RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive32

Another request to temporarily inconvenience IP range
An IP range beginning with 2001:8003:59db:4100: is cluttering Saloon Bar with shit and will easily ban evade with that IP range to post more. Can we please implement a temporary range block? I know the last time, the range is too wide, so please can we narrow that range and put a clamp on those annoying posts? If not, please identify this range, ignore, and revert, it's so tedious seeing these posts now. 21:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

-- Goatspeed. 02:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * How about protecting the Saloon Bar for a week or so by limiting it to autopatrolled users only? Spud (talk) 04:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, seems like less of a rigamarole to temporarily protect the Saloon. Bongolian (talk) 05:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer a rangeblock to such a long page protection. There are interesting BoNs who post at the bar, not just the current troll.--Hastur! (talk) 05:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Aw, man. I really enjoyed the shitposts. Twodots (talk) 05:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * They often cross the threshold from risible to irritating spam. I would support a range block.--Hastur! (talk)  05:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I am in support of inconveniencing this IP for a bit. 2001:8003:59db:4100 translates to a /64 range block on an IP, which would block all the subnets and is well within same end-user allocations. We can safely go up to /48 rangeblocks, which would inconvenience endusers for rotating ranges, which they don't appear to be using (/48 is basically blocking 2001:8003:59db and all subnets from there). 21:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I've changed my mind. While I think rangeblocking is a bit excessive, I now support protecting it so only autoconfirmed users can post on there for about a week. -- Goatspeed. 02:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * UPDATE: I've just protted it. -- Goatspeed. 04:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You're a bit too over eagre, kid. Maybe tone down the enthusiasm a bit. — Oxyaena Harass  04:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's asinine to prevent all BoNs from editing the Bar for a week when we could instead just block just the one BoN that's bothering us with a single block--Hastur! (talk) 04:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * K. I was about to say someone could feel free to treat my protection as though I were acting as a sysop and undo it. If not protecting it, I suppose the proposal for a range-block for about the time period I set that prot to wouldn't be too bad either. But I say we let more of the mob weigh in as to whether we should inconvenience this annoying BoN. -- Goatspeed. 04:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Voting time
Let's do it.

I recommend a /64 range block since they don't appear to be having a rotating IPv6 range (a rotating IPv6 range is equivalent to a rotating IPv4 address). 10:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Can we call this?--Hastur! (talk) 02:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Seriously let's call this--Hastur! (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Aye, 3.14 month range block passes. I don't know how to do range blocks so will leave for someone else to do. --RWRW (talk) 18:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. Case closed. 09:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

3.14 weeks

 * 1) I can't be arsed to take a shitposter more seriously than this. 16:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

3.14 months

 * 1)  10:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) All right then. Spud (talk) 13:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Trust the judgement of Sirius and Spud. 15:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) -Flandres (talk) 15:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 5) -- Goatspeed. 16:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 6) If this block only affects that particular user, then I support such a long rangeblock. While they used to only post once or twice a week, which was tolerable, their activity can scale quite a bit, which is tedious--Hastur! (talk)  17:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

No.

 * 1) Rangeblocking was only initially countenanced to deal with "serious" harassment. It's now apparently a go-to method for dealing with someone who *checks notes* periodically posts run-of-the-mill, right-wing talking points in the Bar. No-one has even attempted to make the argument that this person is especially prolific or offensive in their posting. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 18:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Most of the time they're harmless but sometimes they get really annoying, spamming a dozen topics at the bar in an hour. A block is worth if it makes them lose interest, IMO--Hastur! (talk)  18:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yup that's a no from me also. AceModerator 19:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I want to quickly clarify here that the problem is that IPv6 changes addresses a lot more quickly. The "range block" as proposed, would only affect a single user because of the sheer amounts of subnets allocated for a single user (aka an individual IPv6 address owning entity). While this is technically a range block, it doesn't affect more than a single user. It's just that IPv6 allows for an utterly idiotic amount of IPv6 address rotation for a single user that makes a range block for this needed. 19:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, man. It's not my area of expertise, but what you've said seems to agree with what I can make of this. I've struck my no vote. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 21:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries, I had to ask this to a friend of mine as well a few months ago (she doesn't edit RW or anything) on how to best handle IPv6 stuff since unlike IPv4, the rotation is just so much higher that it doesn't stop anything. With IPv4, usually the rotating stops after a few BoNs get booted off, but well, as you can see with the Saloon, the rotation for IPv6 just doesn't stop. She's the one who linked me to the page for where ISPs buy IPv6 subnets, which then explained how they're meant to be assigned to individual customers for those ISPs (cuz unlike IPv4, that's standarized), which crossmatches exactly on the help page from mediawiki (probably was the source). So basically the first part of every IPv6 is the same for the ISP customer, but a fairly large range after that can be rotated and swapped through.
 * The reason the range is that insane is because of something to do with efficient address lookups. The mediawiki page is a pretty good guideline to handle (and explains this all much better than how I'm summarizing it). We should probably at some point look at our blocking policy to properly account for IPv6 rangeblocks, because this will probably become a bigger issue in the future once IPv4 gets phased out. 21:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Goat

