User talk:72.223.111.221

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

What exactly is the problem with that bit you removed again from Godlike Productions?--ZooGuard (talk) 12:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

"Free Speech"[edit]

How free speech works — Unsigned, by: SpecialFFrog / talk / contribs 21:40, 12 March 2015‎

Don't delete talk page comments, please. Scream!! (talk) 21:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Correction: Don't delete talk page comments that I don't disagree with, please--72.223.111.221 (talk) 22:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
You blatantly allow my comments on this page to be censored/deleted: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki_talk:Fundraiser
Maybe you guys should look at this http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Community_Standards#Talk_pages --72.223.111.221 (talk) 04:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
LogicMaster777's "warning to donors" was moved here: User talk:LogicMaster 777--SpecialFFrog (talk) 12:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

No.[edit]

The CS does not apply when an editor (who's so far off the deep end that he thinks that everyone around him believes that The State is a physical, anthropomorphic entity) raises "concerns" about "censorship", when it's clear that his view of censorship amounts to "disagreeing with me and my multi-thousand-word rants, posted anywhere and everywhere I see fit", and when it's detrimental to keeping this site alive. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 00:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Censorship has nothing to do with simply disagreeing, it is when the information is suppressed is when it is considered censorship. Also can you give me a link to the exceptions in the policy?--72.223.111.221 (talk) 00:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, now, you got your letter of the law, and your spirit of the law. One is used for wikilawyering, and the other uses common sense. MaillardFillmore (talk) 00:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Is it really the spirit of the law to delete stuff that you don't agree with? If that is the case, then in this instance I wouldn't say that it uses common sense but rather bigotry.--72.223.111.221 (talk) 01:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
LM is free to talk on pages that aren't crucial to the site. If LM considers any inability to post on RW to be "censorship", then letting RW fail to meet its budget requirements is the ultimate "censorship".
I can point you to a very related exception. RW:B: "Blocking is not to censor alternate opinions, but to prevent disorder." LM's not blocked, but he's causing disorder, which certainly merits cleaning up his many messes. Hence why far upwards of 95% of his spam writings have been preserved, but moved or collapsed, which barely even touches censorship.
You're obviously concern trolling. Nobody here likes this, nobody here likes you, and you're getting nothing done here. Stop. FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 03:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Nice straw man: "If LM considers any inability to post on RW to be "censorship", then letting RW fail to meet its budget requirements is the ultimate "censorship"."
You forgot to include the first part of that "exception" (which was taken out of context). RW:B: "Blocking should never occur if somebody is attempting to discuss an issue in a reasonable manner. Blocking is not to censor alternate opinions, but to prevent disorder." and also "Blocking should only be used if somebody is maliciously editing a page or pages, as explained below." His block and the removal of his content should depend on those guidelines.
In any case, I still haven't been provided a valid reason why I'm not allowed to restore the warning to donors (which was, initially, censored completely) or write where it was moved to.--72.223.111.221 (talk) 04:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
It'd only be a strawman if LM didn't believe that shit.
I wrote those rules, I know I didn't quote it all, and I didn't include those sections because LM is obviously not discussing in a reasonable manner when he fails to integrate criticism, does not limit his discussion to relevant talkpages, and then claims censorship when it gets moved.
Notice how malicious editting includes sections on continuing with your ideas againt the wishes of other editors and relentlessly spamming? (And remember, spirit of the law over letter.) Most of LM's work very nearly falls under both, and when it slips across the line and we clean it up, he claims censorship.
The link to LM's rant was and will be removed because it's totally unbased in fact and totally irrelevant to the fundraiser. FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 04:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi BoN, why do you think that LM's never ending "imaginary state religion"-rants and claims of censorship "is attempting to discuss an issue in a reasonable manner"?
I suggest you read LM's way of dealing with criticism in his longest debate and the archived coop case against him. As can be seen from the debate, a lot of editors have spent a lot of time responding in detail and volume to LM's in(s)ane ideas which make LM's claims that his ideas have only been met with fallacies and ad hominems a sign of either LM's, eh, "alternative" relation to reality or simply a case of LM outright lying (depending on whether LM actually realise that he's talking absolute crap).
LM has been humoured and shown great patience, but leaving his donation talk page rant in place would constitute pandering to his delusions, since its content was simply factually wrong in addition to being potentially harmful to the donation drive. ScepticWombat (talk) 05:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it is a straw man because he (probably) doesn't believe that -ANY- inability to post on RW is censorship
