RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive38

Questioning why we have a recipe namespace.
No seriously we do. Don't exactly think it's missional, yet I also don't want to spam AfD with stuff involving this. Potential consideration: move it all to funspace since from what I can tell it's mostly harmless. 17:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It is there for historical reasons mainly and the fact that they are mostly harmless. Most people never notice them. They're in their own namespace, no need to move them to funspace. Bongolian (talk) 17:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * [EC]Of course it isn’t missional, that’s why it’s not in mainspace. It’s a relic from the site’s past that isn’t hurting anyone, I don’t see the point of scrapping it all. Deleting a namespace would lead to technical issues, and having the namespace still exist but consist entirely of redirects to fun pages makes no sense. Most of the recipes aren’t fun.
 * This was discussed before in 2014 (it used to be linked in history) and the consensus was overwhelmingly in favour of keep. Christopher (talk) 17:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah I see. 17:48, 29 April 2021‎ (UTC)
 * Yes, this goes way way back. Before we had such things as namespaces. It was a free-for-all.  Once things settled down a lot of stuff was vaped, a lot went to "Fun" and some went to Recipe.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I like foodspace, it gives me cooking ideas. 19:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I wholeheartedly oppose any ideas of deleting recipespace. 19:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I also fully support keeping recipespace. Spud (talk) 00:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Super cool and edgy comments about other users
I honestly can't be bothered with this stuff. I thought I'd let you know so you can keep an eye on it in case it happens to others. This is not the first time people have said stuff like this about me, and I think I'll be done with this friendly and welcoming community full of people who are willing to show basic respect towards others they disagree with. I'm sure people will mock me for leaving too. But communities full of people who believe they are always right can turn toxic. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Intuitive_eating &mdash; Unsigned, by: QuietLuna / talk / contribs 15:50, 3 May 2021‎ (UTC)
 * Perhaps its hypoxia that makes QuietLuna so quite Lol yeah very offensive-Hastur! (talk)  17:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, this is a systematic issue with this wiki's culture, not just a few problem contributors. You missed it, but about a month ago someone exhumed the poorly-sourced, out-of-date version of HAES with the snipe about fat people wanting to "guzzle cans of Pringles." It was only through a massive struggle that our improved (but not perfect) version was restored. I was pretty much alone in the fight. Other participants in the dispute looked at the old version and were like, "Nah, fat jokes are fine." Perhaps those people ought to consider the possibility that they might be otherwise rational people with a blind spot of their own. I completely understand your wish to leave. I'm leaving too.


 * And fuck off, Hastur. You're contributing nothing of value to this discussion with your 4chan edgelord act. Users with your mentality are the rot that's eating this wiki from the inside. You're stuck in the New Atheist era of Internet rationalism where it's all an exercise in intellectual superiority and taking shots at easy targets. QuietLuna's contributions aren't perfect ( structurally, they're a bit of a mess, sometimes) but she did a lot of difficult and necessary work toward removing ableism and fatphobia that had been baked into the wiki for far too long. The wiki will be poorer for her loss. Splainer (talk) 17:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * QuietLuna, you have been a valuable contributor. It's unfortunate that you feel the need to leave. We do have a policy against incivility and against harassment. If you feel like someone has been incivil towards you or harassed you, you can bring it to the attention of moderators here or elsewhere. Bongolian (talk) 17:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hastur insults QuietLuna in this very thread. He thinks he's being cute because there's the plausibly deniable interpretation that he's joking she's quiet from the hypoxia that comes with living on the moon. But then that joke works if you change the punchline to being about sound not travelling in a vacuum. It's obviously meant to insinuate that someone who makes edits debunking dieting culture must suffer from heart disease because surely they are heavy themselves. Splainer (talk) 18:58, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hastur has been an ongoing provocateur who has contributed little of value. Hastur has not changed despite his recent claim ("My tenure has not been uncontroversial. When I first arrived I was an uncouth, barely civilized individual (generously speaking)." People recognized this duplicity, even one of his 3 endorsers: 1 banned, 1 privileges revoked, 1 semi-retired ("Used to hate this mutha fucker. Now that I have buried the hatchet (in his spine)…") RationalWiki:Moderator elections/Campaigning/Archive13 Bongolian (talk) 19:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The hypoxia comment was, Hastur was just quoting him. Christopher (talk) 19:22, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I love how your only response to this is a pedantic correction. You were involved in that discussion. You are the part of the toxic culture that's driven her from the wiki and 100% of the reason I'm leaving. Splainer (talk) 19:35, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Complaining about an insult and a toxic culture while simultaneously telling someone to fuck off is pretty rich. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I thought that while glancing at this thread. But the internet is full of people subject to unconscious irony.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:55, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * How in the world is Cristopher toxic based on that discussion? His first comment was voicing discomfort with a previous edit of Luna's, and his second comment was backing that up by pointing out that many citations were from one bad website. None of that is toxic or even insulting. 19:58, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * [EC]You want me to apologise? I did absolutely nothing wrong here; the only real issue is the hypoxia comment, which is why I felt it was important people didn’t misattribute it. Everything else had already been said. Christopher (talk) 20:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * You suggested that QuietLuna's edits shouldn't be trusted on the basis on of her rewrite of HAES. You tipped your hand when you unilaterally threw out QL and my rewrite of HAES and restored the version containing a fat joke, then defended that joke as "fine" on the talk page. Splainer (talk) 20:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

This isn’t about the HAES article. I mentioned it because it was an ongoing discussion at the time, but my main reason for wanting the article deleted was the dodgy references. I haven’t done anything wrong here, you won’t be able to get me in trouble over my very tepid defence of a slightly offensive joke about pringles over a month ago. Christopher (talk) 20:31, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see, the toxicity accusation was based on an edit grudge. 🎵Discaaaaard~ 20:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * (Christopher) This isn't any one specific incident. It's about a pattern of behaviour and the overall culture that enables it. For example, yesterday I asked you to stop following me around. So what did you did you do? You followed me to another user's talk page where I was trying to explain my frustrations. You could've started a new thread addressing that user directly if you wanted to state your case. You didn't even address the user who's talk page you were posting on. You were only there to antagonize me some more and assert that you're always right and never wrong. Splainer (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * And it was a blatantly cruel and unnecessary potshot based on a bigotted stereotype. You would never defend a racist/sexist/homophobic joke or dismiss it as only "slightly offensive." Splainer (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * [EC]I saw you disparaging me in recent changes and defended myself. This is a public platform, you don’t get to talk about me without expecting a response. There was no need to make a separate thread as it was about the same topic.
 * You clearly have an issue with me. If you want something done about it take your own advice and start a separate thread here, don’t sidetrack this one. I warn you it’ll be a waste of your time as I haven’t actually done anything, you’ll get a few responses along the lines of DuceMoodolini’s and then it’ll be archived. Christopher (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm obviously not your #1 fan, based on your conduct in the HAES dispute. But I was willing to let that go and contribute constructively to the wiki. Then you followed me to my other main topic area (where you don't seem to have much of a history yourself) so that you could start edit-warring and nitpicking my contributions. Because you don't like me, or you don't trust me to make quality edits in one area when I've made "bad" edits in another. You're the one who made this personal. Splainer (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If you think that’s the case, make a separate thread here explaining what it is I’ve done wrong. You’re derailing this one. Christopher (talk) 21:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I'll let be the judge of whether I'm derailing her by explaining that I've also been insulted and mistrusted for my work on one of the same articles she's been insulted and mistrusted for her work on. Splainer (talk) 21:35, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You should expect to find skeptical people on a science-based wiki. Editors who seem to favor woo are routinely insulted here. I prefer humor, myself. Since you are leaving, let me be the first to write "adios!" UncleKrampus (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You appear to be a transphobic troll and I don't give a toot about what FARTs think. Splainer (talk) 23:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