 * All votes on yes are counted together. If successful, the one with the most votes will succeed. I recommend a 3.14 month range block. 3.14 days is too short for the BON to be inconvenienced, 3.14 weeks doesn't drive the message home clear enough that their behavior is annoying. 10:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Also LGM asked for an inconveniencing before in Archive 30. They've been at this for a while now. 10:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Serious question: How can a vote for a shorter block length be taken as implicit support for a longer block length? I can see how it works the other way round. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 18:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You misread. Basically, if I sum up "yes" and it's more than "no", I look at the specific length people voted for and the one with the most votes then passes. So if 3 days has 2 votes and 3 weeks has 4, then 3 weeks passes. That is at least what I had in mind. That said, feel free to suggest a better counting method. 18:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * My point is that it's reasonable to suppose someone voting for pi days or weeks might prefer no rangeblock to a pi months block they see as disproportionate. Your current proposal for aggregating all "yes" votes precludes that possibility. I suspect this may be moot as the voting shakes out, but in the event of a close result (say 9-8 for yes/no and 1-2-6 for pi days/weeks/months), I suppose you'd need to ask those voting for pi days or weeks if they're OK with pi months. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

So, I've just noticed...
I have a question for my more experienced fellow Thoughtpolice mods: It's come to my attention that, if one of us hypothetically wanted to for whatever reason, we can demote people to being part of the long-defunct 'crat group. How can this be, considering that common janitors sysops can now appoint new sysops (or reversibly promote existing ones), and that the rest of the powers these ancient users had now belong to either us or the techs? -- Goatspeed. 06:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Obviously it's a relic of the past. And nobody's going to make anyone a bureaucrat. And, as you've pointed out, it wouldn't really matter if they did. So I wouldn't worry too much about it. Spud (talk) 06:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Bureaucrats are just somewhat pointless. That said I think the reason the group still exists is because some extensions on the wiki might default to bureaucrat for their permissions, which is probably why it's not a removed group (long story on how that works). Anyway, I don't intent to demote anyone to that group and I doubt anyone else will. 07:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. -- Goatspeed. 07:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I humbly volunteer for the position. — Oxyaena Harass  16:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Can I get bureaucrat for no reason? 13:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

