RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive41

Page creation edit filter
I'm sorry for bringing it up again; I was told the page creation averages 3-5 per month but the delete log shows at least 15 page deletions today of a similar manner. I think page creation is getting abused, protecting pages to autoconfirmed/sysops only is obviously ineffective. 19:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Or all page creations by non-autoconfirmed users ought to require approval by sysops before their visibility becomes public. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 19:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * that would just require the same level of effort as there is now AMassiveGay (talk) 20:00, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Then if a pending page creation does not receive sysop approval within several hours, it is automatically removed from a special page list of pending page creations? UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 20:03, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Or we could just keep deleting the pages, it’s not difficult.
 * The second you restrict page creation Ken would just switch to creating accounts with usernames containing his messages or just switch namespaces, very easy to be just as disruptive with page creation off the table. Christopher (talk) 20:07, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I should say, the more persistent attacks appear to have only happened in three days over the last [insert long period of time here], so I'm in agreement with Chris that it doesn't look like it's disruptive enough of a problem just yet. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * (EC) I agree with Christopher too. Not a big deal to delete all this spam. Even if there was only one sysop deleting the garbage it's still faster do delete it than to create an account, write what you want and then publish it. I'd perhaps support a smaller limit to the number of characters of the article's title though, with exceptions being managed by techs if possible. GeeJayK (talk) 20:24, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Not the perfect equivalence to compare to usernames IMO; they have a pretty strict character limit to prevent spam, which I guess the troll tries to go around with those creations (however I'll ask, if page creations are fine because we can delete them, then why not remove the username restriction as we can just easily block and forget). I suppose deleting it is fast but I think revert summaries are generally less disruptive than page creation. The switch namespaces part doesn't make sense either; if you can't create page then you can't and then you'll need edit summaries to be disruptive but those are limited by character limit for max disruption too. 23:04, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, what's the current limit on names? Given how often usernames are repeated in the log compared to page names, it might be easier to clog the logs up with an extra long username than extra long page names. (In other words, it takes longer to create a bunch of pages with long names, and successive edits in one page are automatically collapsed, but if a troll puts the entire Bee Movie script into their username and starts going on a blanking spree, that'll fuck with the log appearance a lot quicker) ℕoir LeSable (talk) 01:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Not exactly sure but it's probably shorter than 30 characters. Mine is 15 characters, probably not much more than that. 00:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 25 characters. Christopher (talk) 10:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Range blocking Tor IPs (2a0b:f4c especially)
Seriously, I don't see why we shouldn't do this. First of all, blocking Tor won't prevent anyone from being able to use Rationalwiki, since it's just an external program. Secondly, as I have demonstrated, autoblock doesn't work on Tor, allowing Tor users to spam this wiki to their hearts' content. Blocking these IPs will seriously cut down on account spam, so I don't see why we shouldn't do it. Plutocow (talk) 20:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Finally, a significant Plutocow stopped clock moment! UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 20:24, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * We can't just assume that all Tor IP edits are in bad faith. What if they want to genuinely contribute but they're in a country where doing so is risky? 20:33, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * They can just use a VPN? Plutocow (talk) 20:35, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The thing is, VPNs are much more traceable then Tor. China is undergoing a mass VPN crackdown but Tor still works there due to its decentralization and its bridges feature. Plus I also have to use Tor at school because of the stupidly strict DNS server that blocks crucial sources. 20:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This is another solution in search of a problem, we don’t currently have a noticeable problem with tor vandalism. Christopher (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah we do, each account spammer is a Tor user. Plutocow (talk) 20:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't know this, and without checkuser we never will. I agree with Christopher again. GeeJayK (talk) 20:58, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * [EC]Even if you did know that for sure, it wouldn’t justify blocking all tor users. Account spammers are at worst a minor annoyance. Christopher (talk) 21:00, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I just demonstrated that autoblock does not work on Tor, and the people who are immune to autoblock are Tor users. It's not like there are Tor users that aren't spamming the wiki. Plutocow (talk) 21:04, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * When did you demonstrate that? Christopher (talk) 21:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * See the block log. I'd demonstrate it again but my laptop isn't working right now. You can try it out if you like. Plutocow (talk) 21:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I assumed TOR was blocked in our DNSBL. Either way. YES. BLOCK TOR. Seriously, you aren't losing anything; if people want to view our pages they still can. Editors can register over a free VPN or their own account we literally can't see their IPs. Techpriest (talk) 21:36, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * To give an idea on what this approach would look like (entering technical territory): This is a DNSBL for Tor. We'd have to add it to our DNSBL configuration. We also would need to restrict editing and a few other things from the DNSBL. More technical details here. It's really not impossible if the community wants it. There is no advantage to leaving Tor editing open from my end; it's a massive spam headache no matter which way you slice it. Techpriest (talk) 21:50, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Ban Tor if you want, but I can bet you money I don't have that Ken or whoever the dipshit is will just use another network. 21:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * They'll at least have to go through the effort of having to switch their IP each time they're banned. Plutocow (talk) 21:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Also for anyone unsure if an IP they blocked is a Tor IP, you can use this list to check. Techpriest (talk) 21:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Alright, with my laptop working again I will perform another demonstration. I will use Tor to create an account, permaban it, and create more accounts despite the fact that I should be blocked from making accounts. The fact that the accounts will share the same autoblock will prove that they share the same IP. Plutocow (talk) 01:17, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, you convinced me. GeeJayK (talk) 01:34, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That still doesn't prove that the spam is coming from Tor IPs, I literally just fired it up and the assigned IP I had wasn't used to vandalize. If there's no checkuser, we can't just assume that Ken is using Tor. 04:25, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * But there is demonstrable spam from Tor IPs, as TAOB has shown us. In fact, while doing my Tor experiment it first assigned me to an IP that was banned because TAOB used it! Plutocow (talk) 05:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There is also the issue that at least one user - Rockford the Roe - used Tor legitimately (see above) . We don't know who else might.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 11:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

