RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive45

ADefenceOfChristiany
This user was registered on August 19, and caused disruption ever since then. They have only two maispace edits, both rollbacked. They suffered through a 2 week and then pi week block and are now blocked for pi weeks, but there seems to be a dispute between pi days and pi weeks. But even harsher action is justified. If they were on Wikipedia, they would've long been blocked for He has seemingly done nothing but troll, and this cannot continue. I am putting this here for a bigger mob review, and possibly even harsher action. (Feel free to unblock to give him time to defend). --Andrew5 (talk) 20:06, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Was on a receiving end for two pi week blocks and tried to bin evade. The wiki was better without their presence. Long block them again, if not indef ban. Support banning for disruption and also spamming me with email. 20:24, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * How long were you thinking? I was thinking pi months, probably, or pi weeks. As for the email, it would require mod intervention in the close as only mods can do email blocks.--Andrew5 (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with a perma if it has escalated to harassment. Kid is clearly too immature to be editing a wiki anyway. Plutocow (talk) 21:39, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I support pi months. I almost never support perma, especially not without a very long term block failing (like it did for Unclescrooge), but do to the harassment, I won't oppose one either. Anyway, we shouldn't jump the gun with permabanning yet, they haven't defended themselves and 3 people isn't enough to definitively say yet. I will ping      as other users who have blocked him to get a stronger consensus on what to do. --Andrew5 (talk) 21:49, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Harassing another editor using email while blocked for other transgressions is a big no-no. I agree with LeftyGreenMario's permaban action. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 21:52, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, normally a permaban for somewhat established user requires coop/ATIM vote, but harassment by email is serious stuff. That said, I wouldn't object to having a (possibly hastened) vote here to go with the community standards or whatever.
 * I also really don't care if they remain blocked while the ATIM is running and thus can't defend themself.
 * Additionally a 100% mod agreement to ban might be enough.
 * And finally, Monet only shortened ADOC's block (by Plutocow) from pi weeks to 314159 seconds (about 3.6 days). He has a habit of doing such things. Still, despite my personal feelings, I don't really care if he chimes in. 22:46, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * A vote is definitely in order, but it should be rapid. However, is ADOC established? That's debatable. I support everything up to and including pi months. I am neutral on a permaban. However it would likely overwhelmingly pass. Andrew5 (talk) 00:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Not sure how established is defined. He's been around for couple of months and received bunch of blocks. Slow and lazy troll maybe. But the rules for voting on any and all blocks that are deemed to require a vote are 2/3 majority needed. That's pretty hard these days for perma bans (π months or less should pass easily). 00:19, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * True, but we recently saw Scrooge permabanned, and GR was also within the last year. I think permaban will narrowly pass. --Andrew5 (talk) 00:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Requires enough people for banning to care enough really. There's a steady and active bunch of never banners around to make things more difficult. 00:24, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Though I admit that sometimes it's even possible to convince some of the never ban bunch. Like whe Ace voted to ban GR. 00:25, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Btw this second time the user littered my inbox. First time I let it slide but second time I had four notifications of email from them, with four of the mail being the same content basically accusing me of how censor happy I am and I'm a sad person. 00:26, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I kind of needed even a vague explanation of how his PM accounted to harassment before agreeing to unilateral ban. This satisfies those needs. Ban right away. 00:32, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Also ADOC is not particularly "established". They signed in with clear intent of trolling, not subtle about it either, and they got blocked for pi weeks, twice, so that's roughly over a pi month block. They're not going to change. I can agree to just freely doing pi weeks and pi months and just repeatedly doing this whenever they come back, but it's better they get indef since they'll waste less time for others in the long run and it'll stop people getting trolled (like you guys, stop responding to their requests to unblock as if they're here in good faith, like in Saloon Bar; stop treating them and conversing with them like any regular user, it's plainly obvious they're trolling). 00:38, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that even never banners might vote to ban. Again, I'm neutral to a permaban, but it should still pass easily. That's why it should go to a vote. Though, if they are banned, at a minimum it should link to this thread. --Andrew5 (talk) 00:44, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Wanna bet on Hastur? 00:46, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah... I don't understand the refrain here. Just look at the edits I've been making. We're wasting time with this guy, and the sweet time they were blocked I was able to contribute to the wiki itself than mull over how to deal with obvious trolls. I was really expecting waste more ATIM edits once they were unblocked. 00:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's per CS.--Andrew5 (talk) 00:54, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