For reference, the Intuitive eating article was nuked 10-0, with plenty of talk of "woo" and "pseudoscience". Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 21:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * QuietLuna's contributions have overall been quite solid. I can't judge the intuitive eating article because it's gone now. But the got labelled "woo" during the HAES dispute. It's actually a legitimate term for the scientific observation that obese people unexpectedly seem to have a higher survival rate for certain conditions than average-weight people. There are two decades of studies supporting this observation, although there is plenty of scientific disagreement over it. The trouble was that the HAE article described the obesity paradox as the finding that "people who are slightly overweight may actually live longer." Which is confusing and paints an inaccurate picture. The critics didn't dive deeper, though. They just took the poorly-worded description at face value and wrote the obesity paradox off as woo accordingly. Could that be what happened with the intuitive eating article? Insufficient explanation and flawed sources, making it look like junk even when it's not? Just spending two minutes skimming PubMed, it looks like an idea with legitimate scientific currency, even if it's not universally or strongly supported yet. Probably warrants an article laying out the evidence as it stands. Splainer (talk) 23:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "Transphobic?" Now, shorty, that's a red flag showing someone has been caught with their pants down. You don't have to thank me for calling you out as a BS artist. That's on the house. UncleKrampus (talk) 23:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Mods, can you please address this troll? He is adding nothing to this discussion and has now resorted to hurling a sexist insult at me. I don't expect people to be saints because (I'm not one myself), but this is clearly crossing the line. Splainer (talk) 23:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Lurk moar, please. Your judgment is borked beyond all recognition. For the record, my favourite QL joint is probably this batshit hatchet job which: Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 23:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Flat out accuses someone of viciously abusing her autistic child
 * 2) Includes a final section "Zack", written directly to the child himself (!!)
 * 3) Is approx. 50% sourced to the Twitter / blog posts of a "Sci-Fantasy" author, with autistic children of their own, and strong opinions on the correct way of raising them
 * 4) Completely ignores other coverage which indicates the "abuser" is sane & well-adjusted, and that the "abused" child made excellent progress and is functioning quite happily.
 * Doesn't anyone review new articles? Read them? Ariel31459 (talk) 00:05, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think there's a general wiki disease whereby if someone sticks a link in between ref tags, and its contents broadly correspond to the sentence / paragraph in question, and the whole thing seems to be For Great Justice, then interest in looking any deeper tails off pretty quickly.


 * Throw the presence of one or more axe-grinding activists into the mix, and I can definitely see why people choose to swerve the migraine. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 01:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Holy cow, the ableism is strong here. This is blatant child abuse and made me physically ill to read. Neurotypical people need to stop talking over autistics and acting as if they know our lives and our minds better than us. As for the article, looks like it could be more concise and better sourced, but the general thrust of "it's wrong to forcibly restrain children and to try to purge the autism out of them" is good. The update about the kids's own thoughts should be added for context but it doesn't excuse the mother's self-admitted actions. It's not a "hatchet job" if she wrote a piece in a major newspaper bragging about doing the things the article states she did. Splainer (talk) 01:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

You're very good at whining about articles, and stirring up shit on the moderator board and chichen coop, and venting in the saloon, and harassing editors, but you've done close to nothing at all to improve the quality of articles here. This makes your opinions suspect; I think all you're here for is to troll, and that you don't give a shit about this community or it's mission at all. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 01:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I can see a point being made in their posts, but they can do completely without the noxious antagonizing, which something HBC is simply incapable of refraining from. The 3.14 weeks we could've got without them would be quite pleasant, frankly. The wild accusations from Splainer aren't helping, however. 01:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * What "wild accusations" are you talking about? Splainer (talk) 01:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe you should assume good intent in others despite their callous responses. I did not see any evidence of sexism, ableism, transphobia in the comments being made. You can take offense at the hostile passive-aggressive attitude some were conveying, but they weren't exhibiting the traits of what you were accusing them of being. Christopher wasn't toxic at all, just criticizing you? I didn't necessarily agree with him in the HAES debate but I never found him engaging in the same toxic culture you're accusing him of being? 01:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * What's with the questions? Do you think it makes you sound more conciliatory? Splainer is obviously happy to try & weaponise entirely spurious accusations here, and it's perfectly acceptable to tell them to fuck off. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 01:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have never seen a single smidge of effort from you to even try to deescalate. 01:44, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * We fundamentally disagree on how to deal with verbose cranks on the internet. Splainer will talk you to fucking death and not budge an inch. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 01:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've seen others work with Splainer. I can't speak for them, but aside from Christopher, they're not that bad, not to warrant this level of antagonism. 01:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict - directed at LGM)
 * UncleKrampus is a troll whose only contributions to this wiki seem to be posting pot-stirring nonsense like this lovely bit of transphobic bile. His only contributions to this discussion has been to insult and bait me, calling me "shorty," which in itself isn't a slur/insult, but in the context of his comment it is clearly meant to denigrate me as a woman. He doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt and I don't understand why you are going to bat for him here.
 * HBP is apparently also a longtime troublemaker. They are downplaying the abusive treatment of an autistic child, which, yes, I take exception to as an autistic, because it is ableist and wrong. I could explain further but I've already been accused of derailing this thread. Again, I don't understand why you are going to bad for a bad-faith actor here.
 * Christopher is more complex. We clearly have clashing personalities. He's done and said things I have serious issues with, but he's also done good work on the wiki. This is a situation with the potential of finding a solution Splainer (talk) 01:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't want to derail too far, but you're overreacting to that comment by UncleKrampus. I don't like HBC but don't accuse their argument in bad faith (e.g. say it's downplaying without explaining how and certainly don't conclude it as batting for abuse). I don't think they're bad faith, just provocative and for a reason, even if I don't agree with the reason. I am not going to bat with them, only disagreeing with your interpretation of these posts. 02:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * UncleKrampas literally made fun of the trans suicide rate in the comment I linked. Why are you caping for this user? Why are you insisting that I need to play nice with someone who's obviously got no interest in playing nice with me and has shown a general lack of human decency? I get that civility is generally conducive toward constructive discussions, but your both-sideism isn't helping. Splainer (talk) 02:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You need to assume good faith, which I've said already a lot of times and you're not understanding. You're seeing arguments that don't exist. I have no idea where the post was "making fun of suicide", that's a complete stretch of an interpretation from a post that doesn't make a whole lot of sense overall. I don't think Krampus's post is a worthwhile read, but you need to stop making assumptions about what's not being said. 02:28, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * "We are told that trans people are often so fragile that aggressive and unsympathetic sociological arguments may lead to fatality." Why does a user who would write something so monstrously insensitive deserve the benefit of the doubt? Splainer (talk) 02:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The next sentence and the sentence before this one. You left those out. Sigh. 02:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * He's saying being transgender is a silly fantasy ("transgender affects", condition in scare quotes) and but we're all forced to play along because trans people will kill themselves if we question their gender identity ("aggressive and unsympathetic sociological arguments"). He's just saying it the most pretentious way possible to try to make it look like a legitimate argument. Trust me that I have enough familiarity with transphobic rhethoric to know it when I see it. Splainer (talk) 02:55, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * What would you know about transphobic rhetoric? You can't even spell it. You will find, as you grow up, fewer and fewer people will trust you if you keep this up.Ariel31459 (talk) 03:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, sure, your userpage is one long racist joke, but I'm the immature one here. Splainer (talk) 03:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Transphobia, ageism, now racism...Let's see: you were welcomed by Oxyaena, demoted by,...Oxyaena. You wouldn't happen to be 19 would you? Ariel31459 (talk) 03:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Fuck all the way off, please:

Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 02:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Oh, so it's okay to tell people to "fuck off" now? "Fighting autism." Yikes. Splainer (talk) 03:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't go. If I were you I would stay and continue to learn how to put up with being annoyed. We do grow up. You'll see.UncleKrampus (talk) 04:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This discussion is a great distillation of the conflict RW has been experiencing of late-Hastur! (talk) 06:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Some general comments: --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 16:28, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * QuietLuna made only one comment so far. The heading, "Super cool and edgy comments about other users", is a good summary of a large part of what unfolded below the heading. In response to QuietLuna, I don't have much to say, other than best of luck. From a look, you've written good articles, even though a smaller portion of your writing may be less good.
 * Splainer is posting what seems like a false accusation. He linked a comment from UncleKrampus, calling it "transphobic bile", but the comment looks like general detached musing about conflicting philosophical and ethical currents, including concern for possible heartless undercurrents, and I don't see any hateful content in it at all. But currently Splainer seems to take many things in a personal or otherwise offensive way.
 * On RationalWiki as a whole, there's no one "tone" or cohesive standard for behavior, in my opinion as a relative newcomer. By that I mean, there is a functional order of sorts maintained in the long term, but on the smaller scale in actions and in time, it's somewhat random, chaotic, and imprecise. That's simply part of the character of the community, from what I can see. Changes over time seem in large part driven by changes in the style of more active participants.


 * The tweet I linked wasn't the only instance of transphobia from UncleKrampus. There's this post suggesting transphobic ideas are really just common sense, but worded in a way that cloaks this meaning for readers unfamiliar with veiled transphobic arguments. The reference to critical race theory is a big tell, though. That's fast-becoming a favorite new snarl word of reactionary sorts. Abigail Shrier, a very public transphobe, recently linked critical race theory to the supposed scourge of "gender ideology." There's this post making the same "what people say is transphobia is really just common sense" argument, and also saying gender identity is a semantic fiction. That trans women are women because people say they are and the media repeats it, but this is not objective reality. "I fear there is a touch of denialism amongst some activists." That's the old "radical trans activists are denying biology" argument but wearing a new hat.


 * It seems this wiki has now decided to start dismantling QuietLuna's work in the autism and ableism topic areas. Under difference circumstances, I'd be interested in working on those articles to address salient concerns, in the way I did with HAES. But not in this climate. I've been scolded for telling Hastur, described as an "ongoing provocateur who has contributed little of value," to fuck off. No one said a word when Helena Bonham Carter (how is that username even allowed?) directed that very same invective at me. No one has told UncleKrampus or Ariel31459 to knock it off with their pointless heckling, but I was told to be on my very best behaviour and "assume good faith" about users openly insulting me. I was told that pointing out transphobic dogwhistles is making "wild accusations," but no one told Ariel31459 not to accuse me of being a sock with zero evidence (not the first time they've done that, either).


 * If QuietLuna had participated in this thread beyond her initial post there's no doubt the troll feeding frenzy would've targeted her too. It seems that RW would rather lose two productive contributors serving underdeveloped topic areas than offend bad actors who contribute little beyond provocation and grief. Splainer (talk) 20:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Not gonna lie to you, you have big assfly energy. Gangster Computer God (talk) 20:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Contrary to the opinion of certain net communities, not every editor here goes ga-ga for every social justice concept out there. This isn't autism rights advocacy Wiki, and while HBC is an offensive angry troll and as such that was a shitty way of bringing that article up, that article QL wrote read more like one side of a Reddit/Twitter mommy blog war, and isn't terribly mission oriented as a result. Hence why I suggested essay space for this (going off on more personal tangents is fine there), particularly if (as Bongolian pointed out) only QL's contributions were included. IMHO throwing around buzzwords like "critical race theory" and "transphobic dogwhistles" haphazardly at some quote mines isn't going to help your case here. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 21:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * is a serious academic field that's been around from the '70s. It's not universally accepted and does seem to have been subject to legitimate academic criticism. But in the last few months it's become the latest bogeyman the right has chosen to go to war against. Think Cultural Marxism round two. Splainer (talk) 22:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware of that, but there's no points in throwing buzzwords to counter what ultimately is trolling, frankly. (It's hard to call UncleKrampus's not even wrong "what the fuck are you talking about" statement anything more than that, except that it's pretty clear that this account knows so little about critical race theory, they can't even troll properly about it). It is far better to call it out as trolling, once again. You wouldn't be the only person to tire of the non-contributing talk page trolls here. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 23:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Speaking of which, I'm rather mystified why Christopher thought it was a good idea to demote UncleKrampus. Bongolian (talk) 00:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I saw someone who’d been here a few months and seemed fairly harmless, but I didn’t check all of his edits. If I had seen those comments I wouldn’t have, although he hasn’t abused his rights so there isn’t a justification for promotion. Christopher (talk) 07:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

No one said a word when Helena Bonham Carter (how is that username even allowed?) directed that very same invective at me.
 * Christopher (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

What are you trying to prove here? I was scolded for telling Hastur to "fuck off," but no one called out HBC for doing the same toward me. Okay, if you want to be pedantic, someone did: me. And this doesn't answer the question of why a habitual provocateur is being allowed to wear the name of a famous actress. Splainer (talk) 22:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No one "scolded" you, we just pointed out the rich irony surrounding the comment.
 * Anyway, this thread seems to have been pretty much derailed beyond the point of no return. It just seems to be provocateurs provoking and Splainer soapboxing. Gangster Computer God (talk) 22:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Can someone block this IP?????
This IP user has vandalized Draft:Red Eagle Politics. Unclescrooge (talk) 02:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, Scrooge, I hope you've learned your lesson. The first time they vandalized the article they reverted the edit themselves. On the second time it was reverted right after, but only one edit is usually not enough for a block. If they vandalize your draft or another page again, he'll possibly be blocked. GeeJayK (talk) 02:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * GeeJayK, that IP user inserted the n-word, and you're saying the vandal still shouldn't be blocked yet??? And can I please just be removed from the vandal bin? Don't you think it's ridiculous that I sometimes have to wait an entire thirty minutes just to revert blatant vandalism? Maybe you guys don't get my sense of humor, but can't this site just be more rational and put some effort to live up to its name??? Unclescrooge (talk) 02:38, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "GeeJayK, that IP user inserted the n-word, and you're saying the vandal still shouldn't be blocked yet???" This was reverted by the same IP. 15:40, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That's correct. If this becomes repeated behavior, or if it was not self-reverted, then it becomes a clearer cause for blocking. Bongolian (talk) 17:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Motor_Anbus
Hi everyone, I just thought that I'd point out that with this edit this user claimed that their account was compromised. Shouldn't it be blocked? Thanks. Harry Potter (talk) 19:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems much more likely it was just an accidental revert the user wasn’t aware of at the time. No need to do anything unless something else happens. Christopher (talk) 19:21, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that user has no permissions as yet, so not much of a risk. If they request a permablock themselves, it can be arranged. Bongolian (talk) 19:27, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

PanGalacticGargleBlaster and Cosmikdebris
It's almost as if they're trying to say that we've always been at war with Eastasia. Time to permaban them! Unclescrooge (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This is stupid. Firstly, the WIGO post in question is neither professional nor mature. Secondly, get this, the dumbfucks in question got this one right. Mainly because they linked to another site and then commentated, but still. Yes, more rightw-ing Democrats like Manchin oppose reforms. And? How is this outlandish? How is pointing this out incorrect? 17:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Also quit with the shitty 1984 references. The fact that you're misusing them in such a petty and superficial manner indicates you haven't actually read the book in question. That and you're very likely a teenager and 1984 is a massive slog to get through for people without short attention spans. 17:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've read Nineteen Eighty-Four a while back (it was a great book). And why don't you have a sense of humor???? Unclescrooge (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure you did. (Animal Farm is better.) And I do have a sense of humor, though it A) involves lots of schadenfreude and B), is absent when people start pointless bullshit. Speaking of pointless bullshit, can the mods archive this nonsense? 17:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Tone down the melodrama scrooge, no need to start making 1984 accusations here. The source is an archived Facebook feed. Furthermore, I can't seem to find the post in question. Even without stepping into the territory of political beliefs, it is simply put: a bad WIGO because the source is bad. If we are treading into the territory of this discussion, then yes, opposing the specific proposed tax hikes is a fundamentally right wing belief. The Democrats aren't a pure left-wing party; they're mostly centrist with it's furthest right elements being people like Manchin who are straight up right wingers. Republicans don't have a monopoly on being right wing. 17:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The Democrats are "mostly centrist" and Manchin is a "straight-up right winger"???? ROFL Unclescrooge (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Why are you credulous? When looking at their political policies that is how one classifies them. I mean, I very much doubt the Dems are going to start calling for the abolishment of the class structure and for the Proletariat to overthrow the Bourgeoisie anytime soon. After all, they think mild social democracy is too radical... 19:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No GC, 2+2 does not equal 5. The vast majority of Democrats in Congress have ultra-liberal voting records regardless of whether they openly call for communism or not. Unclescrooge (talk) 20:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