USHistoryAnalyzer vs GrammarCommie, possible issues
Ok, USHA is clearly a self absorbed twat, but I don't think GC handled it appropriately.

GC deleted a bunch of posts from the Saloon Bar, including stuff not by USHA. Then USHA reverted, both edit warred. USHA blocked GC for the rest of the day, and GC blocked USHA and GC removed USHA's sysop.

USHA wants a coop. Hopefully we will all calm down, talk it out here before there's too much drama. 21:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Splitting the discussion will only make things worse. If he wants a coop, let him have a coop. We’ve had lots of “coops” that didn’t escalate, the page isn’t cursed. Christopher (talk) 21:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I was wrong... Christopher (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hah, yeah, the coop might have been quiet lately but it's not unusual to see 200 edits made in a few hours. Rather resolve things with a few trouts upside the head and be done.  21:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It’s usually been the case that something gets to the coop because people are making a fuss about it, not the other way around. There are always those who see any slight transgression as an excuse to air all their personal grievances, especially if it makes it to the coop. Christopher (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Oxyaena
Well, not sure where to put this.

At one point in our recent shitshow with more cringeworthy drama than a middle-school theatre club make-out party chicken coop, Oxy requested that we decide whether we were going to be for Social Justice or a "freeze peach haven for trolls and shitheads". So I gave a dumb PP on this.

So Oxy is now LANCB, again, but not before this little screed. Oxy is on civility notice or whatever we call it, which I think violates that. Rather than get into a fight, bringing this to the mods.

I don't think I did anything particularly mean but correct me if I'm wrong? 21:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Oxyaena makes a point. If this wiki is to be a bastion of support for social justice, then maybe something ought to be added to the mission statement about that. However, her own brand of SJ tends to be incoherent as well as untoward. UncleKrampus (talk) 21:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The issue is she is calling for me to burn in hell, not that I care too much about generic insults, plus inserting random insults on years-old threads insulting me simply because she wasn't getting her way in a similar discussion. She has a history of being caustic with those that don't agree with her on every issue, which is why we have the civility sanction... thing.  I don't want a repeat of the winter, with flamewars and chasing away potential users.  So I'm asking the mods about what we should do.  21:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This is exactly the sort of thing “civility parole” is meant to punish. Apparently the protocol is a 12 hour ban, Oxy isn’t known for sticking to LANCBs but I think she’ll manage longer than that. Christopher (talk) 21:52, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Then a Mod should give her the 12 hour block so the next time it's 24 hours... 21:55, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * While she has most certainly improved since her return, this is not the first time she has pointlessly insulted someone (even if an apology came later). I fear not giving a short block will eventually lead to increasing incivility. Yes, Oxy is completely correct that we should not tolerate rape comparisons used as petty argument techniques. She is completely right and I am surprised no mod hasn't warned USHistoryanalyzer about this. Having said that, Oxy has certainly broken her "civility probation" and a 12 hour block is completely reasonable (especially considering she has LANCBed for the zillionth time, it is unlikely she would even be around for the block. Shabi  DOO  03:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I wouldn't oppose a USHA civility parole... thing... except we've had enough drama over that for now. If USHA acts up again, sure, but until then, no news is good news.  04:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think Plutocow already did a very good job of admonishing USHistoryanalyzer for that comment, certainly a much better job than I could do.
 * And yes, if Oxyaena breaks her incivility ban again when she comes back (we know it will be "when she comes back" not "if"), she should get a 24 hour block. Spud (talk) 05:10, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * In full agreement to put USH on civility parole the next time he acts like an inappropriate drama queen. As for Oxy, I understand her frustrations but this is a violation of the civility parole. I see no reason to enforce it since rn she's on LANCB anyway, but next time a short block to "cool off" might be a good idea. Techpriest (talk) 11:35, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * So, will the next one be 12 or 24 hours? 15:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

The next one would be 24 hours to make up for the one she just escaped. Spud (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that people need reprimands for incivility, including in the case of what USH said. For short-term reprimands such as that, I think it can be left up to the discretion of a moderator as to how long. Bongolian (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm just here to express my sheer astonishment at this turn of events-Hastur! (talk) 18:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I take from your comment that this all seems unfamiliar to you? Are you well?UncleKrampus (talk) 21:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No, he's just being a troll. The first edit he makes in weeks is to snark in a mod case revolving around me, and not, say, the fucking clown who insults me and all other sexual assault survivors by comparing himself to a fucking rape victim. — Oxyaena Harass  12:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)


