Infected RationalWiki - Whiny hugbox for spergs and a clusterfuck of neverending drama on a rapidly declining website.

[FuzzyCuck]

Well, at least you had the balls to come here yourself instead of sniping from offsite, that has to count for something.

Right?

*disappears into the mists, only to return and re-explain at a time when the honor of RationalWiki might be besmirched slightly less, thanks to emotionless dialogue*

 

[chimpburgers]

*disappears into the mists, only to return and re-explain at a time when the honor of RationalWiki might be besmirched slightly less, thanks to emotionless dialogue*

I want to talk about something else. Arisboch / @systemlord_baal / @fuehrer_dessler was recently banned from here and constantly made an ass out of himself here on the site. As long as you don't sperg out like he did, you will do just fine here to be honest.

 

[DZ 305]

I want to talk about something else. Arisboch / @systemlord_baal / @fuehrer_dessler was recently banned from here and constantly made an ass out of himself here on the site. As long as you don't sperg out like he did, you will do just fine here to be honest.

What did @fuehrer_dessler do to get a ban?

 

[chimpburgers]

What did @fuehrer_dessler do to get a ban?

Sockpuppets and just being a complete disruptive tard. Thank Dunsparce for banning him.

 

[Hellfire]

@FuzzyCuck do you know who the IP is that claims to be driving around a town at night so he can leech their internet and post about some girl on RW? Was it some user that got banned or just an IP troll?

Edit: Pbfreespace3 believes the IP is Arisboch and wants them to dox and destroy him.

A bit of a related request: is it possible, and more importantly would it be considered appropriate by the mob, to ban all IPs from editing for a period of time (such as 48 hours) to deter vandals? Maybe this could be facilitated by getting a bot to auto-protect all pages? I think we should deter Arisboch from his malignant activity, and a simple IP ban, although reducing good-faith IP edits, would pose a serious obstacle for Arisboch to continue his evil behavior. He would most likely get tired and leave. If that doesn't stop this behavior, we could always organize the infrastructure to lodge a criminal complaint against Arisboch, leading to a criminal prosecution of him by the government for harassment/doxxing. Harsh, I know, but it would do the job. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

So, we know its Arisboch? If so, why would he be wasting his time doing this? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Who else would it be? (half rhetorical question) Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

(Block log); 23:59 . . Pbfreespace3 (Talk | contribs) changed block settings for To The Coup You Go (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 0×π seconds (account creation disabled, cannot edit own talk page) ‎(Problematic username: You kow what? Screw it. Take me to the coop. However, you must reveal your real life identity first. I want a real name, address, and all aliases. If you don't do that, you get banned again.)

(Block log); 00:10 . . Pbfreespace3 (Talk | contribs) blocked Kayla Hirschy (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 3.14 months (account creation disabled) ‎(Doxing (posting/soliciting personal information): That's not your real name. Also no address. Your also an abvious Sockpuppet of a banned user who has doxxed someone. Out. Try again.)

 

[The Kebab and Calculator]

Meh, won't stay. Didn't feel like taking another "RW totes likes pedos!!" post w/o response.

In the time honoured bullying fashion so prevalent at RW, the mob are probably lighting the torches and will soon be on their way to burn you.

 

[Hellfire]

The troll has allegedly revealed himself as DMorris, someone from Conservapedia who took affront to RationalWiki stalking and doxing Conservapedians and decided to troll them for years as IP accounts.