48 hour vote rule
As I posted here, the 'wait 48 hours before staring a vote' rule at the coop appears to have come out of nowhere with no mob support. It still gets used often in coop cases, we even extended the Raven vote by 48 hours even though 'ban' was winning by a landslide (not complaining, since I also voiced support for this). I think we should either: confirm this as a coop rule, keep it but reduce the time to 24 hours (my preferred choice), or remove the rule altogether. But I defer to the judgement of my fellow mods and the mob at large. --RWRW (talk) 17:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's fine as is, but if the rule isn't codified that should be remedied. 17:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think we should remove the rule altogether. What purpose does it serve?-Flandres (talk) 17:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * What if we drop it to 24? 17:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The intent is to prevent coops starting with a vote out of the gate. The coop is intended to basically discuss a subject before moving to a vote based on the discussion. The problem is that the 48 hours part often ends up being unneeded since discussions strand often within around 20 hours after filing when everyone has split opinions and more or less made up their mind. I'd not object to a rewording closer to that idea instead of an arbitrary time limit. 17:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)I would be okay with that as a compromise, Duce. I just don't see why we should have to wait 48 hours before we have a vote. In the case of GR, for instance, pretty much everyone involved already knew what was going on and could make their own judgement as soon as the case was started. All the 48 hour deadline did was give him more time to either rules-lawyer(thus distracting people from the substance of the case) or troll.-Flandres (talk) 17:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sirius pretty much said what I was thinking. We need to prevent immediate voting to allow discussion, but 48 hours is way too much time for a mandatory stop. I like 24. 17:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I say change it to 24 hours. -- Goatspeed. 17:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I also support changing it to 24 hours. Spud (talk) 01:53, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * In that case, you can vote on it here. -- Goatspeed. 03:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Have done. Spud (talk) 10:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Starlight problem
Page is broken - it throws some sort of DB error when you try to access it.
 * Nothing wrong with that page here at this time. If you continue having problems accessing the site, please use the Technical support page. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 13:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Cannot reproduce. 13:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

My probation is over
Thank fucking God. — Oxyaena Harass  14:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! 17:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Cheers! — Oxyaena Harass  17:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * While I strongly disagree with most of your talkpage comments and extreme political views, still, congrats! And if you don't mind me asking: what were you on probation here for? Was it that "abusing the edit filter" drama that took us to HCM 2 for the first time in years? -- Goatspeed. 20:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It was a response to her being sysoprevoked in the first place. She was sysoprevoked | here for unilaterally promoting fellow sysops. This was exasperated by her history of abusive comments, abusive block justifications and general trigger happiness when it came to blocking (I think). The probation was set at RationalWiki_talk:All_things_in_moderation/Archive29 after she demonstrated improved behavior. She hasn't really broken her terms of probation (even if she gets aggravating at times), so I guess she gets out. 21:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * But how long until she is back in probation? I'm going with just a few weeks. AceModerator 21:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm a big fan of second and third and umpteenth chances, so I'll give her a benefit of the doubt. That said, just to remind everyone, her ban on reverting edits on articles relating to "Far Left" (or something like that...someone dig the exact wording out for me please...I'm about to drop) was set by another coop case and involved GrammarCommie and (now banned) GR as well. So that still stands, until lifted by another coop vote anyway. 21:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that topic-ban seems fair. Someone who you can bait with a pointless poll that features a criticism of her favorite topic as an option (or even just by admitting to being a centrist, rationalist, or liberal) is not someone you can trust to make good edits to such articles. -- Goatspeed. 21:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I would imagine Ace that not pointlessly antagonising Oxy would be helpful in keeping Oxy going back on probation wouldn't it? Shabi  DOO  22:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't really engaged with Oxy for sometime now outside of the suicide nonsense but that was mostly on Discord so has little relevance here. AceModerator 22:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

So I didn't record CRs question about the edit filter drama until now. But that was about Dysk (now Judge Dread) revealing that there was a loophole to the "no checkuser" rule of rationalwiki. Essentially (if I understand correctly) you could use edit filter to see IP addresses of registered users and, if you had the patience for it, compare them to other registered users to find sockpuppets. Apparently it was a bit time consuming, but still a backdoor to avoid the mob decided rule of no fucking checkuser. It's been removed by now.

Dysk admitted to knowing about it and having toyed about the idea of using it to identify people avoiding bans. He claims he didn't use it though. He also claims he told Oxy and Ze about it, but all evidence of them using it is even more circumstantial than the evidence of Dysk using it. With Oxy it comes mostly to her being really quick and ready to identify accounts as socks of banned users.