 * The broad consensus here is that the fact that this shitstain didn't violate any actual rules is more important than the comfort and safety of actual marginalized people like myself, and when I point that out I get met with mockery, and I'm the one at fault for getting justifiably indignant? — Oxyaena Harass  12:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oxy you yourself insulted a half Jewish person for their views on Israel. You may disagree with their political ideas but you can hardly claim to be the prime role model for making people feel comfortable. While I think the rape comment was vile, I'm sorry you had to read that and that only a few users seem remotely bothered by it and I'm saddened no mod did anything about it, you should consider your own viscous behaviour sometimes in making this place the opposite of a safe space for some discussions. Civility and comfort go hand in hand don't they? Shabi  DOO  16:00, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oxyaena: "bUt hAmAs wOrs tHen Israel" Also Oxyaena: "Ban this shitstain for insulting victims!" People these days, lacking an understanding of what irony means. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 16:29, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You're making this worse by doubling down with your earlier comparison to rape. Please, stop. 16:42, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You must be deeply discontent and struggling emotionally USHistorynanalyser. You cannot be a happy person if you go around the internet bothering strangers and being generally dickish. There are ways to deal with your problems other than online trolling and shittery and ways to build positive real life and online social skills. You really will find life more pleasant when you stop pointlessly upsetting people. Shabi  DOO  19:06, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Fuck it. Let's do a vote. Time to see if we can Civility parole USH. Techpriest (talk) 19:25, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Civility parole on USH
For being an inappropriate drama queen. He made an inappropriate rape comparison in the past coop and now is inappropriately mocking the person who took offense to it (not for taking offense to it but for something else). An interaction ban isn't the solution here. Techpriest (talk) 19:25, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you define what you mean by "civility parole" before we proceed any further on the vote? Bongolian (talk) 19:31, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * What we have on SANCTION and what Oxy got threatened with enforcement of here. "For users who are incapable of acting civil in discussions with other users, a civility parole is a possible punishment. Users who are under civility parole can be short term blocked by moderators with incrementing ranges if they act incivil without having to go through the community voting process." This is an existing punishment. Techpriest (talk) 19:36, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks! Bongolian (talk) 19:51, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think Oxy did get it enforced of a sort. Bongolian made her Sysoprevoke as punishment for avoiding punishment, which combined with her silly 3 month self-imposed block, means she's gone for a long while.  Did you forget about her self-imposed block?  20:04, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This will have to be coupled with temporary removal of sysop powers to make sure the block sticks, won't it? He won't have any right to complain about his mop being unfairly taken away, will he? Spud (talk) 23:50, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Correct. That's always been the case for every punishment enforcement that's supposed to stick. He has the right to complain to get them back afterwards though and we'd have to comply. Techpriest (talk) 20:31, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Aye

 * 1) Read my opening statement. Techpriest (talk) 19:25, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Pretty lighthanded application for an established troll but sure. 19:32, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) I don’t see why not. 19:37, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) This is just one instance of their pointless dickery. Shabi  DOO  19:41, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Bongolian (talk) 19:51, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 6) Plutocow (talk) 20:29, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 7) Should at least ensure there are no further inappropriate comments like that one. Spud (talk) 23:50, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 8) Sure! I don't think it will help but giving him a less drastic sanction that still allows for an opportunity to change his path is okay, even if I doubt it will work in the end. We gave it a shot, at least.-Flandres (talk) 06:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Nay

 * 1) Not a fan of the idea in general, especially with the specifics of the doubling block length. Imo Oxy’s should be lifted as well, although I believe it should be enforced as long as it does exist. Christopher (talk) 20:20, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Sanctioning somebody for that "inappropriate rape comparison" would imply either that 1. we're idiots or 2. we're bored and this is what we do for fun-Hastur! (talk) 07:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * So inappropriate rape comments are not a big deal? Shabi  DOO  14:48, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Depends, I suppose. This particular comment? No, not a big deal.  We don't sanction people for making stupid analogies-Hastur! (talk)  01:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I am really curious what an inappropriate rape comment would be like for you that is a big deal. Shabi  DOO  03:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Civility paroles are stupid. 10:01, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 14:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒   talk  02:59, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Goat

 * 1) It's a coin flip between "aye" and "abstain". USHA doesn't seem like a level-headed person, so I wouldn't be too remiss if he were in civility parole, but I feel like he should first get a block and then if he continues, civility parole.  Has USHA been blocked/warning before?  If so, I'll change my vote to "aye".  20:01, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * He has a standing topic ban on US History and Politics (ironically) because he kept getting into edit wars with Plutocow over poorly made edits. Techpriest (talk) 20:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but he didn't violate this AFAIK, technically, and wasn't banned/warned or whatever. I'm fine with extending his topic ban to include Saloon Bar on those issues.  But, eh, seems like he will be put in parole anyway. 20:18, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) I would rather see a prohibition on the use of the word "rape" including from those who claim to have suffered from it. UncleKrampus (talk) 21:46, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Why? — Oxyaena Harass  22:37, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Some delight in hearing of the suffering of others. I think that should be discouraged. It should be sufficient for one to say "please don't use that word." We should all respect such requests. There are over 600,000 English words with lots of overlap. More than enough to make ones point.UncleKrampus (talk) 22:46, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Link to this "inappropriate rape comparison," please-Hastur! (talk) 06:50, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * they’re talking about this Christopher (talk) 08:59, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Sysoprevoke
I was of the impression that sysoprevoke needed a coop vote to be enacted. Why the hell was I placed in sysoprevoke when I did nothing worthy of being placed in there? That's just adding insult to injury. — Oxyaena Harass  21:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Already said it on Oxy’s talkpage but I agree sysoprevoke doesn’t make any sense. Christopher (talk) 21:08, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Enforcement of a temp block perhaps. Everyone knows it is temporary, unless there is a vote. UncleKrampus (talk) 21:30, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The only block was self-inflicted. There should’ve been a 12 hour one for the incivility parole thing, but it never happened as Oxy was meant to be LANCB at the time. Christopher (talk) 21:35, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I did this because it appeared that LANCBing for seemingly the hundredth time, but this time to avoid punishment. As I stated in the user rights change message, "For punishment avoidance. You can request status restoration and unblocking from any moderator, including myself." This was obviously intended to be a short-term change. Oxy, you need to own up to your bad behavior — recurring incivility — and stop it. Bongolian (talk) 23:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