http://archive.is/HAgMT

Blatant legal threats. Now the mask is off. I do what I do because I have not so fond memories of being doxxed myself, plus it's a fun diversion from the stress in my life (there's more to me than sitting behind a computer 24/7). You want to talk about dox? Posting some girl I work with's picture and name is not doxxing, creating an entire blog devoted to following someone's every move on the internet (as one of your old time people did to me) is doxxing. And I was never out to hurt Rachel, it was just funny to see your reaction to it. I knew you'd suppress all of that stuff, even though there wasn't any harm in it floating out there if you didn't. That all started because I posted her name in an article being funny, someone thought I was trying to harass her, and it escalated from there. And no I don't have an obsession with her, my heart belongs to someone entirely different. I have no idea who Mona is. I am a sysop here. I have done constructive things for the wiki. I've done more non-constructive things, but I never abuse my sysop account. I could really care less if you take it away because I'm not here as a white hat much at all anymore. I have never been banned formally under any account (been blocked plenty of times though). But if you fuck with me IRL, you will not like the results. I've email David Gerard about this and I expect to see something done about those legal threats because that's a serious violation of policy. DMorris, on the EIP Network 1 855 282 2882 06:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

User page: http://archive.is/edvcK
Talk page: http://archive.is/sOLms
Contribs: http://archive.is/x14pV

 

[HG 400]

RationalWiki loves pedophiles so much.

 

[Hellfire]

The pedophile has returned to claim he never was promoting pedophilia. http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php...ght68&curid=180997&diff=1645310&oldid=1645129

You're wrong. I have never promoted pedophilia.
Midnight68 (talk) 07:02, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The legal threats from Pbfreespace3 seem to have vanquished the troll.

Coop live link: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Chicken_coop#Pbfreespace3

http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Owlman&curid=171196&diff=1645303&oldid=1644620

You can turn the edit filters off now
I'm done messing around now, now that you know who is behind it. And you are correct in that it wasn't cool posting her picture on the wiki. DMorris, on the EIP Network 1 855 282 2882 06:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Owlman is having none of it.

http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=RationalWiki:Chicken_coop&diff=next&oldid=1645315

Well the legal threat is on you possibly harassing a woman and doxing her on this wiki. Also doxing is posting anyone's info that is they wouldn't want posted to the public such as their name, picture, and other personal info. Even if all that info was publicly available and was gained through informed consent you have no right to post their info here since it my encourage harassment; what if I had been some low-life loser who stalked this woman because of the info you posted? Now I didn't always believe in this broad definition of doxing, but after several contemporary instances of it i have broadened my definition. So if you were doxed I can't understand how you would risk someone you know's personal info on a website you hate full of anonymous users even if you were only "having fun" so sorry if all I can manage to cry for you are crocodile tears.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC) 06:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I admit it was an uncool thing to do and I went way overboard, but the isdie here is that Pbfreespace3 also went a little overboard, asking for dox and threatening to take legal action without consensus from the community. I'm not denying that what I did was wrong, I would be very upset if anything bad happened to Rachel because of it, or if she found out because that would upset her and that's not nessecary. DMorris, on the EIP Network 1 855 282 2882 06:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh woe is you; now you want us to forgive you because it would hurt your relationship with your peers after you proceeded to not only dox them, but encourage anonymous users to have a nice wank to their photo. From what I understand you are conservative so what kind of moral decency is that to promote anonymous internet users to partake in sexual pleasure of a close friend of your's. You simply want us to revoke a the very idea of taking legal action against you because it will cause your peers to become aware of what kind of deplorable being you act like online when they aren't looking so you can separate your personal life for that of your online life; you want us to punish one of our peers for the mere suggestion of an act that may disrupt your irl life when you preceded to dox your own peers and threaten their lives when they were innocent of this whole affair. Honestly, how petty can you be that you are willing to dox entrusted info you were given because you held a personal grudge against an internet wiki.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC) 06:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

 

[WhoopieDoo]

@WhoopieDoo can show you the way if you change your mind.

I don't really disagree with FCP here. Should RationalWiki somehow vet every new member? Ask for their ID papers? Criminal records? etc.?

I don't think that RW could reasonably have known that this person was a pedo fuck. And as far as I can see, appropriate action was taken once this was discovered.

One problem with RationalWiki, which is also shared by Wikipedia, is that edits aren't really vetted. Anyone can put any ol' crap in mainspace. With luck, someone looks at it, but that's in no way guaranteed.