Only techs could use this presumed check user loophole though, and the restoration of Oxys tech rights is not discussed here. Those rights were stripped from her over a separate reason, and their restoration is not being discussed here. This is only about her sysop rights. So it's a moot point. 22:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC
 * What leads you to say it's been removed by now? 22:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression Gerard removed it. I may be wrong about it. 22:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oxy's tech privilege was revoked at 20:57 on 18 June 2020 by LeftyGreenMario, per the logs. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 22:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * He didn't. You are. I'm looking at IP addresses right now. There have been multiple conflicting stories about how these people were or were not using IP addresses. Unfortunately, literally none of the people making factual claims about what did or did not happen is credible. If you prevail upon Trent to give me root server access, I'll be happy to remove IP addresses from the edit filter detail template when I delete it along with the rest of the site. Let me know if I can help. Nutty Roux (talk) 22:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Major Nutty Kong, reporting for duty. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 23:57, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * guillotine emoji* Nutty Roux (talk) 03:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to believe Oxy when she says she didn't exploit the tool because she absolutely sucked at labeling people's socks. As I recall, she blocked Nutty of all people as a DMorris sock once (who was never even really banned according to RationalWiki policy). If Oxy had access to IPs, she really doesn't understand how IPs work at all. Tronald Dump (talk) 23:39, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Morris lost the coop case, you dick. Also, why create a new account and immediately comment on a case relating to me? Odd. might be interested, — Oxyaena  Harass  00:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed, she blocked an account I created for being a Morris sock, IP check would have quickly refuted, or at least pointed away from that conclusion. 203.54.149.190 (talk) 00:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Lol, section collapsed because it is 'borderline harrassment'. Getting blocked under false pretenses; perfectly fine - bringing it up; borderline harassment. God speed Nutty, this place is a sad shadow of the glory days. 203.54.149.190 (talk)
 * I don't know for certain when the decline truly occurred or what caused it. Maybe it never truly recovered from the I/P nonsense with Mona. CoryUsar (talk) 01:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It was when the adults left. AceModerator 01:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Actually Cory, it never declined because of that, AFAIK. Mona dramatically LANCB'd after expressing delusions of grandeur about supposedly having caused "a mass exodus of funny editors" from our site. I hear she eventually returned, but she doesn't seem to have made an edit in quite some time and is still sysrevoked. -- Goatspeed. 02:43, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * yes, David has yet to fix the entire IP thing. Problem is afaik that he doesn't entirely get how to fix it I think, so I'll write some instructions on how to fix it so that the method is obvious. Sorry for slacking on that. I've recently started an internship and it's eating up my time quite a bit. 06:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Following up on this, I've written a page with relevant instructions. I'll contact Gerard later today with the question if he can do them. 10:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * @Ace I do miss a few of the older users. AgingHippie and FCP come to mind. CoryUsar (talk) 14:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This entire situation about AbuseFilter has been resolved at last. Techs are now fully incapable of seeing IPs that aren't BONs. Any other tech can verify this by visiting this example log from an IP. Formerly, at the bottom you would see a section called "Private details", which would contain the IP, even if the user was a registered editor. It is now no longer possible to use AbuseFilter as a poor man's CheckUser. 16:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, thank you for getting this change implemented. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 16:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I like how I singlehandedly caused this thread to turn into another discussion about tech group reform. On a more serious note, it's good to know that they can no longer use the Checkuser exploit; especially since the more established editors on here like moi tend to be talkpage harassment magnets; the people who do such would gladly dox us if given the chance, like *cough cough* the dreaded master-villain Abd. -- Goatspeed. 20:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Catgrrl37-0
I trust that by now many of my fellow mods (and the mob at large to a certain extent) are all too familiar with the edit-warring and heavily-opinionated edits of a certain. Their antics include:


 * Whitewashing


 * Problematic and also opinionated categorizations based on their own personal tastes
 * A particularly damning edit that explains this person's very enlightened priorities

Multiple editors (including myself) have already told them to knock it off numerous times, they have been blocked more than once for their problematic edits, and trying to patiently deal with this editor has wasted some of my time.
 * Having very enlightened political views that are openly hostile to our mission. Compare this to 's AnCom fluff she loves to preach on the Saloon Bar like it's the Gospel, which I hear has led to her getting topic-banned for similar behavior when she also tried to push it onto our articles.

