking vote. If you couldn't read that, well, it's not my fucking problem. Plutocow (talk) 19:44, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

And what even is your objection to having the cutoff be 20k over 1k? You even acknowledged that 100k failed to gain a supermajority, so what gives? Plutocow (talk) 19:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Seriously, I am tired of this. Techpriest is the only one who provided an actual objection, and I answered it. If anyone else wants to dispute my evidence, they can. But if you just want to whine that the result didn't go your way, please do it somewhere else. Plutocow (talk) 19:56, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, I didn't vote, and my primary concern is not the matter whether a vote for 100k should count as a vote for 20k. My concern is that the community standards underdetermine when a vote should close, that had the vote been closed exactly 7 days after it was opened (the minimum length of time), 100k would have won (11 - 5), that an additional vote was then cast (by OSD, on the 15th, the first vote since the 9th), putting 20k ahead (6-11), and the vote was then unilaterally closed (i.e. closed without discussion) by a user who voted for 20k (Plutocow), even though community standards would have allowed the vote to stay open for several more days. Even if that doesn't technically violate the community standards, it's still clearly objectionable. In effect, an ambiguity in the CS is being exploited to decide the outcome of the vote. Frankly, it seems to me that no single user has legitimate authority to decide that a vote has ended, and I see no particularly good reason why the vote should not be reopened. It certainly isn't prohibited by the Mobocracy section of the community standards. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 20:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
(EC)It is true that it was open for around 8 days (blame my failure to convert dates from UTC to Eastern Time), if I had noticed I would have closed it a day earlier. Still, I don't think it should be reopened after it was closed; most votes last for a week nowadays so it could easily be used as a stalling tactic if someone doesn't like the votes. Perhaps the vote time is something that should be codified a bit better in the CS. Plutocow (talk) 20:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
I will point out that in normal circumstances where multiple options arise (aka ban votes) with supermajorities, we have the two-thirds majority rule apply to each option. That is to say, each option gets it's own yay/nay, and when we tally the votes, the strongest supermajority is what ends up being applied. This more or less going by the idea that if someone feels strongly about not applying a high mark, they should countervote the other options (which to be fair does introduce the risk of later options being added to votes disrupting the process, but that's what the initial 24 hour "no votes" period is for). The fact this was not applied here does somewhat concern me. It's not so much a problem with the Quora vote (although I would personally argue that the mob was largely just confused on why we need a policy for Quora to begin with, which might just invalidate the vote based on the "what is going on here" option but I'll admit that we have no policy for this to begin with.) As is, it's easy to see this as just an excuse to force through your preferred implementation of this policy rather than the one that carries the majority. In terms of good faith, I'll not accuse you of that, but I think that's where a lot of the anger comes from here. Also, I realize what this will look like but if I will be permitted to do so - User:Carthage was not franchised to vote on this policy - their account was registered on the 4th of July of 2023, and the vote itself was started on September 8th 2023, making their account only a little of 2 months older. As a result, they have to be subtracted from the total, making the total amount of voters 16, with 11 in favor of 100k and 5 for 20k. Doing some quick math, that means that 69% of the voters were in support of a 100k limit. (For completions sake, the other "infrequently seen" editors in the vote, Iluzaspal and Moon Sock were both franchised voters, with Moon Socks original account going back to 2021). This means even with a two-thirds policy, 100k would still be the appropriate limit. -- Techpriest (talk) 20:21, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
I don't see the applicability of 2/3rds majority where there was no yes-no option such as that vote. I concur with Techpriest on on interpreting the vote. This discussion should be moved to the Mod noticeboard where it can subsequently be archived appropriately. Bongolian (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
I think there are three possible solutions:
1 100k won. As far as I see, that's how Tech and Bongolian understand the situation, and it's my favorite solution as well.
2 We can reopen the vote, like Serene suggested. If we choose this option, I'd support a different voting system than the median vote.
3 20k won, as Plutocow believes. This one is, IMO the worst solution, not because that would mean that my position (100k) was defeated, but because it clearly doesn't represent what most people had in mind while taking part of this discussion. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 17:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
No, 100k won, but only because Carthage's vote was invalid due to them not being here for long enough. If Carthage's vote counted, 20k would still be the winner, due to the terms of the vote being set at the beginning and a 2/3 majority being required to amend CS. Plutocow (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
I must say, I am disappointed in the conduct of multiple RW regulars surrounding this issue. The terms of the vote were layed out at the beginning of it; you don't get to change the terms after the fact. It doesn't matter if a majority don't like the result when number one nobody disputed the terms of the vote during the vote and number two the result requires a supermajority. Considering that RW has stood against election denialism, it's sad to see certain RW users engaging in similar behavior when a vote seemingly doesn't go their way. Of course, this case turned out to be moot because one of the deciding votes turned out to be invalid. But I hope nobody acts this way about a vote again. Plutocow (talk) 17:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
@Plutocow I think one reason it went down like this is because this isn't how the mob expected the votes to work. I once ran a similar method a few years ago for a ban vote (it was some random troll - them being banned wouldn't have been of much consequence), and while that one did result in a consensus being reached (largely because people didn't care that much over the vote), people still ended up very confused in how the votes were counted. It was an attempt to basically demo the methodology you tried to apply here. There's a reason we went with separate yes/no votes instead. It just keeps things simpler and it prevents a case of "we picked the most agreed on opinion, but now nobody is happy" from occurring (instead favoring just a "this is something everyone will at least feel somewhat neutral about" resolution). Separate yes/no votes means that you'll always reach a consensus. People don't really challenge it until it's over because well, it can be difficult to overlook the big picture until the votes are counted. The methodology you used basically means that change will always be disproportionately favored over the status quo, which is what separate yes/no votes are meant to prevent. Again, the main reason I'm challenging this is in part because I tried to demo this in a more low-stakes environment and it just confused everyone. Just stick with yes/no on each option the next time. -- Techpriest (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Median voting is beneficial in a case like this where there were many proposed options and changing the status quo was overwhelmingly favored (although there was a vote for the status quo that just needed one third of voters to win). Median voting also avoids strategic voting, in that someone who supports 100k is incentivized to vote against 20k to lower the chances of the latter winning, even if in principle they would support a 20k cutoff over a 1k one. That makes it more likely that nothing gets done even if there is an appetite for change. I wonder if part of the negative reaction was because people weren't able to try to rig the vote that way like they were used to. Still, it seems to be true that people don't understand voting systems that aren't first-past-the-post, as shown by multiple users repeatedly failing to get the point even after I repeatedly explained it clearly to them. Regardless, I think I am owed an apology, at least from DuceMooselini, as I have shown, despite his accusations of "power tripping", that I at least can accept the result of a vote that doesn't go my way. Plutocow (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Detailing my objection to 2/3 majority for non yes-no voting: The problem with this is the more options there are, the less likely that anything will get passed. When there is a yes-no vote for each option, then no matter how many options there are, the probability of something passing is about the same as if there are fewer options. Bongolian (talk) 23:24, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm not going to apologize for being right and calling you on your bullshit, Plutocow. You were overriding the clearly stated will of the mob. You are the most aggressive and litigious user on the site. You and ban more people than anyone else by far. I'm just the one noticing the pattern. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 00:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
From what I've observed most of those are spambots and clear ban evaders. Carthage (talk) 00:58, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
It’s part of a greater pattern showing how Plutocow enjoys wielding power and views themself as above other users. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 01:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, that was confusing. Can someone explain how 2/3rds of the vote suddenly matters for CS and how 20,000 passes the 2/3rds but 100,000 doesn't? How do you even count 2/3rds when it's not a yes/no question? The mind boggles. Moon Sock (talk) 00:56, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorta kinda understand? The terms of the vote don't make much sense and the deck is hilariously stacked against higher cutoffs. Honestly? The moderators should use moderator fiat to treat is as a simple majority vote. Moon Sock (talk) 01:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
The mind does boggle, but it makes more sense when you realize Plutocow was just powertripping. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 01:01, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
And people still don't understand how median voting works. And yes, it is explicitly stated in the CS that you need 2/3 for policy votes. If you have a problem with "overriding the clearly stated will of the mob", then your problem is with CS and not me. Plutocow (talk) 01:04, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Look, all of these problems would be solved if people actually read the first fucking sentence of the vote. I would expect people using RW to be able to read, but I guess that is expecting too much. Plutocow (talk) 01:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Sorry we all can't be as smart as you. Moon Sock (talk) 01:09, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Gosh Plutocow, you’re totally right about us not being able to read. I have no idea how the community writers things or creates articles. Actual fucking idiot. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 01:20, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
"I have no idea how the community writers things" LOL. Also, if that's the case then why is reading two sentences so fucking difficult for you? Plutocow (talk) 01:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
I dunno Plutocow. Maybe because you gave no indication those sentences would be there and instead snuck them in. Good thing you’re so much better than the rest of us, that you can tell us how things should be. I bask in your superior wisdom. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 01:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Yeah sure, I snuck them in, that's why I was sure to put it at the beginning! After all, people only had, I don't know, more than a week to read them! When the evidence isn't on your side, I guess you just resort to conspiracies. Plutocow (talk) 01:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Maybe you really don’t understand this, since you spend 24/7 here blocking spambots or whatever, but the rest of us have lives and responsibilities to get to, and we want and expect votes to be simple affairs that we can get over with quickly. Of course, you’ve made me see the error of my ways. We shouldn’t have votes at all since you’re so much smarter than the entire community! Gosh, it must be hard being the only literate person on the site. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 01:35, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Again, if you're too busy to read two sentences, that is not my problem (and why be here at all if two sentences is too much of a commitment to you?) Plutocow (talk) 01:40, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Gosh, you're right. You're actually so much smarter than the community that we should all just leave and let you talk to yourself on an empty website. Only your opinions matter. Only your decisions should be followed. It should be your way or the highway. I see it all so clearly now. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 01:41, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
You finally see the light!
More seriously, grow up. It's okay to admit when you made mistakes, I personally fucked up by closing the vote after eight days rather than the standard seven and not noticing that Carthage wasn't eligible to vote. It's alright if you didn't notice the text, we all make mistakes sometimes, but that does not make the text or vote invalid. Just be more vigilant next time, and we're good. Plutocow (talk) 01:45, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=RationalWiki_talk:All_things_in_moderation/Archive70&oldid=2584890"