There are a few ways this could potentially be fixed, but RW is, ironically, rather conservative about these things

I want to talk about something else. Arisboch / @systemlord_baal / @fuehrer_dessler was recently banned from here and constantly made an ass out of himself here on the site. As long as you don't sperg out like he did, you will do just fine here to be honest.

If Arisboch had been banned at RW for being a disruptive twat, then that would have been fine by me, because, you know, he was/is. Instead he was banned with a bullshit reason. No really, asking "is David still together with his wife?" is not doxing. And if it is, I have "doxed" a great many people on various forums, IRC chats, etc.

 

[HG 400]

If Arisboch had been banned at RW for being a disruptive twat, then that would have been fine by me, because, you know, he was/is. Instead he was banned with a bullshit reason. No really, asking "is David still together with his wife?" is not doxing. And if it is, I have "doxed" a great many people on various forums, IRC chats, etc.

You literally recruit editors from a doxxing thread.

 

[Hellfire]

Weaseloid said whoever was talking about going to ISPs or law enforcement over a troll needs to find something less stupid to say. David Gerard blocked the DMorris2 account for doxing, spamming, and proxy-hopping.

• (Block log); 09:36 . . David Gerard (Talk | contribs) blocked DMorris2 (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 3.14 months (account creation disabled, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page) ‎(Doxing (posting/soliciting personal information): spamming, proxy-hopping, you are unwelcome)

DMorris2
Anyone talking about getting the police, courts, ISPs or other external authorities to enforce RW's policies should just stop talking or think of something less stupid to talk about.

I'm taking away UserMorris2's sysop abilities for obvious vandalism (as acknowledged above) which contradicts the intentions stated on his user page. Discuss if you think any further action is needed (like blocking or vandal binning, not calling the cops or filing a lawsuit please). WěǎšěǐǒǐďMethinks it is a Weasel 08:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Turns out his sysopship was already removed two months ago. WèàšèìòìďMethinks it is a Weasel 08:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Blocked. He's spent the last week being someone nobody would want here (he's confessed to being the doxxing IP) and could do with time to contemplate the joy of being himself - David Gerard (talk) 09:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

 

[PantsOfDesire]

I don't really disagree with FCP here. Should RationalWiki somehow vet every new member? Ask for their ID papers? Criminal records? etc.?

I don't think that RW could reasonably have known that this person was a pedo fuck. And as far as I can see, appropriate action was taken once this was discovered.

One problem with RationalWiki, which is also shared by Wikipedia, is that edits aren't really vetted. Anyone can put any ol' crap in mainspace. With luck, someone looks at it, but that's in no way guaranteed.

There are a few ways this could potentially be fixed, but RW is, ironically, rather conservative about these things

Yeah, I'd cut them some slack in this instance. In their defence, RationalWiki is not in general pro child porn. It's more a case that they have decided that Gamergate and non Atheist+ people are the ultimate evil, so everyone opposing those things must be good. It's their them and us mentality that is fine on a personal level but toxic when writing for a wiki that supposedly deals in facts and rationality. Nyberg, a well evidenced child pornographer, only enjoyed their protection because of her attacks on Gamergate. They won't extend the same courtesy to all child pornographers. Their prior form with Nyberg probably colours views of RW, which leads them to believe that failure to pre-emptively ban a paedophile is RW's pro-paedo policy in action. TGcomix might have lasted longer if he had managed to become a prominent enemy of Gamergate or whatever other bullshit social justice shit they care about.

 

[Alberto Balsalm]

Well, there was also the incident where they allowed a contributor to announce right in his username and user page that he was a pedophile, and certain editors defended that decision when it came under question. As well as, if I recall correctly, some other guy who'd been arrested as a child sex offender (Conservapederast?). That would appear to create a precedent for pedophiles being allowed on the wiki far before Nyberg was a relevant issue.

 

[AnOminous]

Nyberg, a well evidenced child pornographer, only enjoyed their protection because of her attacks on Gamergate. They won't extend the same courtesy to all child pornographers.