 * @GC, I liked 1984 better. (snark) You can tell it's a better book because it named more tropes on TVTropes than Animal Farm (/snark).
 * Anyway, try having a sense of humor when the pointless bullshit happens, because literally two thirds of life is dealing with pointless bullshit. For example, see an adult complaining about nonsense?  Try to imagine that they are a toddler who made a deal with a genie to be "all growed up" for a day or two, and that's why they are still acting like they are 3.  Don't get angry, just use the baby talk with them and suggest it's naptime... CorSock (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Unclescrooge, cut out the fucking chronic edit warring, or I'll bring out the Ghost of Christmas Past. Bongolian (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Whatever, O'Brien. Unclescrooge (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

IP range that was inconvenienced needs to be held for another inconveniencing
The IP with string 2001:8003:59DB:4100 has came back to spamming right wing links, which we've range blocked before. I've reverted it and blocked it but if it continues to be persistent, I'd like to see a reapplication of the inconveniencing. Thanks. 19:50, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Why not just block the offenders instead of the entire range? Harry Potter (talk) 10:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Because it doesn't work, as Morris demonstrated. 12:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not internet savy but the general gist is that it's very easy to rereg under a similar IP string. Range block doesn't completely stop it, but it does make it more difficult to rereg. Hence the intention here is to just make it more difficult to troll and rereg, an "inconvenience" (really appreciate others taking up the mantle of this coinage of a range block). 05:08, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Right To Be Forgotten issue
A BoN has raised an issue with the European Right To Be Forgotten with regard to the Anatoly Karlin page (see: User talk:Bongolian). I'm not sure we have any precedent for this, nor do I know if there's anything meaningful we can do about it. Anyone with any advice or knowledge about this is welcome to weigh in on the issue. Pinging Board members who are not also moderators:, ,. Bongolian (talk) 04:34, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The issue has attracted a lot of BoNs, at least one of them is the same guy who tried to afd the page and was banned for being a Smith meat/sockpuppet. We shouldn’t move the page, I imagine the new url would be similarly blocked and rationalwiki may even be penalised in some way by google.
 * A similar thing has happened before, and it seems nothing was done. Christopher (talk) 05:10, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Why the fuck did you forget me? Spud (talk) 05:54, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Because you're a mod too, I assumed you'd see it just because you're on this page. Bongolian (talk) 06:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry. I thought you wrote "who are also mods". Now I see you wrote "who are not also mods". My mistake. Spud (talk) 06:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem. Bongolian (talk) 06:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Personally I support removing personal identifiers whenever possible. We are not here to enable cyber-vigilantism or even just shaming-Hastur! (talk)  06:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think that there's anything there in the way of personal identification that is/was not already on his Twitter feed or his Unz writings. We don't do doxxing, but we need to have some minimal identification to disambuguate from people with the same name. The idea that Karlin is not a public figure and is therefore protected by CJEU on privacy is preposterous: He's a publicity hound and is angry that he's not higher up in the alt-right talking head ecosystem. Bongolian (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Forward any relevant legal threats to the RWF. They are not our concern and any users making them should be infinitely banned for making them and it should be treated with utmost seriousness. This is also WP policy and I think it's in our FAQ too.
 * As for this case, the situation has to do with SEO; our page doesn't show up on Google. The request here is to create a bogus redirect to optimize SEO/traffic. YMMV, but I don't feel too inclined to do that. Techpriest (talk) 11:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like I may have been duped by a Mikey sock (see User talk:Bongolian and Talk:Anatoly Karlin). Bongolian (talk) 16:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * God, whenever Mike comes, someone follows and I have an idea who this other BoN is. 16:42, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You weren’t duped, I checked and the page was blacklisted in Europe (or at least the UK) when I made my comments earlier today. It’s back now though. Christopher (talk) 19:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Is there any evidence of a court ruling? Bongolian (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure it’s just an internal google thing, if it were backed up by a court ruling it wouldn’t have been so quickly reversed. Just something someone said with no basis. Christopher (talk) 19:40, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Unclescrooge
it seemed everyone else was happy to leave this in ATiM. Christopher (talk) 11:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Have you even read it? Kevs  Ping!  11:24, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I took part in the conversation. One person said they were making a coop case and I asked them not to early on, after that there was no suggestion things should move to the coop. Christopher (talk) 11:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Limiting the global account creation per hour
Not sure if this should be on the tech support. This suggestion will be controversial (I'm not even sure about it, but I'll give a shot) and I don't know if it's possible, but I think we should consider limiting the global account creation, at least when RW is under spam, like yesterday. Account creation flood is a favorite of trolls here (Mike, TAOB, Raven and their sycophants and impersonators love this), and it sometimes take an hour for them to give up, wasting a lot of our time. Yesterday, for instance, Spud banned over 25 accounts created by a troll; most of them were attempts to harass another user, and I've seen this happening again a few times. I tried to ban them myself, but I had more important things to do, and if Spud wasn't online they would have continued the flood for God knows how long.

I think there are two ways to do this. 1 Creating a a tool for techs to disable the account creation when it's being abused and 2 Limiting to say, 10 new accounts per hour in case the flood happens when no tech is online. What do you guys think? GeeJayK (talk) 16:14, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Terrible idea, it only encourages the abuse. Very easy to just ban the accounts. Christopher (talk) 16:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If you say so... Yeah, maybe that will just make them abuse even more. But how are they going to do this? GeeJayK (talk) 16:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Currently, these accounts clog up recent changes a bit and sometimes have bad words in them. With this proposal in place they’d have the ability to prevent new users from signing up to the wiki. Christopher (talk) 16:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I would also expect this to encourage abuse. Omicron (talk) 16:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it seems like a bad idea. Once implemented, a bot could keep the new accounts maxed out, effectively preventing legitimate account creation. Bongolian (talk) 17:14, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Can't the captcha prevent the bot abuse? In any case, if you guys disagree, feel free to archive it. GeeJayK (talk) 17:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Checkuser

 * I'm going to say this, but I just have a deep feeling the lack of CheckUser, despite practically everyone opposing it, it facilitiating such abuse. Anyhow, maybe the mods disagree but limiting account creation is not good idea. I do believe, however, that page creation restriction to autoconfirmed should be looked at, as rarely do BoNs and newly registered users create worthwhile pages. 17:21, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Limiting account creation by IP address would probably be worthwhile IMHO, this will block less technical-skilled trolls and be a bit more of a nuisance for others. There's very few reasons for a legitimate IP address would need to create more than one account over a given period of time, in my opinion. Personally I'm actually not opposed to Checkuser for the usual "only a few people" level; this isn't 2010 Internet, and RW is lucky that this site is small enough to only attract modest trolling and spamming. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 18:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Account creation is already limited by IP address for these people; it’s prevented entirely whenever you block the first account. Checkuser isn’t needed here, and would do absolutely nothing to combat this particular type of trolling. Christopher (talk) 18:21, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * How? I'm curious. I don't know anything about how this works, but since IP addresses are easy to change without a rangeblock, why wouldn't CheckUser finding out the IP ranges work? We've done rangeblocks before and I like to think they work, though I don't fill understand rangeblock vs VPN abuse. 18:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If you’re willing to start doing rangeblocks at the drop of a hat as well as using checkuser, it would do something, but not much. I’m also not as knowledgeable as I should be on the subject, never really needed to evade IP blocks anywhere, but it’s pretty easy to switch ranges (see Talk:Anatoly Karlin for an example, all of the different IPs are probably the same person or at most two). You’d beat basic “reset the router to switch your IP” stuff, which I imagine may be the extent of Ken’s abilities, but he’d quickly learn if it was. It’s just not an arms race you can win. Christopher (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I must actually support this. Throughout May 30 in UTC time, we had a mass attack in which ~30 usernames had to be deleted and we still had 10+ other vandals who are blocked for now. I also don't think check user would work as we are against it and would require more discussion. This is just what I think I guess. Gale5050 (talk) 22:33, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "We are against it" in my opinion isn't a great reason not to implement a technical solution unless you have actual good technical reasons to be against it (IT libertarian feelies bullshit doesn't count). But if a lot of our trolls are already using commercial VPNs, which have multiple servers / IP addresses in multiple countries a VPN user can impersonate, then Checkuser wouldn't help automatically. (Range blocks would help the "reset the router" type of folks but would inconvenience others and not affect commercial VPN trolls.) Sometimes you can Google the IP and find out the VPN the troll is using (I've noted before that the "Oliver" style troll seems to use Tunnelbear VPN, and no surprise that a lot of the IPs in Talk:Anatoly Karlin are of that nature). That said it probably isn't terribly useful on its own to combat more sophisticated trolls if they aren't already being deterred by the very small pain of switching VPN servers per troll post (and honestly possibly a simple naive Bayes type of spam filter script would work better for some of these trolls compared to implementing VPN IP blocks). For Checkuser I was mainly thinking of the trolls at a more naive technical level. But if most of the trolls already know enough to get by simple IP checks, that won't work. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 02:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I support check user, but only to do things like preform range blocks, and only for a high trusted role like mod and not an ordinary sysop, since mod requires an elected position. --Gale5050 (talk) 12:40, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I categorically object to CheckUser. I find it to be a highly invasive tool on someone's privacy and I don't exactly trust some people on this site to not rampantly abuse it (seriously we've had drama about techs misusing a different tool as a makeshift CU because of it's privacy problems). Techpriest (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Seriously, the community has rejected checkuser over and over again. When will people shut the fuck up about it? 19:22, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but now we need it. And a mod can be trusted with CU. Also, consensus can change. --Gale5050 (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * We had a problem with two techs who figured out how to abuse the data at hand to get something like checkuser. It did not end well for them. There is too much potential for abuse with checkuser, and no capacity for oversight of the people who would be able to monitor it. Bongolian (talk) 19:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * We don’t need it. Christopher (talk) 19:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Reluctantly, I am starting to think we do. Yes, Ken and Mike were annoying, but this can only be solved via an IP range block. Yes, there was abuse - ironically, having more curbs abuse, as then more people can double check you per se. however there could be a better way of solving this problem. A bot with Checkuser access exists which can then preform appropriate IP range blocks (maybe, if 3 socks are on the same /24 IPv4 network, it gets blocked). Bots can’t abuse checkuser access. That is the best solution, IMHO.--Gale5050 (talk) 20:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Gale you are a virtual nOOb at this site and yet you are talking in the collective "we" as though you are a seasoned user and have some idea what you are talking about which you don't. Consider learning a little more about this place and getting a feel for it before trying to change it and bureaucratise it like you have done on other wikis. Also...listen to other users, they know what they are talking about. In the last few days alone you've had multiple long-time users ask you politely not to do things and on several occasions you have tried to explain why you should be able to do things that we simply don't do here (for good reason). Perhaps we can turn a new page and not repeat the same wiki cycle? Consider this a good opportunity to listen and work with others. Shabi  DOO  23:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * May I add for a second that I did not start this discussion, someone else did, I just commented. --Gale5050 (talk) 21:52, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You know that’s not going to happen. Christopher (talk) 21:05, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sadly, yes, I do. I think limiting the global account creation to 10 could work, but is not the best solution Gale5050 (talk) 21:08, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Like I said earlier, a troll could permanently prevent account creation by making 10 accounts on the hour every hour. I doubt anyone would be that persistent, but one or two people could shut it down for a good portion of the day at least.
 * Sometimes recent changes gets clogged up, it’s a bit annoying but it’s not a problem that needs a drastic solution. Just block the accounts when you see them. Christopher (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, and also now I see why checkuser wouldn't work. IP hopping. Someone may change within, say, a /58 IPv6 network, but even a /58 is too large to block. --Gale5050 (talk) 21:44, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

(ec)anyone tech savvy enough will abuse the bot to abuse check user though. it a temptation that would need it to be spotted by someone noticing them doing so and know what they are doing. page blanking by new user fuckface2000 even i can spot. even if they dont, it only catches trolls not smart enough to use a vpn. pretty sure ken or the other fella can manage that one. even ken. trolls will always be an issue. the repeat offenders will always be an issue. they are obsessives. they dont get bored of continually getting blocked now, inconveniencing them wont stop them. cutting edge security will always be bested by internet obsessives coming together to find workarounds just so they can wipe their cock on things. you cant have nice things on the internet and i dont think we have the most secure unbreakable hitech software to play with. human oversight will always be necessary and check user is a ball ache that requires more oversight than what it can ever be hoped to do away with.

all that is being done is being done and will always need to be done. there is nothing that puts an end to it. if they stop it will be because they finally find something better to do or they have died. nothing we would have done, short of a physical in person intervention, could. then someone else will have popped up. they are a minor inconvenience and part and parcel of wikis like this. thinking they more than a minor inconvenience is why they keep coming back. giving them personal recognition ('sock of banned user x' for example) keeps them coming back. we know their (user)name. they know then (user)name of who banned them. i bet they dont get this personal touch from wikipedia. this is a relationship for these people. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:13, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, Wikipedia has ; "nothing that puts an end to it" is not correct, there are possible automatic solutions. It's just whether the effort to maintain a machine-learning algorithm (it takes time to set these things up) to catch vandals quicker is worth it. For Wikipedia, I'm sure it is. Probably not here, yet, I suppose, we have enough sysops to usually quickly revert trolls. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 23:30, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * i note that that bot reverts vandalism. i assume in main space. look like it will be awhile before human oversight is not required. our more persistent trolls usually stick to talk pages. our main space articles lack a consistent enough style to make such a bot too effective beyond the most obvious vandalism, even less on talk pages. its not feasible here for such a bot nor necessary. therefore we are doing all that we can do with a team of volunteers of varying tech savvy. we arent wikipedia and i doubt if they get trolls like ken. if they do they wouldnt be noticed. we are small enough for that personal touch. AMassiveGay (talk) 06:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't let IPs and non-autoconfirmed users created new pages-Hastur! (talk) 06:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * They can vandalize existing pages.Gale5050 (talk) 14:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * How about giving checkuser to specifically designated checkusers like WMF wikis do? We could make do with only 2 designated checkusers, as I don't feel we need anymore than that. Problem solved in my opinion. Harry Potter (talk) 04:46, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