LGM, he's banned except for his talk page for the moment. I see no harm in sticking for the "rules" here and holding a vote. We're probably going to win, and he can't cause much harm in the meantime. 01:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Off topic, but someone needs to do something about these new spam accounts though. 01:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I would support a permaban for harassment. Could we have a synopsis of the alleged harassment? Bongolian (talk) 02:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Twice the user has sent me email over me blocking them. Next time was like four times of the same message of how I was a "sad man" and was censor happy or something. I do assume the four times was because of incompetence and not for spamming but email should be disabled regardless. 02:42, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, CIR does apply, then. --Andrew5 (talk) 13:26, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure we need to go through this song and dance, TAOB and Viril.Feline.Wyzzrd were banned without a vote for their obvious offenses, and ADoC isn't really a more established user than either. Plutocow (talk) 19:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Time to vote
It's been 24 hours, time to vote. Per CS it needs to be open 7 days and have 2/3 majority and blah blah blah. I only added pi months and permaban because it's quite obvious pi months will pass at least, and anything below won't do a thing. Andrew5 (talk) 00:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, it appears permaban is currently winning in a 16-1 blowout, but pi months is failing 2-1, mainly as people think it's meaningless (hence not voting). --Andrew5 (talk) 15:27, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Yea

 * 1) Quite obvious troll, while he could have one final chance, he should have this time to mature and potentially come back in January if matured. Andrew5 (talk) 00:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Nay

 * 1) This is RationalWiki, a wiki dedicated to refute and mock pseudoscience in all its forms. Banning this obvious bad faith actor for being a religious cultist for any amount of time other than pi weeks for something that is unverifiable is asinine to say the least. The person who called him to be banned alleged that she was being harassed by ADOC via emails, but I don't buy it - he could have sent 2 emails on the same day asking to be unblocked and cause this fit of rage. If the harassment was properly verifiable, I'd probably support the permaban, but here it is nothing, but an allegation. I should add that RationalWiki shouldn't shut down pseudoscience, it should refute and mock it. This is why I like people like Ace and HBC, they remind me of what RationalWiki should be versus what it is now, it currently acts as a damn safe space for progressive atheists. 10:26, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * LeftyGreenMario is a former moderator who served honorably, and is a current board member. I don't doubt her. Bongolian (talk) 17:42, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * and Proof of harassment was sent.--Andrew5 (talk) 23:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Pointless. -- Techpriest (talk) 21:47, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Goat

 * If this passes and permaban fails, does this mean that his block is commuted? I think so. --Andrew5 (talk)00:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Yea

 * 1) Harassing LGM by email is a definite no-no. 01:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) At least speedrun this so we can get this over with. Plutocow (talk) 01:23, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * CS doesn't allow that, and a vote to change that won't pass in time. At 00:24 on October 15 it can be rapidly closed.--Andrew5 (talk) 01:27, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't even need to vote to ban harassers. We didn't need to vote to ban TAOB, why do we need to vote to ban this jackass? Plutocow (talk) 01:30, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * TAOB was a sock, but I would've called for a vote had I been around back then. I would've opposed a permaban without vote then too, just like I am now.Andrew5 (talk) 01:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * But people have been banned without needing a vote (See here for another example). We should just leave this to the mods, of which you are not. Plutocow (talk) 01:38, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, not saying that shouldn't have been a vote, but I wasn't there to discuss it. Though, that I might have supported it go unvoted, as that seemed more severe. --Andrew5 (talk) 01:49, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m going to bed. Feel free to discuss this with me at 10:20. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 01:57, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Already was given two pi weeks. That's already over pi month. Signed up to troll, already wasted enough time, just be done with this one already. 05:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you meant one month.--Andrew5 (talk) 18:54, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) If LeftyGreenMario says he's been harassing her, then he's been harassing her. End of. Spud (talk) 11:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Total no brainer  Shabi  DOO  12:57, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Obvious disruptive troll. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 14:00, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Well, we all know he will be permabanned in the next few months anyway so why bother with all the unearned second chances and whatnot.-Flandres (talk) 14:05, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) I knew this would be a problem since the day of creation.  14:09, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 6) You know what? I have been persuaded. Even if the harassment is unconfirmed, he is such a troll that in pi months it would happen again. Unlike USHA or Scrooge (Scrooge’s block in coop #127 was pi months), we should just do it now as he has no positive contributions, and is clearly not here to build RationalWiki in any way. --Andrew5 mobile (talk) 14:22, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Unconfirmed, eh? Do you want me to show evidence of email spam or do you think the content of the email isn't harassment? 14:43, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, show your mails. 16:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * --Andrew5 (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No that is not a good post Andrew. LGM doesn't have to show shit. LGM is trusted by just about everyone here and users will take LGM's word any day over the scepticism of a troll who frequently defends shit-stirrers. Shabi  DOO  17:25, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I never thought TransCHicken was a troll, but ok.--Andrew5 (talk) 19:56, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) You don´t get to harass people through email just because your whiny ass can´t handle not getting its way. 15:02, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Ban for harassment, not ideology. Bongolian (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) I have no reason to believe that LGM is lying with respect to ADOC harrassing her through email. If we are going to be that skeptical, we might as well not accept screenshots of the emails because they could be "faked". LongStylus (talk) 18:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Now that I think about it, it might increase the chances it was photoshopped or faked. --Andrew5 (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * What an obtuse inference. Unless you are able to 'html edit' via your browser, there is utterly no reason to worry - you cannot alter screenshots on the gmail app for example, and even if you were to decide to pull photoshop, hypothetically speaking, it would take a professional to make the fabricated mail seem legitimate regardless, or it would otherwise be immediately noticeably fake. This is a neocon's argument to say that an email is fake because it could be fabricated, I'd rather have visual proof than literally fucking nothing and believe spoken words from an internet stranger. Nevertheless, a screenshot would at least prove that ADOC sent her said mails when that's the main point of contention, she said she got at least 6 emails, I say she got 0 since they might as well be like the supernatural, ficticious. 08:20, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You're honestly wasting time. 09:32, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * it was at least 4. https://imgur.com/JolqzrR, from 9:16-9:18pm for LGM whatever that is on October 5. That's 4 emails within 3 minutes. Andrew5 (talk) 17:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) I've barely voted to ban anyone. But if you send email spam and harass, piss off.  20:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you meant permaban? --Andrew5 (talk) 21:48, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * In RW lingo ban=permaban. Block=temporary block. 21:55, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒   talk  20:41, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 02:07, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 11:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) User was unable to give any good faith explanation of sending 4 emails to another editor in 1 minute and denied doing it in the first place. As far as I'm concerned, their dribble ends here. -- Techpriest (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Nay

 * 1) This is RationalWiki, a wiki dedicated to refute and mock pseudoscience in all its forms. Banning this obvious bad faith actor for being a religious cultist for any amount of time other than pi weeks for something that is unverifiable is asinine to say the least. The person who called him to be banned alleged that she was being harassed by ADOC via emails, but I don't buy it - he could have sent 2 emails on the same day asking to be unblocked and cause this fit of rage. If the harassment was properly verifiable, I'd probably support the permaban, but here it is nothing, but an allegation. I should add that RationalWiki shouldn't shut down pseudoscience, it should refute and mock it. This is why I like people like Ace and HBC, they remind me of what RationalWiki should be versus what it is now, it currently acts as a damn safe space for progressive atheists. 10:27, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I got four email messages within a span of two minutes with content being the same. I could send screencaps unless, no, you think is faked possibly. Also your reasoning is crap. Did we not mock this person for a while? Did you not even see my complaint on how this user was blocked for pi weeks twice and the site.... Suddenly could focus more effort on other edits? No one was discussing how to deal with a shit stirring user? It could actually be more about advancing goals? Why are you so willing to go to bat for a shit-stirrer in the pursuit of intellectual conversation? I'd have higher standards for myself and this community. 14:51, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * But what TC is saying is that it is just allegations unless proved with evidence.Andrew5 (talk) 14:55, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * RW shouldn't be a "safe space" for shitposting trolls either, this isn't Encyclopedia Dramatica and those that enjoy shitposting trolls should honestly go there (when it's actually up, that is, and those running the show aren't being arrested for something, which shows what happens if you let shitposting trolls run amok). This user was shitposting in the Salon and then whining to mods from the start to the end. The emails are just yet another detail. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 15:05, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I could send Discord video streams of me browsing my email, I could shoot video of my phone and then I browse to my email, we could hire Photoshop professionals to gauge the veracity of a screenshot. You could try to debate if content of the email is bad or not, but what is objective is that I received four email with the same content (with three email being quoted from the first one) from this user within two minutes, and that was a second time this user emailed me. First time wasn't spammy, but still annoying and was done after a block; just asking me to read Proverbs or something. 15:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Go ahead, it's better than nothing. 16:05, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I note that ADOC has not made any claim against the allegation after informed of it, while writing a long message against other things. So far, ADOC is not disputing it, and only TC cares to cast doubt on it. Anyway LGM, I'm mildly curious what exactly the message was, but not enough to really care. If you decide to share it, I think just quoting the text is enough. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 15:53, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * From the days of the #Metoo movement and the hashtag #BelieveAllVictims, I've learned to never trust anybody on statements alone without evidence, and I would not take his defense if I thought of him as being guilty. Further, I believe the reason why ADOC hasn't participated here yet is because he's blocked. 16:13, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ADOC's input is on ADOC's talk page, along with back-and-forth with others. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 16:26, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * LGM, ignore the troll. I am sure just about everyone here believes you. You don't have to post a screen capture. Shabi  DOO  17:27, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I asked ADOC for truthfulness, lets see what they say. Andrew5 (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh the content of the email isn't serious or anything. It's typical troll drivel but in the form of spam mail. "This site is so irrational its[sic] just plain stupid. You claim to be rational yet you constantly censor me whenever I make a good point. Whenever someone starts censoring your views you know you've won the debate. A person who believes you can be better than this." 20:52, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If this is the sort of comment you got, then you received what is called "spam". When reading you, I actually expected him to bully you, gaslight you, or at the very least call you slurs, not just a dumb temper tantrum that the likes of a 8 years old would go through after being conficated their legos, and once again you didn't show the screenshots, so to me you still received only two angry mails and had a conniption over them. You're seemingly overdramatic, I hope you never pull that shit on long-time editors you do not like. I'm saying this especially since Oxyaena did exactly that, we don't need drama queens here. 08:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The hell do you have against Oxyeana? She was banned most of the time your account was around, which makes one wonder... Plutocow (talk) 08:14, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Have been asking that question from myself a lot too. TC said above in Nay to π months, "This is why I like people like Ace and HBC, they remind me of what RationalWiki should be versus what it is now, it currently acts as a damn safe space for progressive atheists." I don't know if they're here for the trollinz or to just pick fights (or as in one case, just to be rude to someone trying to contribute) but meh. Smacks of someone trying to get in the curt curmudgeon club, thinking dissing on a gone and goodbye editor is a way to get into the aforementioned folks' graces. Definitely getting some attention. Kntai (talk) 08:23, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you saying this because you think these two + the person I'm defending are trolls (I'm willing to believe it for ADOC, but as I previously stated, he should face ridicule, not a permanent banishment over an allegation). I've never been here to stir up anything as you're implying, I mentioned some things some folks here did not like and got into confrontations thereafter. I actually feel bad for the few editors who have to put up with you and your short tempers (Machina is one of them, I feel bad for him). 