I also wasn't originally discussing his block or alleged "spam," I don't know why you guys are bringing it up. It still remains that censoring the donation warning is against RW policy/community standards and no one here has written why it is not.
Don't like it? Your personal opinion has nothing to do with the policy that governs this site.
Even if it was "pandering to delusions", "factually wrong", or "potentially harmful to the donation drive" that does not justify the censorship of it. If it does, please give me a link to some regulation that says this--72.223.111.221 (talk) 01:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay let's do some point by point fisking here:
  1. "Yes, it is a straw man because he (probably) doesn't believe that -ANY- inability to post on RW is censorship"
    Here's where it would be nice if you actually knew what the fuck you were talking about, because LM's behaviour so far suggests exactly that he believes that his inability to post his rants everywhere on RW without even having them collapsed constitutes censorship. Since LM's (false) allegations of censorship is the central claim in his donation talk page allegations and what got it removed, that's kind of important.
  2. "I also wasn't originally discussing his block or alleged "spam," I don't know why you guys are bringing it up. It still remains that censoring the donation warning is against RW policy/community standards and no one here has written why it is not."
    Huh, what? We're bringing up his block and the spam because that's what LM considers censorship and it's this false claim of censorship that was removed from the donations talk page. Removing a blatantly false "warning" from someone with a raging persecution complex which may endanger a donation drive is part of the preventing disorder and LM is clearly not debating or even behaving in a reasonable manner here.
  3. "Don't like it? Your personal opinion has nothing to do with the policy that governs this site."
    No, I don't like it when people lie or falsely accuse others of engaging in a conspiracy and censorship. But I'd like to see which RW policy your wikilawyer will claim protect blatantly false allegations of censorship and veiled legal threats from removal. Especially when they potentially threaten an effort to collect money necessary to keep RW running.
  4. "Even if it was "pandering to delusions", "factually wrong", or "potentially harmful to the donation drive" that does not justify the censorship of it. If it does, please give me a link to some regulation that says this"
    To prevent disorder, as already mentioned. If LM, due to his false allegations of censorship, managed to sabotage the donation drive needed to finance RW that would quite obviously create disorder when the bills are due, or are you or LM offering to cough up the $7,200?
So that was that, and again: It would be far more in both the spirit and word of the Community Standards if you bothered to find out about the facts involved in the LM case, rather than effectively going "Evidence? I don't need no stinking evidence!". I'm rather stunned that anyone would insist that the removal of false and potentially harmful allegations bordering on libel (if you can libel a collective such as RW) constitutes censorship and that pointing to the evidence which demonstrates the ludicrousness of these allegations and the general persecution complex of their author is just irrelevant.
I'll also repeat my question above since our BoN has conspicuously failed to provide even a semblance of an answer in his/her response:
5. Why do you think that LM's never ending "imaginary state religion"-rants and claims of censorship "is attempting to discuss an issue in a reasonable manner"?
This is important because, as the tuber pointed out above, if LM isn't debating in a reasonable manner then his comments are not protected by the Community Standards paragraph you cite. The CS were created to allow a wide latitude of opinion but not every kind of crankery or bullshit to be posted on every talk page. For instance, the removal of spam and trolling (e.g. Mikemikev's anti-Semitic race-trolling) is already explicitly sanctioned which is why it matters whether LM's accusations constitutes "discuss[ing] an issue in a reasonable manner" and this is where you actually have to know the facts behind LM's accusations. ScepticWombat (talk) 05:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
It's also important to note that free speech doesn't say where the speech needs to be. LM has been given space to say whatever he wants in appropriate places that has been exhaustively explained to him ~weekly over the course of 6 months. Just like you can say whatever you want in appropriate places...but if you go into a meeting room, a NICU, NORAD, or someone's house to start ranting about it you would be arrested (or shot) and no one will take the claims of censorship seriously. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Message from The Powers That Be[edit]

Looks like you caught our true agenda. We're sending the Black Helicopters after you. You'll be sleeping with the fishes within a week.--The Illuminati (talk) 14:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Citation needed[edit]

No citation for that nonsense you say... And then you tell me to add it back if I find one. That's the whole point of adding a citation needed! You're just a concern troll trying to cause trouble and disrupt the wiki.[citation needed] (See what I did there?) — Unsigned, by: Pokefrazer / talk / contribs 18:40, 19 March 2015‎

So I can conceive of some random nonsense that then tag [citation needed] right after it. Sounds a bit absurd, doesn't it?--72.223.111.221 (talk) 19:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)



Information icon.svg This is the discussion page for an anonymous user who has not created an account yet, or who does not use it.

We therefore have to use the numerical IP address to identify them. Such an IP address can be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user and feel that irrelevant comments have been directed at you, please create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users.