User talk:UnlicensedThinker

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, UnlicensedThinker!

Please see our guide for newcomers and our community standards.

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

Because of your edits to and time on the wiki, Autopatrolled has been added to your user rights. This lets you bypass most of the abuse filters, bypass the CAPTCHA, and edit more frequently. If you have questions, bleat ask away.

We hope you enjoy your newfound ᴘᴏᴡᴇʀ — and these external tools:

  • Rbutr shows user-submitted rebuttals to your current webpage.
  • Google Scholar Button (Chrome, Firefox) searches your highlighted text in Google Scholar. Easily check academic citations!
  • web.archive.org and archive.is can save permanent copies of webpages. Never lose a crank website or racist Tweet ever again!

Dysklyver 13:12, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Block #100840[edit]

To the moderators: @Bongolian, @DuceMoosolini, @LeftyGreenMario, @RWRW, @RoninMacbeth, @Spud

On 19:47, 17 January 2019 @Dysklyver blocked me with an expiration time of about 9 hours (autoblock disabled) for the following reason: "Overdue for a block: Actively proving to be an unwanted misogynist asshole."

I checked RationalWiki:Blocking_policy and I read that:

  • "In general, RationalWiki discourages blocking, especially for extended periods of time."
  • "Blocking should only be used if somebody is maliciously editing a page or pages, as explained below."

Since it doesn't seem to me that I did any of the kind of malicious actions listed on RationalWiki:Blocking_policy#Malicious_editing, I ask Dysklyver to make clear: (1) which policy I violated to justify a 9 hours block and (2) when/where I violated such policy.

Thinker(unlicensed)

I'll be happy to unblock you, as per the mighty rules, if you'd just tell me what you think of their actual block reason, and whether you think it's accurate or not. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:16, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
(also someone else will probably eventually unblock you if I don't but that's my ask) ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Nine hours is not a particularly long block, but let's hear from @Dysklyver before unblocking you. Bongolian (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Putting toxic masculinity in air quotes is not a good sign, but not grounds to call someone a misogynist and probably not grounds to get banned over. The user is getting worked up over an ad like all the other anti-feminists, but that's about it, really. This is basing just on Saloon Bar, maybe this user posted actual misogynistic comments somewhere else? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Still uncomfortable about these kinds of blocks. Unless this person's alleged misogyny is reaching DarkMaster2 levels of disruption, I would advise unblocking. RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Agree. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:52, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
To clarify the situation, the issue is encapsulated in Special:Diff/2033395, where the Thinker appears to make some pretty dodgy implications. Per RW:CS#C. para. 3 this is not allowed. misogyny is bad, etc etc. I have unblocked you, have fun. Dysklyver 21:16, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
@Dysklyver "where the Thinker appears to make some pretty dodgy implications. Per RW:CS#C. para. 3 this is not allowed."
What is not allowed? RW:CS#C. para. 3 says "Discussions here sometimes get heated, but resorting to personal attacks is strongly frowned upon, however justified they may seem. In particular, attacks incorporating racist, threatening, sexist and homophobic language and insults are not tolerated. Accusations of fascism or comparisons to Hitler are also best avoided (see Godwin's Law)."
Which part of RW:CS#C. para. 3 do you think I violated? Thinker(unlicensed) 21:47, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
I also support unblocking this user. DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 21:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)