08:33, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm wounded. So very. Kntai (talk) 08:50, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You're wasting our time, TransChicken. Condescension noted too, as well as a misread of my comment. I already acknowledged more than few times the message wasn't serious (and I've specifically not mentioned "harassment" beyond the block log due to the weight of that word) and you missed them all to try to condescend me. This is on top of your mistaken conclusion that I received six email (I received four, plus a while back, that makes it five, not six). Regardless, people still decided the emailing was an abuse of privileges, that's a conclusion they reached. Go condescend them, not me, and lament about how the wiki is somehow supposed to benefit from tolerating the lowest and cheapest form of disagreement, see if you can change their minds. 09:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Once is far enough to convince everyone which is clearly observable in this vote involving multiple people voting 'yay' not because he's a troll, not because he spammed you, but because he allegedly harassed you. You shouldn't be spewing random words out of your clap trap, or at the very least correct yourself up ahead of time rather than wait this long to clear everything up. You take no accountability for a clear-cut case of defamation with the harassment accusation being only thown-in at the last minute and accepted as such from confirmation bias by the other votees. This perfectly highlights the problem of this entire thread, intellectual dishonesty - ADOC would've gotten a week ban if you didn't over-exaggerate the infraction. Don't even waste your time to replying back, I've said my piece and I'm done with you. 10:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Ohhhkay. Kntai (talk) 11:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @TransChicken She also said the following and I quote "Do you want me to show evidence of email spam or do you think the content of the email isn't harassment?" right here on this page, so you're kind of correct here. You should learn to be more humble though, you come off as assertive and abrasive if not douche in your statements. Senioritas (talk) 12:39, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If this wiki wasn't so horrid at times, and the users themselves weren't acting up over the slightest of offenses, I would probably be nicer to everyone here. Now that you know that, don't police my tone - that's damn rude and off the point. 15:13, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said. You're wasting my time. You're wasting everyone's time. 18:51, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * also bringing up MeToo is in pretty poor taste imo 20:57, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I also reiterate, that offhanded casual reference to MeToo to try to cast doubt on me also makes me incredibly uncomfortable. 19:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Casually mentioning metoo in an unrelated topic, as justification for being "suspicious" of people's claims (especially in reference to the age old mysogenistic horror of doubting rape against women) is fucking vile. Shabi  DOO  19:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's probably as related as it is for me to randomly mention that I answered two nonsense edit requests on the Wikipedia article for George Clooney. Andrew5 (talk) 19:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's part of a pattern of moralistic posturing. I note that TC simultaneously claimed, on the one hand, that others are too dramatic and that "drama queens" are not needed, and on the other hand, promotes mocking and ridiculing of those seen as wrong instead of shutting down drama and also embraces a more inflammatory style which obviously gets more reactions. There's a contradiction there; others being dramatic is bad but TC being dramatic is good. TC is plainly trolling. I'd suggest keeping that in mind and not feeding the troll. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah I'll treat their comments from now on as relatively worthless. Always has been actually. 20:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought about pointing out TC's bitching about "drama" despite creating tons of drama, but I thought it was obvious to everyone. TC, are you enjoying all of the drama you have helped generate and all the attention you are getting? Is this a fun way to spend the weekend? Shabi  DOO  20:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Your 3 day weekend, at that! Andrew5 mobile (talk) 20:50, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * !?!?? October has weekends over two days??? 20:52, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Columbus Day weekend. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 20:54, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I know Columbus Day as that fake holiday where I don't get the day off. Kinda like Halloween or Saint Patrick's Day. 21:13, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Talking about work is generally not permitted. --Andrew5 (talk) 12:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * In Canada, we have a long weekend due to Thanksgiving. LongStylus (talk) 20:15, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * So do we. From the day of to the Sunday after. Last year it went from November 26-29. Also towards the end of hurricane season. Thanksgiving ‘82 was ruined by Hurricane Iwa in Hawaii. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 21:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Proof of harassment has been sent. --Andrew5 (talk) 23:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That being said, I don't really care what conclusion they come to. 23:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's also easy to spoof emails, just saying. You don't even need Photoshop or any sort of image editing. 23:47, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Goat

