Hacker News Reader

Comment by econ | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

Are you seriously complaining that you are not getting taken seriously anymore after creating a track record of acting in bad faith?

You literally can't create constructive online communities if you don't do that.

You describe the concept of being taken seriously. We use this a lot in real life. It's arguably a very useful concept.

Wikipedia has elaborate guidelines for everything but users have their own ideas.

For example, the guidelines don't grant you the privilege to delete contributions because you've decided not to take the editor seriously.

Imagine reverting and putting it in an edit summary: I don't take this guy seriously

If there are insufficient independent so called reliable sources to establish the so called notability of Odin but it does have 11k GitHub stars. Then you put an infobox on the article that describes the problem.

You then attempt to find sources. If you find nothing that Wikipedia accepts you might have a conversation about sources for programming languages.

Then you end up reading things like the AFD for hackernoon (22 May 2026) Not even worthy of a stub?

Then you wonder how any programming article established so called notability.

I've just looked at php and I don't see any reference from mainstream media, definitely nothing specifically about php.

It doesn't seem notable?

> I use to play this game where I gently rub as many established users as possible the wrong way.

> I do this as an IP editor as I've seen them fabricate excuses to ban users often enough.

You know there's no need to fabricate an excuse to indefinitely block someone for trolling right?

You can't report someone for constructive improvements, quality citations and polite talk page discourse.

You've openly stated that you were intentionally acting in bad faith, hounding other editors to provoke them and doing so while logged out to evade scrutiny. Retreating to "you can't prove I did anything wrong" is not the defense you think it is.

It's kinda sad to see the only website with such elaborate guidelines fail to follow them.

Your argument appears to be that you don't need real evidence to dispose of editors.

It seems we agree?

Assuming good faith is not a suicide pact. If you consistently aim to disrupt the project then you obviously should be CBANed. I can't comment on the evidence available in your block discussion, only what you've presented here.

I have no block discussion. I just read other peoples talk pages.

Besides from the obvious cases it is quite subjective what disrupting the project even means.

I'm not trying to stop the character assassination article but I will be a nuance to the process. I will argue this valuable to the project.

Im kinda curious, if a topic is considered a fringe theory, say fringe physics (where the consensus among surviving editors is that it must be denounced as fake until published in a high quality journal) would you oppose including other high quality sources or would you exclude them to help portray the topic as fake?

If one was to reliably demonstrate 1) there to be [say] a giant time travel laboratory, 2) a hundred million research budget and 3) prominent names involved.

Should they now be banned?

(No, I don't believe in time travel)

I will not concede that it is at all "subjective" what being disruptive means in the specific case of your intentionally bad-faith trolling. You may choose to categorise that either as an obvious case or refer to my previous comments.

Larry Sanger was right.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com