The Catholic Church also didn't generally support child molesters. It was completely against doctrine.

However, they defended child molesters among their clergy for an unacceptable length of time and suffered permanent damage to their reputation as a result.

They will not be forgiven for this, nor will the fact they did this be forgotten. Ever.

I hope they live long enough to regret this.

 

[HG 400]

The Catholic Church also didn't generally support child molesters. It was completely against doctrine.

However, they defended child molesters among their clergy for an unacceptable length of time and suffered permanent damage to their reputation as a result.

They will not be forgiven for this, nor will the fact they did this be forgotten. Ever.

I hope they live long enough to regret this.

They felt it was for the greater good. Seeing nastyfinger priests at the dock could shake people's faith and indelibly associate the Catholic Church with pederasty to them. It could chase them right into the Protestant churches or outright atheism. Obviously covering it up and being caught covering it up did far worse to their brand, but I can at least understand the reasons they did it. They weighed the eternal souls (and collection plate profits) of millions of believers all over the world against a few kids getting diddled, and they made a choice. Putting yourself in the Vatican's position, it's not that hard to understand why they chose to go the way they did, even if it turned out to be a terrible choice, both morally and pragmatically.

On the other hand, defending pedophiles because of video game boob sliders and Brianna Wu is... more difficult for me to understand.

 

[Moexlibu]

Can someone please explain what is going on in their coop? http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=RationalWiki:Chicken_coop&diff=1645415&oldid=1639519

And on a related note

They felt it was for the greater good. Seeing nastyfinger priests at the dock could shake people's faith and indelibly associate the Catholic Church with pederasty to them. It could chase them right into the Protestant churches or outright atheism. Obviously covering it up and being caught covering it up did far worse to their brand, but I can at least understand the reasons they did it. They weighed the eternal souls (and collection plate profits) of millions of believers all over the world against a few kids getting diddled, and they made a choice. Putting yourself in the Vatican's position, it's not that hard to understand why they chose to go the way they did, even if it turned out to be a terrible choice, both morally and pragmatically.

Is only true if you believe the Vatican believes their own crap. Which I don't think they do.

 

[lolwut]

On the other hand, defending pedophiles because of video game boob sliders and Brianna Wu is... more difficult for me to understand.

Because boob sliders and Brianna Wu are quickly becoming religions in their own right by basement dwellers with nothing more important going on in their lives.

 

[AnOminous]

Can someone please explain what is going on in their coop? http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=RationalWikihicken_coop&diff=1645415&oldid=1639519

And on a related note


Is only true if you believe the Vatican believes their own crap. Which I don't think they do.

How many Catholic priests have you ever met? Most of them are embarrassingly sincere and generally decent people.

I suppose it's possible there's some Sith Lord level gruesomeness going on in the Vatican, but it's mostly just being really old and shockingly out of touch.

I am actually pretty impressed by Pope Francis and think he is moving the Church forward from the decades of bullshit that led up to this.

 

[Splendid]

How many Catholic priests have you ever met? Most of them are embarrassingly sincere and generally decent people.

I suppose it's possible there's some Sith Lord level gruesomeness going on in the Vatican, but it's mostly just being really old and shockingly out of touch.

I am actually pretty impressed by Pope Francis and think he is moving the Church forward from the decades of bullshit that led up to this.

Modern popes tend to be absurdly old when they get elected, and I think that this has caused problems over time. Currently, you cannot be elected pope if you are 80 or older, but perhaps that age needs to come down some.

Finding people from outside of the usual Western European circlejerk, which is what they did when they elected Francis, is also a very good move.

A North American pope could be coming up too. That would absolutely rock the foundations of the church. Catholics in North America are hyperliberal by Church standards.
I expect that within two decades, the Church will at least endorse gay civil unions. The fact that two people of the same gender cannot naturally bear a child will probably continue to form a signifigant impediment to the chruch performing gay marriages, but we'll see what happens as time goes on.