When is it appropriate to use revdel
Hello everyone, I'm afraid that I can't find a page on when it is appropriate to use revdel. I did undo a partial revdel on User talk:Gale5050 as I felt that the edit summary in question wasn't so offensive as to warrant hiding it. Can someone please clarify it? I can provide more details on request, but would rather not now as that would give a vandal recognition. Harry Potter (talk) 08:14, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * IMO and as far as I remember only to prevent doxxing or legal threats-Hastur! (talk) 08:18, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Doxing, legal threats, similarly serious things. It shouldn’t be used to hide some vandal lazily trying to cause offense. Christopher (talk) 08:25, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Per Hastur and Chris, although I would also add unicode abuse in summaries to that list (I've had to revdel someone once who filled the summary box with one of those unicode downward extenders). Basically if it breaks the site or if it could land us on the wrong end of a legal shotgun you should revdel. Otherwise, dont revdel. Techpriest (talk) 17:33, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I second the unicode graffiti. It's most distracting. -- Goatspeed. 19:46, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I do revdel very offensive comments though. 20:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't.-Hastur! (talk) 06:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You're not the one to convince. 20:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

i have wondered in past about oversight of revdel. simple revert everyone can see. many eyes makes abuses harder to hide. i cannot see what was revdel and assume i shouldnt be able to. i asked years ago and was assured that there is oversight to prevent any potential abuse, and i was and still am fine that answer. now im a little more curious to know just who has such oversight, i assume only a handful of people, do they check every revdel they spot or just take for the granted a particular user isnt going over board. any particular process? im not sure revdel abuse is that damaging to anyone, not doxxing someone isnt a worry anyone has. just curious is all. AMassiveGay (talk) 06:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Revdel is short for revision delete, as a sysop you can see deleted revisions most of the time. You’re thinking of suppression, which people sometimes refer to as revdel (probably because it’s usually individual revisions being suppressed). Suppression hides content from sysops, so only techs and mods can see it, but anyone can view the suppression log. Other than the unexplained suppression of a user talk page a while back by, I can confirm that it’s nearly always blatant doxing that gets suppressed. Christopher (talk) 09:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Suppression specifically is a flag you can set when revdelling a revision. It does what Chris says. It's been used when dealing with doxxing mostly, but it's also been used at least once to prevent regular users from seeing a particularly offensive essay written by an incel (the one EK wrote a counter-parody essay for). That said, those kinds of revdels really are the exception. Techpriest (talk) 11:47, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks extension?
I've been on Wikipedia and Uncyclopedia, and both have a thanks button. This is where if someone makes a good edit you can thank them for it.It is a good idea and I think we should have it? What are your thoughts?

Advantages


 * 1) Doesn't require talk page message
 * 2) Quick and easy
 * 3) Allows other to know edit is good

Disadvantages


 * 1) Can be used for harassement

I think we should, there is a con but multiple pros that outweigh it. --Gale5050 (talk) 20:25, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * We already have . Should serve the same purpose. Bongolian (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Techpriest (talk) 21:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, ok. My only concern is it doesn't automatically give a notification, if it did, problem solved.-- Gale5050 (talk) 21:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This isn’t a moderation issue. I’d say the thanks extension is closer to Tireless work award or similar, which does give a notification as it’s added to a user talk page. Christopher (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Then where does this belong? --Gale5050 (talk) 22:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Discussion could go in RationalWiki:Technical support or possibly the saloon. The Tireless work award should be given on the user's talk page. Bongolian (talk) 22:28, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That can work for now, I may take it there later.--Gale5050 (talk) 23:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Per the CS etc etc etc
I've stripped Gale5050 of their mop due to repeated misuse. I stand by my actions and hereby formally notify the mod team as per the Community Standards. 23:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not a mod but I think it's the right choice. I thought they're first just playing around with tools to get the hang of things and then expect to use sparingly, but it's apparently they're a bit too trigger happy with the tools. 00:27, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this is probably enough. The Saloon wasn't vandalized for days. What's the point of protecting it? GeeJayK (talk) 00:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You did the right thing. 00:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I am a mod and I 100% approve of what you've done. Spud (talk) 00:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This probably should have been done much earlier. JJPMas ter 00:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Believe me I was tempted to remove it but just couldn't attend the wiki. 00:51, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry this had to happen but I support GC's action. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 00:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * +1 --RWRW (talk) 05:40, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Ditto. User:Kevlarstar (talk) 06:44, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not familiar enough with the specific actions of Gale5050 that warrant this to comment, but unless Gale5050 objects we can leave it as is. Bongolian (talk) 02:27, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Whilst I'm not a mod, I am quite familiar with Gale5050's actions. I do feel that stripping them of sysop was warranted, especially given that their response to being blocked was to retaliate, and in so doing highlight my alleged misconduct despite me not being involved in the matter. They've had their chance, and they've blown it. Harry Potter (talk) 04:54, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I also think this was justified, and was close to doing it myself. Christopher (talk) 08:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * User had a long habit of playing wikicop, messing with users on technicalities and in general their entire talkpage is littered with comments of "be less agressive". Proposing a potential sysoprevoke in addition to demopping seems like it would not be unwarranted. Techpriest (talk) 09:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * He claims he’s gone (although he’s claimed that before), and I doubt anyone would be stupid enough to demote him again, but it can’t do any harm. Christopher (talk) 10:03, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This was a no brainer. I was sort of hoping that, at least, on this wiki that Gale would show a little more sense, but his reaction (and more so his lack of reaction) to people's comments and problems with him in the last few days says it aint happening which is too bad. Shabi  DOO  10:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I also agree this was a good call.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Sysoprevoke vote
I think there's backing. Per usual rules, 7 days run time, simple majority is all that's needed. Keep voting rules in mind. Techpriest (talk) 15:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It’s been 7 days and the vote is unanimous. Christopher (talk) 14:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Yay

 * 1) Techpriest (talk) 15:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Can be repealed with a show of good behavior. 15:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Christopher (talk) 15:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) No brainer Shabi  DOO  16:25, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Bongolian (talk) 16:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 6) I agree, and he also dragged me into him getting blocked. Well deserved IMO, this is about him, not me. Harry Potter (talk) 17:30, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 7) With the whole wiki-cop thing, to quote T'Challa, "we don't do that here". Can and should be revoked once Gale better understands how this place operates. --RWRW (talk) 17:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 8) Per all  18:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 9) Didn't think this needed to be a vote, but whatever. 18:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Nevermind. Misread. Me stoopid. 18:11, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) I feel sorry for Gale, but it's for the best. GeeJayK (talk) 18:38, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Yah. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 19:23, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) It makes sense. Spud (talk) 02:38, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Minimum time is over,  15:06, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Ken or not?
The answer is it doesn't matter. For those who are unaware, there have been multiple troll accounts either claiming to be Ken or trying to imply they're Ken. The truth is that it doesn't matter if it's Ken or not, and that trolls should all be treated as if they're nothing more than passing nuisances, which they are. The habit of treating trolls as if they're special really should stop, since it only encourages their delusions of "infamy". 19:15, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree. But Gale is definitely not a Ken sock. But I agree. Shabi  DOO  20:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If Gale is Ken, then I'm a diva. 20:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This isn't about Gale5050, it's about the ongoing trend of dealing with supposed Ken Socks. I fucking explained that. It's on the ATIM page because it's a moderation issue. It's a fucking separate topic rather than a fucking subtopic. Motherfucking hell... 21:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I generally just revert what I suspect is a troll edit, ban if it's more obvious, but never really caring whether it's the same guy or someone who acts the same. I'm not sure if this topic is directed at me though. 21:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes GrammarCommie. We were aware that you were making a different point. I was simply pointing out, in case there was any doubt for any other user...that Gale was not a Ken sock. That isn't an unreasonable thing to do. Grammar, your rage issues are a serious problem. Shabi  DOO  23:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It was an unreasonable thing to do, no one ever suspected Gale of being a Ken sock; you were derailing the thread. Debating whether every single problem user is Ken or Mike is part of the problem GrammarCommie was describing whether you think they are socks or not.
 * Bringing up GrammarCommie’s anger problems every time he types a swear word doesn’t help anything. Christopher (talk) 23:15, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Rage no, annoyance yes. I swear a lot more when I'm actually angry. 23:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No Christopher. If you look at the actual text I typed it was a simple sentence saying I agreed. And that Gale wasn't a sock. But I agree. If you think that is derailing something then you have a super bizarre concept of "derailing". Perhaps Grammar shouldn't overreact and start cursing over a short sentence which was actually in total support of what he was saying? Maybe...that is a little closer to disrupting a thread? Perhaps you elevating it to an even higher level of analysis of "derailment" is itself a further "derailment" and now me responding to that has become a ridiculous level of derailment? As for his getting overly pissed off over a simple comment issue, it seems, from what you are saying, that being silent about it is what would be "helpful". Would it? Was people not calling out Oxy as she did that until it got out of control the best way to deal with that?  Shabi  DOO  23:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * As he did nothing wrong, “being silent” would’ve been the best thing, yes. Your comment was stupid, stupid enough to justify an annoyed reply. You’re right that this is only derailing the thread further though. Christopher (talk) 23:40, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Grow up Christopher. Shabi  DOO  00:32, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Per GC. A constant overfocus on every flashy (and not super flashy troll) being a sock of has no other effect than making us look exactly like the kind of paranoid lunatics Ken really wants to make us out to be. There's in my book only a few cases where we outright have to ban someone as a sockpuppet of Kenny and that's only when they get really obvious about it (the "bragging on talkpage about SEO rankings and how we are all a bunch of pansies" obvious). Otherwise, sometimes a troll is just a troll. If they are Ken or not, it does not matter. Trolls should be dealt with on their own merits (which often are banworthy in and of themselves). Also stop speculating on the wiki about if a troll is a banned user, I'd argue it's brushing up real close to the Conduct lines and bad faith engagement if you're trying to box people away as just socks of Ken. Techpriest (talk) 09:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. I am also very tired of this "Are you/is this Ken" stuff.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

"Retiring" the Kendoll template
Let's be honest, that template is somewhat on the homophobic end and is from a different time. Yes I realize that I literally used it in the previous comment I made, but I feel like in part my casual use of it (and I'm not the only one using it) is causing a sort of incidental situation where we have created it to be acceptable to make jokes about someone where the punchline is "they're gay" (which is a homophobic joke), even if the person in question is himself a massive homophobe. As a result, I would like to suggest finding a way to formally retire it's use.

This would at it's core simply mean changing the template itself to not be a gay joke anymore (just remove the pink colors and change it to just being "Ken" and updating it's documentation to explain what happened, as well as identifying which mainspace pages reference it and delink it from those/replace it with more fitting lines. This way we can remove this... honestly rather tasteless joke that seems to be a rather blatant CS violation. Techpriest (talk) 15:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:53, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * (EC) I thought I was missing something about it. I always found it homophobic too, but since I'm not LGBT I thought people on this group didn't care and that's why it wasn't deleted. I support a retirement. GeeJayK (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Apart from that. Do we really want a special template in "honour" of a banned user?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * [EC] It was retired in 2012 after some discussion, then brought back in 2018 without any. I’d support retiring, mainly commenting to note that kens exists. Christopher (talk) 16:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I’d keep the link to his conservapedia page, replace it with Ken not just Ken. Christopher (talk) 16:09, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It's visually unappealing. Delete it. 16:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's homophobic. And I also think it's stupid to make fun of people because of their names. I shouldn't have used it. I only did it because I knew he wouldn't like it. I support changing it to just Ken so that we don't have loads of pages with broken template links on them. Spud (talk) 16:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * (EC) Also, what should with do to pages like Conservapedia:Debating Kendoll and the redirect Kendoll? I support renaming the former and keeping the latter. GeeJayK (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Leave them be, that they’re a relic of the past is already made clear by the template at the top of all CP pages. Christopher (talk) 16:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok then. supposing we're nuking the template, can Infernobot replace it with "Ken" or something like this, Sirius? GeeJayK (talk) 16:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The idea was just replacing the template itself with that, much easier. Christopher (talk) 16:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Damn, I feel dumb now. GeeJayK (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Template mothballed based on s suggestion and updated the documentation to reflect the changes. Thanks for the input everyone. Techpriest (talk) 20:53, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I was going to say the template places undue prominence to the troll as well, and we shouldn't be doing this. Tbh I didn't see the homophobic implications; I thought it was mocking endearment and possible body shaming (Ken's page used to have "suspected obese homosexual" and Ken is a name of a physically attractive doll). 01:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I thought it was a “Ken doll has no dick” joke. Anyway, I’m not sorry to see the template go. 04:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Recurring vandalism on pseudoscience page
Hello, I don't come here often but I noticed a couple of years ago that one article on here (stellar metamorphosis) had become a central reference for the crank behind it. The guy was so pleased with the RW article he had it linked in his signature on some forums. The page was the 6th longest on all of RW, most of it copied verbatim from vixra papers. I cut the article right back and actually made it critical. But there have been repeated attempts by the original author to remove the criticism, and even an attempt to completely roll back. None of these recent edits are commented and there is nothing posted on the talk page, despite my request on there to stop this. I welcome genuine attempts to improve the article, but this isn't it. Is there any way to stop this vandalism? I heard you can report vandals, but I apparently don't have permissions for that. Thanks, HelpfullObserver (talk) 10:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * hasn’t made major edits to the article in a year, and any edits he does make are quickly reverted. I think he knows he’s under more scrutiny and can’t get away with rewriting the page anymore. No need for any action unless he becomes active again imo. Christopher (talk) 10:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I also removed "Category:Intelligent alternatives" from the page, and clarified the category. I think it was causing some confusion because it contained a set of mock (Intelligent falling) and actual (Flat earth) proposals. I'll keep a watch on this page; I think it caused a dust-up years ago on RW about how plausible it was. Bongolian (talk) 17:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

CharlotteTakveis
She’s written a lot of terrible articles on living people over the last few months, no one noticed as they were mostly about Norwegian people we’d never heard of. Lots of them have been deleted over the past few days, there was talk of just deleting all of them and this is the only place I could think to raise the issue. Christopher (talk) 19:09, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Given the low quality and problematic nature of all of the articles we've looked at so far, I'd endorse deleting the lot. 19:13, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * agree. there i nothing stopping any deleted article being resubmitted, if a case is made to do so. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I would at least keep Women's Human Rights Campaign, which created. Bongolian (talk) 19:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The organisation is definitely worth an article, and the current one doesn’t seem too bad at least compared to the BLPs. My main criticisms are that the focus on Norway is misleading, and there was a lot of weird stuff about the WHRC in Talveis’ other articles that is also featured there, but that’s easy to fix as it mostly involves removing content. Christopher (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * They've managed to attract ~17,000 signatories to their declaration globally, and the UK branch of this "mainly British" outfit is currently rocking a grand total of 1,240 Twitter followers. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 20:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah that’s far too small to be worth an article, what a weird thing to obsess over. My vote is definitely for a blanket delete, if all the articles haven’t been afd’d separately by the time this thread concludes. Christopher (talk) 20:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * They've actually received news coverage in mainstream magazines (Economist, Christian Post, etc.) and advocacy group sites (PinkNews). Apparently someone from that organization appeared on Tucker Carlson's show as well. All of this is fairly recent news events. My first impression is that they are small and kind of noisy, kind of like One Million Moms (4,139 Twitter followers), but in this case with some potential to grow as transgenders continue to replace homosexuals as the fashionable one to hate among Western conservatives. So worth an article, probably IMHO, but there's a *lot* of fat in the current article to trim. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 22:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Given the mixed opinions on the WHRC article it’d be best to exclude it from this discussion and afd separately. So far no one’s stood up for the BLPs. Christopher (talk) 16:33, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * [[File:Kill it with Scorpio.gif]] Kill, kill, kill! Take no prisoners! I honestly feel a bit used, as I thought nothing of it and helped her with the incredibly relevant WHRC's article. You know a user is a threat to what remains of our reputation (following our woeful hesitancy to deal with the tankie brigading of our site a couple months ago) when even I get misled by them. -- Goatspeed. 18:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * So leftists signing up is bad, but when a bunch of neolibs sign up and brigade the site that's just fine and proper, right? — Oxyaena Harass  17:11, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * So can we get an explicit green light here for the proposed mass delete. 04:22, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I’ll do it now. If anyone isn’t satisfied with the level of consensus in this thread they should check the recent AfD archives. Christopher (talk) 13:50, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * For the record I've desysoped and removed autopatrol from this user as I feel that their the contribs of CharlotteTaekvis CharlotteTakveis need closer monitoring in the future and they don't want to be associated with this project anyway so are unlikely to contest my actions. so we should consider removing their sysop and autopatrolled rights. If I'm wrong then feel free to revert me, if not then perhaps we could have a community discussion on whether or not the user should be sysoped again. Harry Potter (talk) 00:29, 19 June 2021 (UTC) Harry Potter (talk) 00:38, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've restored those user rights, their removal was neither needed nor welcome. 00:35, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, my mistake. For the record I was in the process of restoring Taekvis' CharlotteTakveis' user rights but GC beat me to it. Harry Potter (talk) 00:38, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Restoring two potential casualties of this deletion attempt
Coming from this drama, I don't see the user in question coming here to actually propose this undeletion, but the articles for Magdalen Berns (Undelete) and Kellie-Jay_Keen-Minshull/Posie Parker (Undelete) may have been an unfortunate side-effect of s mass deletion of Takveis' page creations.

