User talk:Bongolian

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>


I didn't change anything you edited. All I did was add a warning label to the website. Aurelius (talk)23 February 2016 (EST)


Hi. I can't help but feel your block of WWW is somewhat... disproportionate. 3 months for a single (admittedly silly) edit? I think its too much. --RWRW (talk) 20:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I think if What a Wonderful World's being disruptive, you probably should fire a discussion first before taking action on a sysop-revoked user. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
WWW has been continuously disruptive and already desysopped. WWW's sole purpose on RW is disruption: it's rather obvious. The block was not for that comment it was for disrupting the election, which they've done in a number of ways. That's why I think WWW should blocked at least for the duration of the election. You're welcome reduce the block time, @LeftyGreenMario, but I will contest any reduction by @RWRW because he has also disrupted the election. Bongolian (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, what have I done to disrupt the election? --RWRW (talk) 02:03, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Just because you were induced to removed this from your user page, "I wanna make RationalWiki great again. I will drag it kicking and screaming from the clutches of the liberal left. I will rid this Wiki of the CNN style FAKE NEWS and provide honest, decent information provided by upright conservatives." doesn't mean that is no longer your intent, @RWRW. You're not kidding anyone. Bongolian (talk) 02:13, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Firstly I have made it clear that is no longer my intention (it was removed from my page sometime ago) and secondly, how the hell does that mean I "disrupted the election"? --RWRW (talk) 02:19, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
I have nothing more to say about this at this point, @RWRW. Bongolian (talk) 02:21, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
He hasn't done anything to disrupt the election that I've seen, and I was the one who nominated him in the first place. [Clarification: I mean RWRW] Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 02:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
In other words you realise you've been caught out. I've been accused of many things on this site, but being accused of "disrupting the election" because of something (unrelated) I wrote on my userpage ages ago is certainly a new one. But I agree, this conversation is going nowhere. If you're going to accuse me of nonsense for no reason then I have nothing more to say either. Good day. --RWRW (talk) 02:26, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── OK, it's admittedly circumstantial, but here's my beef with you, @RWRW:

  1. You only retracted the above statement because you wanted to become sysop. This seems rather clear. It's hardly long ago since you had some variant of that statement up through June 2018[1], and it's hardly irrelevant since it insinuated that you would stop at nothing for a takeover.
  2. You have not disputed my claim from a while ago that you don't understand the difference between conservativism and autocracy. Look no further than your idolization of the autocrat-in-chief.
  3. You stated that you were confident that you could win if you ran. Really, based on what: your lackluster edits or your hostility to the purpose or Rationalwiki?
  4. We've had election hacking before, and could that perhaps be the reason that you're so confident?

FYI: @DuceMoosolini, @LeftyGreenMario. Bongolian (talk) 03:06, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

RWRW, my suggestion to earn Bongolian's trust is to make good edits and good comments (the latter... you haven't; it's not a matter of political disagreement by the way) and try dispelling your previous impression of wanting to disrupt RationalWiki. You haven't been making the effort to improve your image. That being said, I don't think a ban is completely appropriate but I don't lean heavily agree or disagree either way as I have little reason or enthusiasm to unban you. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:11, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
(ec):WWW admitted outright that they fucked with the last moderator election. We don't need to tolerate that kind of behavior around here. Cosmikdebris (talk) 03:13, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Geez, I missed that. WWW should be permabanned for that. Just to clarify, I in no way punished @RWRW since I had no direct evidence against him. The ban that I issued was against WWW, @LeftyGreenMario, @Cosmikdebris. Bongolian (talk) 03:15, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
What a Wonderful World should just be barred from participating in elections. Maybe he can vote. But he also admitted to nominating distrusted people to board "just to make things fun" when I think board business and decisions is not the place to monkey around... --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:18, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Really, how bad do someone's actions have to be before they get permabanned? In my view admission to election interference should be obvious grounds. @LeftyGreenMario, @Cosmikdebris Bongolian (talk) 03:21, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
In what way did WWW screw with the last election? Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 03:40, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, what's your evidence, @Cosmikdebris? Bongolian (talk) 03:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
In the discussion on the 2018 trustees election campaigning page, WWW stated: "Perhaps you should give it a little more weight considering I, together with a friend from high school, got Pbfreespace3 elected as an alternate for moderator..." This statement implies the use of sockpuppetry in the moderator election. Cosmikdebris (talk) 14:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Or maybe, MAYBE, WWW is an attention-seeking troll who's willing to prod a community that is historically concerned with election security. And if he did actually hack the election, maybe we should find out how he did it, rather than block just him? RoninMacbeth (talk) 19:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @RoninMacbeth, @Cosmikdebris It really doesn't matter what WWW has to say about this because he could either lie or say nothing, and because it's quite easy to fuck with the elections without doing any hacking at all (mainly via sockpuppetry). Bongolian (talk) 21:03, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Coop notice[edit]

A case involving you has been raised at the Chicken Coop. Feel free to comment.--RWRW (talk) 18:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


I wasn't there for most of the I/P thing. What part, exactly, did Pbfreespace play in it? RoninMacbeth (talk) 14:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Pbfreespace and Mona were involved in endless edit warring and blocking over ideological differences on the I/P pages from what I can remember. I wasn't particularly involved in the coop cases. You can read all the gory details from the coop cases if you want, @RoninMacbeth.[2] I think that the upshot was that the pages were protected for a period of time to allow a cooling off period, which may not have been too effective. @FuzzyCatPotato desysopped Mona in 2016, I think for reasons unrelated to the I/P dispute. Bongolian (talk) 23:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Ben Shapiro[edit]

Sorry, why did you remove my edit? Is it inaccurate in some way? As I mentioned, Ben has kids and is no longer a virgin, so the nickname is no longer apt. And the other line I removed was purely subjective personal opinion, unsourced. — Unsigned, by: / talk

@ The reference was written by Shapiro himself in which he stated, "I've become a favorite target of Internet leftists, who often refer to me as 'The Virgin Ben.'"[3] If it was just some schmuck who said it and Shapiro ignored it, then I'd be fine with deleting it. Bongolian (talk) 06:57, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
It was written by Shapiro himself...when he was 21 years old, 13 years ago. It's obviously no longer accurate. Are you forever a virgin because you said you were a virgin when you were a virgin? No? Then let the accurate edit stand, please. Your vitriol for the man is not as important as factual accuracy. — Unsigned, by: / talk