It's easy to quit drinking. I've done it a thousand times.
 * Oxy has turned the acronym LANCB into a fucking joke, and we should always avoid using this term when referring to them. A more appropriate term would be something like "Leaving and coming back soon (LACBS)" or "Leaving for a while and will be back eventually (LFAWAWBBE)". —cosmikdebris talk stalk 00:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * According to the page you linked to, "LANCB" is already a joke. 00:21, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it is, but in Oxy's case it's so frequently used that the joke's worn itself out. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 00:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * We can call it the rage-quit yo-yo. Shabi  DOO  01:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The ragequit revolving door. 02:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Re: Cosmikdebris, yeah. If LANCB was already a joke, Oxy has turned it into several seasons of really bad comedy show. 06:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, so I'm not allowed to respond to blatant mockery, but this shit can continue unimpeded. Lol. — Oxyaena Harass  08:59, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'v recognized USHA as an GR level asshole, who will in all likelihood be eventually banned for it. And I hereby confirm that I have recognized you as a drama queen who cannot get over herself. 13:45, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think you know what mockery even is. Here, the following also is not mockery, but it is a brutal takedown.
 * I think you have a similar psychology as your run of the mill conspiracy theorist, but even more extreme; you have this need to not just be "smarter" than everyone else, but have everyone else know you are "smarter" than everyone else. Instead of "9/11 occurred to cover up the moon landing" crowd, you've instead turned to smart-sounding but Fringe ideas.  The fact that the ideas are Fringe is actually their appeal to you; you "know" something that others don't.  And you need others to know that you know something they don't.
 * Of course, the point of inserting these sound bites into everything isn't to have an honest debate, it's to let everyone know you are superior. But you don't actually understand the ideas yourself, because actually knowing something was never the point.
 * Furthermore, you can't even let yourself risk the possibility that either you aren't superior or others don't see you as superior. That's why you can't ever answer simple questions.  When backed into a corner you instead turn to diversion tactics of any sort, often reframing the narrative to be about how the person providing the question is actually persecuting you.
 * You are unable to answer ShabiDoo's question "what, in 3 sentences, is your definition of Anarchism" because an answer could be critiqued, instead you have to resort to histrionics and somehow turning Shabi into the villain for even daring to consider doing anything other than taking your word as gospel.
 * You are unable to answer my question "why do you think you would succeed in an Anarchist society" because again, an answer would be able to be analyzed and there's a risk you expose to others you aren't a genius.
 * I don't know what path you have to move forward beyond "speak to a psychologist", but before that, you actually have to want to change. 14:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm delighted that you have suddenly become an armchair psychologist like everyone else here. I gave a valid explanation why I decided not to answer Shabi's arbitrary question, and Shabi in turn refused to address direct evidence that there are societies out there that resolve conflicts without resorting to coercive measures. One in which you have also ignored, and no I'm not posting the study here. As for your drivel about "fringe ideas," don't pretend that you yourself don't have an ideological bias. You do. You're doing yourself and everyone else here a disservice by pretending otherwise. Your idea of "rationality" inherently excludes non-neoliberal perspectives, and then you mask your ideological framework (neoliberalism) by claiming it to be "objective reality." You know, the old canard that "reality has a liberal bias." — Oxyaena Harass  14:47, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

"Executive dysfunction" is an excuse, not an answer. 14:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Ignore everything else I pointed out and nitpick one particular point I made. Typical. — Oxyaena Harass  14:55, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * (ec) I don't want to derail the subject even more. But I posted 2 books, three peer reviewd articles and one video by two political scientists four economists and one philosopher, three of them Harvard Professors, one of them a LSE professor, another a MIT professor... And yet you didn't answer me. See, Oxy, I was like you when I was your age, and some day you'll have to realize you're not super smart. GeeJayK (talk) 15:05, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Milton Friedman, Hayek, and a few others, correct? Yes, all architects of neoliberalism. I never claimed to be "super smart," but please don't kid yourself by pretending you lack an ideological bias. You don't. Your own comments to the effect that "Friedman was more credible than any Marxian social scientist" bely that fact. That doesn't sound like an objective statement, it sounds like an ideological one. — Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  15:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. Actually, Hayek was only on the weakest source (the video). No Friedman. One of the best two soucers (The Narrow Corridor, by Daron Acemoglu and Jim Robinson) has an entire chapter called "Hayek's mistake". If you want to read the other best source IMO it is a paper called Dictatorship, Democracy, and Development by the political scientist Mancur Olson. About my alleged bias, I've never pretended I'm neutral, but I do tend to follow the evidence (or at least I do my best to do so). That's why I've changed my mind many times about many subjects. I'm fine being called a "neoliberal", though I don't consider myself one, I'm probably closer to people like and  than to Friedman and Robert Lucas. Still regarding Friedman and Marx, I'm not a big fan of Friedman's political work for the same reasons I don't like Krugman's political work. They wrote superficial books aimed for conversion and/or to give arguments to those that already agree with them. That's not wrong, but you shouldn't mistake their work as pundits with their work as academics. Marx is far more important than any of them, but he was writing 150 years ago. The World has changed. I admire many new Marxist scholars, but you can use a book that was written so long ago as your major source, even though social sciences are more abstract that hard sciences. These authors are supposed to give you insights, not evidence.  GeeJayK (talk) 15:24, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oxy, what Cory said is somewhat exaggerated but over all sums up your behaviour here. You challenge but you avoid almost all challenges including not engaging in personal reflection by deflecting (the armchair psychologist comment). No one needs to be remotely trained in psychology to realise you have mental issue you are not dealing with. Add on top of that the not unlikely inventing things about your personal life, the obscene amount of rage-quitting and coming back, often on the same day for attention seeking drama, your mixture of both insulting incivility and victimhood and your fairly unhealthy co-dependent relationship with this website make me wonder what it is you are doing here. There are better ways to pass your time online and better methods for developing constructive relationships with people. When it gets to the point that your presence on a website or forum is almost entirely one of conflict, antagonism and drama...a healthy person would choose to either leave the place or completely and utterly and consistently revise their approach. The second one would involve taking an extended break from here and taking advantage of any and all mental health resources (if you cannot afford them and no state services are available there are still other resources that can be taken advantage of) and tools to help build social skills (same). I hope you do one of those. Shabi  DOO  15:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, unlike others I do enjoy Oxy's presence here and although I'm sure you have the best intentions on your mind and you're not trying to gaslight her I don't think it's very nice to suggest that she should leave. She was also harassed and gaslighted before, and I do think this is an issue too, even though her response is not always the best. GeeJayK (talk) 15:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I called out people when they were harassing her in the past. Having said that Gee, the majority of her grief making is entirely unprovoked. I do not think anyone can passively observe Oxy's experience and think it is healthy for her to be here at the moment or recognise that her presence is mostly a generator of disruption and drama (regardless of whether some users antagonise her).  I may have once found her presence on balance a positive over a negative but at the moment, I am sorry, but seeing the user name Oxy makes me brace for a high likelihood of pointless problems, intellectual dishonesty, insults or tantrums. It is definitely a nice thing to suggest a person prioritise their mental health.  Shabi  DOO  16:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That you have, and I appreciate you sticking up for me. I have to take umbrage with the notion that I "invent things about my personal life," but I don't see there's any way I could convince you otherwise without doxxing myself, so I won't press the issue. I've said before in the past that I'm disabled, and I don't see why people are only now realizing that. My life is chaotic at best, so I haven't really had the time to seek treatment, nor do I have the ability. I wasn't lying when I said I have executive dysfunction, I'm on SSDI for a reason. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  17:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I've also altered some of the filters to prevent some of the trolls, but of course I can't do too much without blocking absolutely everyone. That's why you see them with names like "Ockksy" or stupid names like that.  17:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Oxy, even if you truly are a disabled, trans, ex-muslim, with an executive disfunction that keeps you from answering simple questions, victim of abuse, ex-homeless who sincerely believed their boyfriend committed suicide (which one would be forgiven for thinking at least one or two of those are at the very least exaggerated), there is all of the other stuff I said which is far more significant and stuff you ought to take seriously. Not ignore and dismiss but truly confront. So why don't you stop waiting and putting it off and actually confront these issues? Why not just do it? Shabi DOO  17:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Meh, Gender Dysphoria correlates very highly with other mental illnesses, and whether that's because abuse/mistreatment increases the chance of MH issues manifesting or they are inherent is irrelevant, being trans and having all the other disabilities and whatnot isn't really a stretch. Homelessness again is correlated with mental illness, not something that's a stretch either.  17:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Correlation does not imply causation. I'm not homeless because of my mental illnesses, I'm homeless cause my mother was evicted from her apartment and I had nowhere else to go. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  17:47, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

This conversation has gone completely off the rails, which was probably Oxy's intent because she has refused to own up to her incivility. The point here is not Oxy's disabilities. The point is that Oxy needs to act civilly here; if she can't or won't do that then she needs to not be here at all. There are ways of disagreeing with people while not becoming abusive. Oxy is smart enough to know that. Bongolian (talk) 17:50, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You're correct. Although, to be fair with Oxy, I do think she's behaving far better than she used to a few months ago (I even mentioned that to her a few days ago), this episode with Cory aside. . GeeJayK (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * She hasn’t been back long enough to judge any minor improvements and there clearly hasn’t been a major one. Christopher (talk) 19:03, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Tangential, but...
It strikes me that a lot of Oxy's most disruptive behaviour could be effectively prevented if she was simply barred from sharing any kind of personal anecdote or information. If nothing else, it would a) significantly reduce her scope for lobbing attention-seeking grenades into conversations; b) remove her most frequent source of excuses for bad behaviour; and c), assuming that she occasionally tells the truth, actually end up protecting her from an obvious and unfortunate compulsion to overshare.

I know this is a very unusual speech restriction to impose on an editor, but this nonsense has been going on for several years now. It's time to try something different. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 01:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ^I like this. How unsurprised I was after being pretty much a away from RW for some months to find Oxy chucking toys, LANCBing again, pissing everyone off with some tale or another about everyone else is being mean. I have no reason to believe or disbelieve the story at hand but it’s always fucking something. And before some dick says I’m violating the interaction ban I’m having an opinion on a disruptive user and discussing some sort of way through. So, you know, get over it. This shit has been going on for years and it sure as shit ain’t me that’s the problem. Ace303, 808, 909 08:11, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Ken spam and DFTT
The only reason Ken socks continue to spam people's talk pages is that some people will respond to him. There are users who don't want people to revert Ken's spam from their pages, which confuses me as according to CS reverting talk page spam of banned users is mandatory. I feel if we all just reverted Ken's spam and banned him he would eventually get bored, but the fact that some users insist on feeding the troll makes this difficult in practice. Plutocow (talk) 17:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing that out. I think we should enforce the reversions. Bongolian (talk) 17:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Very well. As one of these users I'm convinced (indeed, I started to realize I was wrong yesterday). I don't have time right now I'll remove the garbage on my talk page later (though if anyone wants to do it feel free to remove it along the headline on my talk page). GeeJayK (talk) 18:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I've restored Ken's bullshit on ny talk page in the past to respond, but I agree with Plutocowand will let him be rolled back by y'all with reckless abandon (unless I get there to rollback first) 18:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Feel free to revert obvious spam you see. 18:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I used to allow him to spam on my talkpage because his tone amuses me, but I started to realize that it wasn't healthy to obsess over him. I reverted his shit and took a break from editing so I can improve myself. I know he's probably gonna go on here and be like: "This is further proof that RationalWiki is infested with mentally ill people! ", but I actually still enjoy editing here and I just needed to think of other topics to work on. 18:49, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, guys, if you let him spam the talk page you're enabling him, so just ignore, revert, block. I mean even if you give him space to talk he'll say the same thing. Don't be with losers, be a winner. 19:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I've removed the Ken stuff from my talk page. The reason I kept it before was because I didn't want to single him out for special treatment after I'd allowed much nastier stuff to stay on my talk page before, including death threats. But if the accepted thing to do is to revert any talk page comments by the socks of banned users, then so be it. Spud (talk) 11:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That user should never have been blocked in the first place and is largely harmless. I propose that we unblock him and humor him, not just for our own entertainment but also to preserve the ideals of free speech that this website was founded upon-Hastur! (talk)  07:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * He was banned after a coop case in which your arguments were as weak then as they are now.AMassiveGay (talk) 09:23, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * see here for that coop. Id rather not go through all that bollocks again explaining why he should be persona non grata hereAMassiveGay (talk) 09:34, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Per AMG. We aren't relitigating the Ken case. Techpriest (talk) 09:40, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That's actually a good point, AMG, per your link he was not blocked by a 2/3 majority. According to the community standards he should never have been blocked, thank you for bringing that up-Hastur! (talk)  01:47, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Go get a room, Hastur, and maybe practice your serenading poetry more. 21:18, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * When I was a teenager I would write poetry for girls I liked. I wasn't quite so stupid and lacking in self-awareness that I would serenade them, thankfully-Hastur! (talk)  01:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to request a block
I've thought about it, and I don't need more drama in my life. Please and thank you. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  20:18, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll block you but only if you can't request unblocking during the time period that you request. Bongolian (talk) 20:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Contrary to what you may believe, we don't hate you. At least, I don't.  I don't know you personally, so I don't know what it is you actually need, but everyone needs something or someone.  I strongly advise you to contact social services in your area, they always have new programs opening up, and it will cast you nothing.  20:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I also have no hard feelings against you, Oxy, and I wish you the best. Bongolian (talk) 20:45, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd like to request an infinite block, and thank you. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  20:48, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Happy trails to you! Bongolian (talk) 20:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The cycle begins again... 20:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Can we agree on some policy for when she asks to be unblocked? Block can only be reversed by a mod is the obvious place to start, I previously proposed a waiting period of a few days so she can’t act on her first fleeting impulse to return. Of course you can just make the policy “don’t unblock under any circumstances”, but that was what Oxy requested last time, we all know this won’t last forever. Christopher (talk) 21:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Bongolian stipulated it on the latter and I for one am sticking her to it. Techpriest (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * What we really need to do is instigate a lifetime ban vote. If that is what she really wants then only an official perma-ban will give the desired result. Otherwise we are guaranteed to return to exactly the same cycle, we all know it.  Everyone who likes Oxy should vote for a ban - as it will get the result she wants.  Everyone who dislikes her should vote for it - as it will get the result they want.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:40, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Seconded. This needs to be done. No other way of ending this vicious cycle. 11:20, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Bob is very wise. His propsal has my full support. Spud (talk) 11:57, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll vote for something where if she wants to return, she has to honestly answer Shabi and my questions. Shabi's; "in 3 sentences, explain what you think Anarchism is", me; "why do you believe that you would do better under anarchism than the current system".  If she's able to answer these questions, it means she is willing to do introspection, to engage people, instead of posting random junk and then berating people for not simply agreeing with her on everything.  12:26, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If I remember correctly a block needs a two thirds majority. An unblock should work the same way. Accordingly, if she wanted to overturn the proposed block she would need to convince a super-majority of users. At that point any user would have the opportunity to ask such any such questions they thought they were relevant.
 * However, it seems to me that it would be utterly absurd to object to infinite block based on, "she she has not answered my previous question".Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No, she gets blocked until she answers the questions. 15:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I oppose relitigating this. As far as I'm concerned it is amicably closed forever. Oxy got what she wanted. She is unable to unblock herself. Non-mods are unable to restore her rights. Let's let it rest for a year or more. Bongolian (talk) 17:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * So, what are us sysops supposed to do in case Oxy evades her ban? Should we treat her as Persona non grata and ban the new account on sigh like we do to regular trolls? GeeJayK (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Block evasion is worth Π months block. Should apply to any and all socks of her as well.
 * Still, I think we should have a resolution. Even if all current mods agree to withhold the ban, there's a new election in couple of months. Some newly elected mod might decide to listen to her pleas to be let back in. Mob ruling wouldn't be so easily overturned. 17:30, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Since I consider myself morally compromised on this matter, I abstain from any participation in such votes, but will enforce whatever the mob decides. Techpriest (talk) 17:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I’d support holding a ban vote. If not, a mod could put a special notice on Oxy’s page stating that she has requested to remain blocked forever. 18:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with a simple vote that doesn't delve into behavioral issues. A simple yes-no vote on whether 'Oxy is non-revocably banned from RW by her own agreement.' Bongolian (talk) 19:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