 * Neutral for now. Will see what others say. Keep in mind, while I have zero faith he'll take a 2nd chance, I generally believe in them. But harassment is also very severe, and he clearly lacks competence, so I won't oppose the idea for now either.Andrew5 (talk) 00:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this vote is stupid, attracts needless drama, and injects pointless bureaucracy into RW where there is no need for it. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 01:08, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Pointless bureaucracy or not, there are editors who seem hell bent to unblock any and all cretins who engage in this kind of harassment. Unless we grant summary rights to sysoprevoke such editors on a whim, bureaucratic rulings like this are necessary. 01:17, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * True. In addition, people who oppose this block can't just unblock if it passes. It requires a 2/3 supermajority. Violating that could result in sanctions. --Andrew5 (talk) 01:26, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with cosmikdebris. We don't need to waste so much effort and feed this troll. Moderators should just come to a consensus, modhat this, ban. 05:25, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * TC does have an important point though. These are allegations of harassment, not confirmed harassment. What might trigger an unvoted permaban is confirmed harassment, but until then, all this is is unconfirmed allegations that could be false. Proof of harassment, at the very least, is strongly recommended. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 10:52, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Are we going to get a Photoshop professional to judge the veracity of those screencapped emails? /s Kntai (talk) 11:18, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Seeing a single screenshot should be enough I don't think we need to go that far, but at least seeing a single screenshot to confirm if it's harassment or not. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 11:25, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Abstain for now. Full context - I have seen the emails send to LGM (I asked for it to be assured that I'd not get people gunning for my head for issuing an emailblock against ADOC; I fully believed LGM at the start). I do think they are harassing with no context, however at the same time there is a very straightforward good faith context of these emails. As a result, I am abstaining until I hear from ADOC about this. Should I not hear anything within say, the next 3 days, I'll just vote yay because at that point I know that ADOC was trying to harass. -- Techpriest (talk) 21:46, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Spam emails is still a problem. I learned that the hard way.Andrew5 (talk) 21:53, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * They are but at the same time, I have a good faith lenience in mind that I would like to see a potential response to first. -- Techpriest (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Honeslty barring any emails they were bordering on a permaban. I initially abstained but moved in favor because I was persuaded.--Andrew5 (talk) 22:21, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Proof of harassment sent and ADOC sent a babyish response. Andrew5 (talk) 23:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Disappointing. Vote moved to ban as earlier stated. -- Techpriest (talk) 15:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Since this person has just made it very clear who he is, let's just end this. Plutocow (talk) 00:42, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Told ya. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 17:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There is marginal progress though, as he is making insincere apologies, but apologizing nonetheless. --Andrew5 (talk) 17:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I interpret that as ADOC = Ken, right? So, close the vote. I banned for ban evasion already. Bongolian (talk) 17:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Why don't you close it? --Andrew5 (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Ineligible

 * 1) Agree with the Commander BeardOfZeus (talk) 01:35, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) I'm not voting him off for the mails, I'm voting him off for being an insufferable troll. Senioritas (talk) 12:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh what fun with the user creation log
This many in such a short time frame. Any chance to nuke them all as a pre-emptive strike? There might be some collateral damage, but clearly someone's spamming accounts right now. 23:49, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll handle this. Plutocow (talk) 23:55, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. 00:09, 7 October 2021 (UTC)