I hereby humbly recommend a topic-ban on all articles related to youtubers, US politicians, Islam, and critics of Islam. The reason why I propose such a specific topic ban is because this editor appears to be good-faith, and methinks we could stand to see them make some actually good edits on articles covering other topics. What are some of the mob's thoughts on this? -- Goatspeed. 22:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Not in favor of this yet. She's a pain in the ass, but easily revertible. Instead apply escalating short to short-medium blocks for "crimes against rational thought" or "edit warring" when necessary. 23:08, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, she's not autopatrolled any more, so you can just protect any pages she poops upon to autopatrolled for a while. Mild annoyance. No need for official censure.  23:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Can we at least give her a topic ban on Islam? Twodots (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Not to mention US politics. I second Twodots; I enjoyed not having to deal with the likes of Mona and Pb's whitewashy views on that topic -- Goatspeed. 23:54, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There were bad actors on the other side of I/P debate too and as far as I remember no-one was given a topic ban. One editor was banned for doxing, though they kept creating socks like it was going out of fashion. Couple of others were binned. It all came to closure with the desysopping of Mona and Pubefreespace (who was also temporarily binned). Lesson of the story: softer actions can also work for disheartening fanatics.  00:01, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I strongly suspect she’s a troll but I don’t support taking action until it’s proven. 01:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The reason why I proposed a topic ban is for the repeated problematic edits and attempts at whitewashing and POV-pushing even after being told multiple times to cut it out. -- Goatspeed. 01:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Most of the examples given above are with regard to category edits, which I don't think are particularly concerning, but that doesn't mean she's right. Judicious page protections could be warranted if there's repeated bad edits by her on such pages. Her current homepage is not a good sign: User:Catgrrl37-0. Bongolian (talk) 03:37, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It could be that she(?) is young. I've seen young leftists with more passion than knowledge at times. Hell, I've been one in the past. That said, I think some patience and sympathy might be warranted. Well... Except the Islam whitewashing, that can go fuck right off. 04:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not saying that's not a good observation, but isn't one pet ancom deeply emotionally invested in their puritanical "viva le revolution" politics and how we liberals are supposedly shills for the alt-right because we don't want people dead just for having a larger-than-average pocketbook enough? This person's "with me or against me YOU FUCKING CENTRIST STATIST CONSERVATIVE-LOVING NEWATHEIST LIBRULS!!!11!!!1!" screeds aren't even as begrudgingly respectable or fun-to-dismantle as Oxy's. And yes, it doesn't help my perception of her when she tries to defend a seventh-century ideology by using "Islamophobia" unironically, to refer to people whose only crime was noticing its sexism/homophobia also unironically. -- Goatspeed. 08:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * So uh, let's go over the evidence as presented I guess. For the first claim, it'd be whitewashing if our page on say, Christainity wasn't tagged with Homophobia and Sexism either (since it's something that happens with islamophobia, people overlooking christianity)... and it is, so that's whitewashing. Opinionated categories in general are a pain. I understand that some of our category names suggest that it's okay to push opinions in a category, but it isn't. We've sniped a few categories specifically for being overopinionated in application. Granted as far as I can tell, this isn't explicitly against the CS either, but it's fairly annoying. As for the Bieber edit... cmon, obvious article joke :p. No comment on it, and unless Catgrll was trying to whip the article to Bronze, which demands the removal of in-jokes, there's not a heavy argument for sniping it or keeping it. The Centrist Stupidity discussion is a pain since Catgrll didn't even read the category description and assumed what it was by name. My conclusion? Topic ban is an option, but I feel like the following category needs more justification: YouTubers and as a whole I'm not keen on applying a functional ban of their seemingly entire interest groups, given that this appears to be covering all of their existing edits. As for behavior changes I'd like to see regardless, don't give the user autopatrolled or sysop in the near future, their edits need monitoring. The last thing we want is having to put this type of user through the coop when their patience runs out (or god forbid, have them coop other users over pathetic reasons). 10:42, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I wholeheartedly agree with Sirius. Especially about that Justin Bieber thing. Spud (talk) 14:28, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Just because you disagree with me doesn't mean my opinions and critiques are without merit. This wiki has a problem with pro-centrist and pro-capitalist editorializing. Pointing that out doesn't make me "hostile to the site's mission." — Oxyaena Harass  15:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Since this user has already been depatrolled and, as others have pointed out, therefore more easily-revertible
Should I close and archive this case, which doesn't appear to be going anywhere? -- Goatspeed. 21:35, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, go ahead. 21:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC)