User talk:Arcane

World	Blogs	Clogs	Elections	The Bar
(talk)	(talk)	(talk)	(talk)	(hic)

Welcome to RationalWiki, Arcane!

Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards!

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

Read what our articles are intended to be
Check out the to-do list
See our help page and Wikipedia's formatting cheatsheet
If writing a new article, consider writing up a draft
And most importantly: Pull up a goat and have some fun!

Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 02:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to RationalWiki! (And please keep in mind that making fun of Conservapedia isn't the only thing this site's about!) Sam ^Tally-ho! 03:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Good post[edit]

I would really like to say thank you! for your comments on republishing the War crimes against Germans on the Eastern Front article. –Aleksandr(a) Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 04:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

War crimes against Germans on the Eastern Front[edit]

We might want to make some sort of FAQ section that we can transclude on the talk page, given that we're probably going to be subject to people coming in and trying to call parts of the article biased. The top of the talk page demonstrates that pretty well, and I don't want to have to be a broken record with the this is what ************* sources say about X, Y analysis is ahistorical and is used by pro Nazi historians. –Aleksandr(a) Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 04:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

As a heads up, I strongly suspect that Hipocrite is going to show up and make a bunch of adhominem attacks and cast a vote with nothing but an ad hominem "but IE talks about Nazis and rape too much!" as a reason. –Aleksandr(a) Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 05:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe that PowderSmokeAndLeather might have a personal vendetta against the article, which would show that his priorities are severely out of order if he wants to get rid of an article debunking Nazi propaganda just because he thinks I talk about Nazis too much. He was the one to make the deletion and I was just looking through the article history. Hipocrite was the one to place the deletion tag after making a series of ad hominem attacks, including one blaming Soviet women for being raped. I removed the tag, and PowderSmokeAndLeather replaced and claimed that it was added "in good faith" and so I "couldn't just remove it." –Aleksandr(a) Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 13:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Here's the FAQ page I mentioned: User:Inquisitor Ehrenstein/War crimes against Germans FAQ –Aleksandr(a) Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 13:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Should we undelete this?[edit]

Special:Undelete/Essay:Why_it_would_have_been_wrong_to_inflict_revenge_on_the_Germans –Aleksandr Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 15:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

People who are ironically bigoted against different opnions[edit]

Check out the essay it's on. I linked your article on the subject. –Aleksandr Ehrenstein ЯR 17:52, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Is this worth documenting?[edit]

Someone seems to be unable to grasp the fact that I am rational and responsible enough to be trusted with what is essentially a semi auto RPK.

http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=RationalWiki%3ASaloon_bar&diff=1275220&oldid=1275211

–Inquisitor Sasha (talk) 05:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it, to be honest. People will say cruel and stupid crap all the time, that sort of nonsense you had said about you isn't worth a facepalm IMO. Arcane (talk) 06:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

My general thought. There also seems to be someone else freaking out about the fact that I have a semi auto rifle. If it's feasible for me to buy full automatic weapons, I'd by a Sturmgewehr 44 at some point because of its historical significance. I wouldn't shoot it because full auto weapons are a huge waste of money when it comes to ammo. Generally any automatic weapon without historical significance is foolish.

This is the gun I have BTW:

It doesn't have the camo silliness.

–Inquisitor Sasha (talk) 07:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Is it me, or "a semi-auto ручной пулемëт" is an oxymoron?--AndYourFoesShallRejoice... (talk) 09:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

There's a lot of ableist bigoted assholes talking about me having a gun. I'm tempted to get a full auto license just so I can buy automatic weapons, upload the pictures, and cause some sort of information overload in their ignorant, bigoted minds. There is a very real thing about ableist bigotry against Autistic people having guns. –Inquisitor Sasha (talk) 15:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

As an outside observer to this discourse, I'm going to chime in here. The comments towards you have very, very little to do with autism or ableism. Rather, they have everything to do with your pattern of erratic behaviour and going off the rails every time someone says something you find remotely offensive. I would very highly recommend you take Nutty's advice and ease off. - GrantC (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I will not be replying to that discussion. All it does is make me want to get the motherfuckers fired. I will never do that though.

You could also take note of my comments about the value and use of non violent methods. –Inquisitor Sasha (talk) 15:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

That's a comment on my self control that I really think people should take note of. The fact that I've refrained from getting people fired for some extremely vile and insidious bullshit. Clearly demonstrates that I can stick to my morality and not give in to anger. –Inquisitor Sasha (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, the substance of your comments is uninteresting to me; as is that entire discussion. What I'm suggesting is that you refrain from such comments at all, as whether you realize it or not, your words convey the point I made above. You may take or leave my advice as you see fit.

I think that comment on your self-control was entirely unnecessary, to be honest. To me, it seems akin to saying "Look, I could easily kill you, but I'm not going to. Isn't that nice?". Whether what you say is true or not, that kind of comment is going to put people off. - GrantC (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with GrantC. Making such threats is putting people off in the best case and in the worst case lets them assume that you have some severe mental health issues.--Th. Bernhard _{Das Leben ist ein Prozeß, den man verliert, was man auch tut und wer man auch ist.} 16:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I shouldn't. I know you give good advice. My problem is with the insidious motherfuckers who deliberately try to start shit every time I plan something productive, and then go "OMFG I'm getting attacked." There is a very big difference between murder and getting someone fired. I hope you know that. –Inquisitor Sasha (talk) 16:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

If they actually believed that I have serious mental heath issues, they would not continue their vile trolling. The fact that they do reveals that their "concerns" are nothing more that vile trolling. –Inquisitor Sasha (talk) 16:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

A threat is a threat, and when you mix in talks of violence, even if it's for the purpose of saying "hey, I'm not going to be violent", it adds a dangerous undertone to your words. You need to consider the implied meaning of what you're saying. Yes, there are people who are just trolling you, and they should probably stop. However, you do have a history of belligerence here, as Nutty and others have pointed out. When someone is dubious about the value of one of your contributions, you tend to throw accusations around and get very defensive. It's not surprising to me that this causes hackles to rise around the board. The problem there though is that you're contributing to the problem, not the solution. - GrantC (talk) 16:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

What you say is true. I appreciate your helpfulness. I will take your message into my actions. Thank you. –Inquisitor Sasha (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I get it now[edit]

I now understand why RW users were afraid of that article debunking Nazi apologetic Germans portraying themselves as victims. It hits to close to home for users here. They do the exact same thing. They harass me with vile shit, and when the response comes they go "Oh my God how can you say that! You're attacking me! WAAAAAA!" Every one of these motherfuckers would deserve for me to report their vile shit to their supervisors and get them fired. I would never do that because that's something that makes you a monster, but they would fucking deserve it. Oh, I actually know who most of their supervisors actually are. So that's why they didn't want the article published. They don't want a page exposing people who claim to be victims, because that would just expose their insidious practices against me. I'm going to go calm down before I make reports about how certain people treat Autistic people. –Inquisitor Sasha (talk) 15:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm just going to put it out there that this is a pretty good example of the point I made above. - GrantC (talk) 15:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

This kind of post, which you've made many times, is the reason I think you having access to fire arms is terrifying. Not that I think you might not check the chamber when handling a weapon or some nonsense like you suggested on my talk page. The fact that you fly off the handle at the slightest provocation and say people "deserve" real consequences for what your perceive as vile actions akin to those of the Nazis, indicates just how serious your anger management issues are; not to mention how warped your sense of proportionality is. I don't know if this is connected with you autism, but you obliviously have very serious mental issues. Please, and I mean this with all possible sincerity, give your firearms to someone responsible to keep while you seek real support for your problems. And just a tip here, in the real world a threats a threat, saying you're not going to do it doesn't help. It's like the mafia enforcer saying, "those are some really nice windows you have in your shop, it'd be a real shame if someone where to smash them." --Marlow (talk) 16:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

And yet, I know that it would not be justified to get people fired over internet drama, and I would not be able to live with myself if I caused that to happen. I have repeatedly controlled myself in the face of some really severe harassment. You should be aware that I live with someone who feels comfortable being around me and semiautomatic weapons. It's not like we haven't had plenty of serious arguments before, so he knows how I can control myself. The fact that I control myself and don't do anything irreversible out of anger demonstrates to me that I feel that I can responsibly apply for a conceal carry permit. I wouldn't be given one of those if people didn't think I could handle it. If you really are concerned, than calm the fuck down. –Inquisitor Sasha (talk) 17:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Threatening to dox people or try to get them fired, or fantasising about doing so, is very much not cool. I seriously doubt that you have anything on anyone here that could them fired anyway, but interfering in RW editors' offline & professional lives will be a massive unwarranted invasion of privacy. The fact that you "actually know who most of their supervisors actually are" isn't reassuring. Unless editors have told you who their supervisors are, which I'm guessing they haven't, this means that you've already done your own research on users' offline lives, doesn't it? Is that really any of your business? This isn't Encyclopedia Dramatica. Don't be that guy. Щєазєюіδ ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Ladies and gentlemen, as a party trying to stay out of this, could you please not have a talk page war on my user talk page? To Sasha, my advice is just to let this go, getting upset and worked up is not worth it, and to everyone else, could you please move this discussion elsewhere? Arcane (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

That's the exact reason why I would never do that. Anyway, moving on. We don't need to discuss past transgressions. Some users are prices and project their victimization onto themselves. I try not to think about them. Moving on. –Inquisitor Sasha (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Sturmkrieg.ru[edit]

Dondrekhan has turned it into the wild west. We can use it for Bigotry Wiki for the time being if you want. I can make you an account on it if you want. We've got Zachary Wootan, a knowing Nazi collaborating prick. He also thinks he can get away with calling me a Nazi. –Inquisitor Sasha (talk) 21:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Doxxing.[edit]

We just this week blocked a guy for posting a real name of a Gamergate figure, and I see you've done the same. This is the only warning you will get. Do it again, and you will be banned from this website. ^{— Unsigned, by: AgingHippie / talk / contribs}

Using false accusation of doxxing again, I see.--Arisboch (talk) 11:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

If you want the policy on doxxing changed, you can propose it like everyone else. You know our rules here now. --Castaigne (talk) 14:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

YES, YOUR HIGHNESS!!!

(Blame an overdose of Code Geass or the longing for the 3rd episode of Akito)--Arisboch (talk) 14:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

You're late to the party[edit]

GG is long past it's peak back in late 2014. Since then they've managed to chase away all the moderates and people who were genuinely interested in "ethics", all of whom have realized that this dubious movement started as an attempt to drive one woman to suicide. The majority of what's left consists of angry MRA's and 4chan rejects who are united in fighting the "vast SJW conspiracy". As GG continues to circle the toilet bowl, you'll only find yourself increasingly feeling embarrassed that you ever supported it in the first place. If you genuinely care about "ethics" then it'd be wise not to associate with such a toxic "movement". Typhoon (talk) 07:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Just wanted to say...[edit]

... before you go: Many RW editors hold positions that other RW editors disagree with, and the goal would be to get healthy argument. The only you thing wrong was (accidentally?) dropping someone's real name. If you refrain from doing so, I'm sure RW would benefit from your presence. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 15:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I think if you can be a pro-GamerGater and somehow manage to support Anita Sarkeesian's views, something that has a very low probability in this world, you are a potential rational person.

Withoutaname (talk) 21:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Ryulong and DG are convinced that I'm a GG (I don't identify with that label), but anyway I actually think Anita Sarkeesian raises some valid points. I'm not saying I agree with 100% of what she says, but I still think she makes a valuable contribution to discussion. (I don't see her criticisms of video games as being a proposal for censorship any more than a literary critic giving a novel a bad review is a proposal for a novel being banned; it seems to me more she is saying what kind of content she'd like to see and not see in the future, and those who take her advice can sink or swim in the free market.) Blacke (talk) 21:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I just showed up to drop some information what happened to Rightpedia and the other wikis on the now defunct Orain wikifarm I was staff on. That's it. As for Gamergate, this site is firmly, fanatically opposed to it in any form, and if you don't agree with them expect to be spit on and disrespected until they hound you out. Don't argue the subject here, they've made up their minds, and anything less than total agreeance with their position makes you the enemy. This is no longer the site I joined, and if you're wise, leave this place like I'm going to again, it's not worth your sanity to stay here, they've already spit on the very concept of rationality, and I'm leaving again having left the information I planned to leave, and I suggest you gracefully exit before they hound you out too Arcane (talk) 01:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Seems like an exaggeration. Maybe you'll get hounded off of the Gamergate talkpage, but across the whole site? I hear a lot of people complaining about SJWs/feminists/non-colourblind anti-racists being all hostile but I see very little of it actually happening. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:45, 23 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

A degree of exaggeration, sure, but also a substantial degree of truth. Blacke (talk) 08:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Sysop[edit]

Only returning because I was the one who had to revdel your mess. Make sure not to post links that dox in the future, or you will very likely be banned. FuzzyCatPotato of the Crappy Newspapers (talk/stalk) 04:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Quick question?[edit]

I may be totally wrong here, and apologies if that's the case, but are you the editor who was tight with the guy who wanted to dox us all as Nazis? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 06:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Inquistor Ehrenstein? I denounced them and cut all ties with them on my blog after I found out they lied rather extensively about their past to me on my blog. I even sent David Gerard an email telling him what I knew of that maniac's plans once I became aware of them, and tried (in vain) to stop them. Now, I have no contact with them and wish never to again, and would turn them in to the authorities if I had the chance. Arcane (talk) 06:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 06:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Vordrak[edit]

Hi, long time; no see. Since you're interested in Gamergate, I'm wondering about your thoughts on the following:

Basically, a guy complained and was blocked the moment Gooniepunk saw him. Understandably, he then sought to document the incident and the individuals involved in his blog. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

That's not really "understandable". Most people get blocked from a private, volunteer website, they don't try to dox the owners and invite harassment.KrytenKoro (talk) 15:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe that anyone here knows what "harassment" is. Saying that "X done them wrong" isn't harassment, even if the X used is a real name rather than a pseudonym, and seeking to know the identity of a person that done them wrong isn't harassment either. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, on the fence. I've read some of his articles before, and while he's just careful enough to avoid doing clearly illegal acts, he sure does threaten lawyers and dissemination of embarrassing information quite a bit. Whether what he does is illegal seems hazy, but it certainly does come off as provocative even when he does argue from a basis in fact. In short, some of his acts seem dickish, but not sure if they are legally actionable. Arcane (talk) 17:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, what I wanted to know was your opinion on whether RationalWiki did the right thing by pre-emptively banning him. All he did prior to being blocked was voice his concerns at Talk:Timeline_of_Gamergate#Disputed_Facts_-_Vordrak. I concerned with the way RationalWiki operates. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

They may have jumped the gun, but I'd need to be more exposed to the full pattern of his behavior to make a better personal opinion. He does seem to argue from legally defensible positions, if nothing else, though his potential reactions to the responses I'm still up in the air about. Arcane (talk) 19:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Then you can rest assured, as, to the extent RW has solid guidelines/a clear standard, this instance was more an exception than the rule. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:13, 14 December 42015 AQD (UTC)

"Saying that "X done them wrong" isn't harassment"

I didn't say he was harassing them by doxxing them, I said he was inviting harassment. Anyone with even the barest amount of self-honesty realizes that this is the entire point of doxxing someone, and I fail to see how banning a volunteer user from a private website can even be considered "doing them wrong". There is absolutely no legal or ethical obligation for the site admins to let anyone contribute to this wiki, regardless of any communal pretenses the wiki culture's ethos implies, and if they banned me right now, even for flagrantly dishonest reasons, I'd be annoyed but I'd fucking move on. It's called freedom of association, and it's beyond ludicrous to act like Vordrak has even the hint of a shadow of a legal claim here. Pretending that Vordrak's response is anything but a childish tantrum is beneath you.KrytenKoro (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to concur here. I'm a guest of RationalWiki, and my continued presence here is at their discretion, which they can revoke at any time. If I find myself banned from here for any reason, I've already planned in advance to move on myself. Arcane (talk) 20:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I appreciate you being here, Arcane. You're one of the few GG people I've seen who lacks the utter contempt for humanity and empathy I usually see from the GG crowd that makes me tempted to just guzzle down a gallon of bleach in existential despair at how fucked our species is. I may disagree with your conclusion, but for you I feel like it's merely a lack of information and understanding on your part rather than the truly evil shit I regularly see.

Main thing I want to get across to the GG crowd? Being doxxed is fucking terrifying, whether you're progressive or conservative or what have you. It happened to someone else in my family over a forum argument almost a decade ago, and because one fucker thought it'd be fun to reveal that family member's info to the baying crowd, my parent's marriage fell apart and I have trouble getting hired -- and I am tangential to the person who was actually targeted. That's my main complaint -- beyond all the reactionary politics, beyond the blatant partisanship, beyond all the falsified bad-faith propaganda, the mere fact that GamerGate was founded on and cheers doxxing, that I have personally witnessed their jubilation over attacking their enemies in this way, negates any good they could have ever done in my eyes.KrytenKoro (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Email[edit]

y u no has FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 04:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Just enabled now, FCP. Arcane (talk) 04:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Wandalism[edit]

Simple wandalism does not warrant a three-month block of a user/ip. Revert, and vandal bin if dealing with a persistent wandal. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 08:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Force of habit on my own wikis. Arcane (talk) 14:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a good use of your time[edit]

Hope you ultimately don't go. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 01:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)