Difference between revisions of "Talk:Essay: RationalWiki user Andrew5, who leans somewhat politically to the right, is an irritating thorn in the side of politically left-leaning RationalWikians and he is an obsessive, officious, serial liar with bad judgment (who is also a wikiholic)"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Conservative (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
::Bottomline: Their own words cited in this Essay differ from your conclusion that he "fits right in". Anyone can see that, except possibly you because of your bias and prejudice against RW editors. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Let's Go Brandon!]]</sup> 23:12, November 30, 2021 (EST) | ::Bottomline: Their own words cited in this Essay differ from your conclusion that he "fits right in". Anyone can see that, except possibly you because of your bias and prejudice against RW editors. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Let's Go Brandon!]]</sup> 23:12, November 30, 2021 (EST) | ||
| + | ::Two points: | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::1) I cite: A RationalWiki editor whose username is Christopher wrote at RationalWiki: "Technically...[User: Conservative at Conservapedia].. "shouldn’t have been banned, the vote to ban him was one short of the 2/3 majority that’s needed according to site policy."<ref>[https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=RationalWiki:Chicken_coop&diff=prev&oldid=2296799 Revision as of 21:46, 11 March 2021 (view source) Christopher (talk | contribs)] | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::In short, RationalWiki broke its own rules when they permabaned me. According to RationalWiki rules, a permaban requires a 66% majority. RationalWiki permabanned me without such a majority. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::2) RationalWiki bans people for capricious reasons. User: AceMcWicked pointed out | ||
Revision as of 04:46, December 1, 2021
"Given his 3+ month tenure at RationalWiki and his many edits, it appears as if he fits in well at RationalWiki!". I don't read that in the clips presented at all. I read a Discord discussion about a problem user (whom evidently some know from WP) among RW admin, and what to do about him. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 20:33, November 30, 2021 (EST)
- Ok. We will agree to disagree then.
- But I believe there are plenty of workplaces/clubs where an obsessive, creepy, serial lying weirdo with bad judgment would not last 3+ months if he showed up very regularly.
- Furthermore, according to RationalWiki admin Moosolino RationalWiki "attracts all sorts of weird people".Conservative (talk) 21:18, November 30, 2021 (EST)
- My local 7-11 attracts all sorts of weird people, too. RW has processes to deal with unwanted or abusive editors, not just arbitrary blocking by anyone with blocking powers. I'm not sure what we disagree about.
- Bottomline: Their own words cited in this Essay differ from your conclusion that he "fits right in". Anyone can see that, except possibly you because of your bias and prejudice against RW editors. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 23:12, November 30, 2021 (EST)
- Two points:
- 1) I cite: A RationalWiki editor whose username is Christopher wrote at RationalWiki: "Technically...[User: Conservative at Conservapedia].. "shouldn’t have been banned, the vote to ban him was one short of the 2/3 majority that’s needed according to site policy."<ref>Revision as of 21:46, 11 March 2021 (view source) Christopher (talk | contribs)
- In short, RationalWiki broke its own rules when they permabaned me. According to RationalWiki rules, a permaban requires a 66% majority. RationalWiki permabanned me without such a majority.
- 2) RationalWiki bans people for capricious reasons. User: AceMcWicked pointed out