The Berns article carries little BLP problems since Berns is very dead. Kellie's article meanwhile is fairly well referenced. Both appear to be relevant media figures. Personally I'd say that Kellie's article ought to be restored based on relevancy to something we do have coverage on (Adult Human Female being a TERF dogwhistle that she came up with). I'm less convinced on Berns' article being important however, but maybe someone else can weigh in on this. Techpriest (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m also not convinced we need an article on Magdalen Berns.
 * Seems like Posie Parker has had some amount of impact so an article is justified, but I don’t think the one Takveis wrote was any better than her others. The title of a reddit post is its only citation for her supposed homophobia and islamophobia, there are uncited accusations of white supremacy (best you get is a citation for the fact she did a video with Jean-François Gariépy), and a copy/paste of an insane twitter thread linking “adult human female” to the “it’s okay to be white” slogan, with the only citation being the twitter thread itself. Anyone who wants to write an article would be better off starting from scratch imo. Christopher (talk) 20:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm intrigued by the idea that the Posie Parker article is somehow likely to suffer less from the clearly documented issues re. hyperbole that afflicted the author's other articles. That's charity to the point of wilful blindness. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 23:04, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I know of Magdalen Berns by reputation. While not notable enough for her own article, at least to my knowledge, she was a real piece of work. 23:19, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Nonstopmaximum (talk) 17:50, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * all this users stuff was well referenced, until you looked at the references. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I know this is dumb, but...
...Unclescrooge has been privately begging me to be let back early from what he calls "Room 101!!!!!1!11!1!!" Apparently he "needs" to update the Draft:Red Eagle Politics and Nick Fuentes articles, and to create articles on Paul Gosar and some "Buchanan Project" (presumably named after Pat Buchanan), among right-wing populism-related quackery.

I've told him to get a life, which isn't a complete success. Unclescrooge says that if he isn't let back early, he'll be a "poor old man in only 700 years." Probably another line from some random comic... UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 00:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Scrooge should get a life. You shouldn't feel the need to do his bidding. Bongolian (talk) 00:11, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yah, I've managed to get him to find a nice place to volunteer frequently (but not frequently enough), but evidently he just wants to return here to report on random populist wingnuttery. He's repeatedly asked me to put them in for him, and I keep giving the reminder that I'm topic-banned. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 00:15, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Now, as for everything he's begging to be reinstated to report on, someone's gotta do it if RW is to stay relevant. This wiki has yet to have an article on Gosar, for instance. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 00:18, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Say no, and disengage, my advice. 00:47, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It would be bad faith for me to suddenly block him from communication, since he has helped me with a few things recently. His emphasis appears to be on adding certain important content in because other editors here aren't. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Tough shit! He's not getting unblocked and that's the end of it. Be friends with a fucking troll if you like.. But you can stop forwarding messages from him to us right now! Spud (talk) 03:19, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there still ought to be a vote within the next few days about this. After all, do you intend on creating more RW articles relating to right-wing populism? Unclescrooge wants to but can't. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 03:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * He can fucking wait until September. And then he had better be productive and stop being a dick. And UShistoryanalyzer, I am now asking you nicely to stop pleading Unclescrooge's case. I won't ask you nicely again. Spud (talk) 03:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I see it's now time to inform Unclescrooge that he can move out of his current house because he'll always be available to live rent-free in your head! UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 03:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You're not handling this very well. 03:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * LeftyGreenMario, I think you're missing the point here. Unclescrooge is asking to be reinstated so he can add content related to right-wing populism; Spud, who clearly doesn't contribute on that topic much, is putting his derangement of Unclescrooge over potential new content on RW I myself can't add due to a topic-ban. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 03:46, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You haven't been following why Unclescrooge is banned. The user is an obvious troll and was voted unanimously 24-0 to get months-long ban and many users expressed supporting a permaban if they continue being disruptive after the ban lifted because practically everyone doubts improvement or a behavior change, especially from what it seems like from this thread. So what if we miss out an opportunity for a vital integral comprehensive RationalWiki page on some guy on Twitter and a dribble of edits on Nick Fuentes, the user has been a net negative in spite of totally spectacular contributions like these and is too much trouble keeping around. Good for bringing this up to ATIM, at least, rather than, what, unbanning them, but you were told no by two moderators and also by me and likely by other people. Just drop it. 03:55, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow, so you prefer a lack of edits on missional content because the user said a few silly things you didn't like. If I had known during the time of coop that there would be these important things happening that RW needs to report on, perhaps I wouldn't have supported the pi-month ban. Maybe none of you realize it, but Unclescrooge is one of your best allies in exposing the rise of fascism creeping in ultra-populist movements. So which will it be, shilling for the excessive block of a user you had too little patience to handle, or learning to be tolerant of users who are useful for this wiki's goals? UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 04:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You have shockingly zero grasp about this. "Unclescrooge is one of your best allies in exposing the rise of fascism"!? "the user said a few silly things you didn't like"?!!?!? Do you even know how much patience we've had for this user!? Are we even talking about the same person here? Read the coop, look at the diffs; your statements are completely ludicrous. 04:09, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

In all fairness Mario, UShistoryanalyzer did start this section admitting it is "dumb" or as you say, "completely ludicrous." UncleKrampus (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * He started off by saying it was dumb. But he very quickly changed his tune. "Unclescrooge is one of your best allies in exposing the rise of fascism." What a load of fucking bollocks! Spud (talk) 04:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I assume Unclescrooge's computer has a text editor, right? Tell him to work on the articles until September and call it a day. Don't forget to mention that he should focus on the substance of the article, not on silly puns, and if he shitposts we'll probably get blocked again. GeeJayK (talk) 17:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Restrict page creation to autoconfirmed?
I've very rarely seen BoNs or new create worthwhile pages, nor do I think it was ever a good idea to let these users create pages. If one really wants page creation, being auto-confirmed isn't much of a high bar to cross. 04:15, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Is there a way to do that while also allowing BoNs to be the first editors on a talk page? When I was a lurker, I’d sometimes have to bring up issues on a talk page that nobody else had noticed. 04:47, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * How often does this result in BoN's creating problematic pages?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I say it happens probably a few times per day, by BoN and recent sign ups. 15:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Problem page creation averages at about 3-5 per month. The exact number varies, but the most common culprits are spam bots, followed by persistent vandals/trolls. 15:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * [EC]It happens a lot less than that, most days there’s nothing. There’s less after the 23rd of June when I changed the spam filter slightly. I don’t think there’s an issue, certainly not one that warrants pestering Tim Starling or David Gerard about (a tech could do it with abuse filters, but then you wouldn’t know you can’t edit until after you click save).
 * If you’re trying to stop Ken from creating essays, he’d just switch namespaces or go back to creating accounts with spam names instead. Christopher (talk) 15:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem like it's an issue to me. Techpriest (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree about the autoconfirmed. Two out of my first three edits on this Wiki were new articles, and I couldn't creat them since my account wasn't autoconfirmed yet. GeeJayK (talk) 17:25, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I support this but not for talk pages as mentioned above-Hastur! (talk) 05:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The only way to block it to talkpages only is the edit filter (has other issues, see what Chris said) and frankly, 3 to 5 pages a month is not enough for me to consider this to be an issue that needs fixing right now. Maybe when it's more but not for now. Techpriest (talk) 12:15, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Meh, I’m neutral. On one hand, yes, other sites do it but on the other, yeah, is it that much? Gale5050 (talk) 02:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)