A vote
As discussed above, a vote on whether Oxy should remain blocked even if she requests an unblock in the future. It’s now been 24 hours since Oxy originally requested a ban, so this slightly silly formality is entirely by the book. Christopher (talk) 19:52, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Aye

 * 1) It’s all been said by others. Christopher (talk) 19:52, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) If she wants to come back one day she can make a good case and a 2/3 vote will let her back in. Shabi  DOO  20:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) I understand this to be permanent block which can only be revoked by a supermajority. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:08, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) —cosmikdebris talk stalk 20:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 20:30, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Requests by her to unblock should've been rejected to be quite honest. 21:12, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Enough is enough. I don't want her back in until she can be rational about anarchism. 21:36, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Jesus fucking christ it's about time this was finished once and for all. Ace303, 808, 909 22:58, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) It's the best thing for everyone, not least Oxy. Spud (talk) 23:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Bongolian (talk) 01:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 6) No other way to put an end to her toxic behaviour over here. It's better for her too. 05:15, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 7) It's the best for her. 主要行事月 (talk) 13:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 8) I think it's fairly well-known that I'm friends with Oxy, and we've spoken a lot on Discord over the last 2/3 years, so there's no ill will from me. But I agree with Spud & others that this is best for everyone, including Oxy. --RWRW (talk) 14:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 9) Per Bongolian and Christopher: non-revocable, even if she changes her mind. Given previous iterations of this nonsense, it's fucking ridiculous to leave the door even slightly ajar. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 23:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 10) As entertaining as it is for us to have Oxyaena on the website, the moral thing to do would be to vote to ban them so that they can focus on other things and hopefully improve as a person-Hastur! (talk) 01:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 11) As the saying goes, shit or get off the pot. 01:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 06:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) — Leucippus Salva veritate 17:39, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Nay

 * 1) RW deserves Oxyaena. Nutty Roux (talk) 01:55, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Goat

 * Abstain. I don't think this is a good idea, but I'm also fairly sure that I am morally compromised when it comes to punishments raised against Oxy. I will follow the judgement of the mob in the end however. Techpriest (talk) 20:20, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Um, since this is technically a ban discussion, isn't this supposed to go to the coop? I could be off my rocker on this, but I thought that was policy. I'm also going to abstain from voting. 71.208.x.x (talk) 00:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * We've done bans before through ATIM, if I remember correctly. Plus, this isn't a particularly contentious discussion, so I don't think the coop is necessary. 02:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Abstain. Oxy has largely been absent in the time I have been active here.  Others here are in a much better position than myself to evaluate the appropriateness of this. <font color="#00abcb">𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒   talk  01:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm too biased, I think. I'll just sit on the sidelines for now...  01:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, someone please explain to me how there are so many trans anarchists on this site. Some of them have to be socks...  05:55, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think Oxy recruited at least some of them. There is no rule against recruiting people or of non-abusive socking, so it's not really an issue. Bongolian (talk) 06:28, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't think that's the case. It's more a case of what articles you choose to look at for that stuff. From my perspective, the site has had far more disingenuous tankies and alties trying to sealion on talkpages, but that's because the pages I keep an eye on are the pages we have on cranks and internet happenings, which naturally attract those kinds of people. I've generally backed away from the discussions involving the big strokes of polsci (simply because I think that I lack the knowledge to fully speak on those), but I can imagine that if you specifically look at those, yeah you'd find more anarchists (them being transgender is probably more of a coincidence due to the unfortunate situation that trans acceptance finds itself in), because those are the people that are usually more invested in polsci to begin with. Techpriest (talk) 11:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh and the Discord (not the support chat) generally swings quite a lot more left than the site itself does (which I'd say is more of a natural outgrowth of the stress of moderating a Discord versus a wiki), so part of it might also just be bleedthrough from there. Techpriest (talk) 11:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * As one of those trans anarchists, I got into rationalwiki when I was an edgy 13 year old atheist, and then everyone kinda hated me so I left lmao. Anyway then I completely forgot about it, became a non-shithead, got radicalised by livin thru the 2016 election in high school, and figured out I was trans. Eventually I came back here bc I needed a distraction from my failing relationship, and also was on a lot of speed, so I thought “wonder what there up to”. Did not find out whomst Oxy was until after she made me sysop, and had never even used discord until after I’d been here a while. Idk why rationalwiki specifically attracted my trans and autistic self. I guess the wiki did help push me in the general direction of being “pro social justice”, which maybe helped me go further left and be more open to the idea of being trans. I guess it’s just another case of the classic “dunking on creationists —> transgender anarchist” pipeline. 12:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think trans-activism is the problem, as I see it. More problematic is the expression of values incommensurate with the cannon of empirical science. That should never happen here. UncleKrampus (talk) 16:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I can't vote for nay after reading Bob's comment, but I still think this is Oxy's decision (even if she can't decide herself), so I'll just place my vote here. GeeJayK (talk) 12:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Given the block vote isn't for any direct violations, I'd like to suggest a slight subversion of what we normally do when we ban a user and not replace her page with the banned template. Rather I'd recommend just putting the banned template at the top of her userpage and leaving the rest intact. This is mostly because this block is for her own mental health, not because we despise her. Techpriest (talk) 21:20, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

GrammarCommie
The mindless desysoping and blocking spree deserves a sysoprevoke for him. Any objections? UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 03:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You're an intellectual coward and your opinion shouldn't be taken seriously. There's an objection dipshit. 03:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not how it works here. Your consistent intellectual dishonesty would be a better reason to desysop you. Bongolian (talk) 04:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Not to mention consistent and recurring use of the coop and moderator notice board to spin up everyone for perceived dramatic effect. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 04:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Fuck off from the “cry to mommy” pages for at least a little while, please. 04:30, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Not even a week and you're at this shit again? Jeez, you are pathetic. Plutocow (talk) 04:49, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Fuck you USHA! You're not doing any favors for yourself here. 07:07, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I feel genuinely sorry for USHA. Their assholtry makes lifemuch more miserable for them than it does us. Not sure how else to explain this. Shabi  DOO  11:48, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Stop being a drama queen USHA. You're putting salt on every snail. Techpriest (talk) 14:14, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Honestly USHA, if you weren't so annoying and whiny we actually would've coop'd GC. Try learning how to make people like you, or at the very least not actively hate you.  14:16, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Parameters of topic-ban
My presumption is that the imposed topic-ban prohibits only editing articles that clearly in their respective titles are about U.S. history/politics. Would I be permitted to edit an article such as public school if it relates to U.S. politics/history, however? The entirety of the article itself is not specific to U.S. history/politics. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 21:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * What you want to add yo that page is no doubt all about American politics and history. And is no doubt about how some Democrat politicians 60 years ago were openly racist and therefore all Democrats today are secretly racists too. So no. You can't write that. Spud (talk) 23:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * yeah, what are you actually planning to write? 23:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Take a guess! UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 23:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You’re going to reveal that the concept of public schooling was gifted to humanity by the same benevolent aliens who built the Great Pyramids? 23:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * What? No. I was going to point out the KKK's 1920s-era staunch support for public schooling. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 00:02, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Banned. That page has a politics category marker and is primarily about the US. Just stay out of it. Bongolian (talk) 00:37, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "Just stay out of it" So you're scared of factual entries, hmhmhmhmhm...... UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 00:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Bongo won’t let me add my bit about the aliens either. 01:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * UShit, drop it. 02:47, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It's spelled UShistoryanalyzer. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 03:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * UScrapanalyser, just stay away. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 03:53, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Now, would U.S. politics/history-oriented fun pages be off-limits too? UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 16:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. Spud (talk) 00:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hold up, actually. You said :

OK then. Just mainspace articles and drafts. I won't push for a ban on essays. After all, it's not as if he's pushing woo that could be potentially dangerous to people. Spud (talk) 00:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 02:11, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Back then I didn't think you were going to try to circumvent the ban by making funspace pages even less fun than they already are.. You were told the ban didn't apply to essays. You can assume it does apply to everything else. Spud (talk) 03:35, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring in Saloon Bar
https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=RationalWiki:Saloon_bar&diff=2349992&oldid=2349990

I'm trying to collapse this thread for bad faith and shit-stirring from UShistoryanalyzer (which user has a record of it now). Could I get a mod to step in, I don't want to continue the edit war, but I don't want to leave a thread up as if it's a legit discussion. 03:43, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 🙄 UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 03:51, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

USHistoryAnalyzer sysop rights abuse
USHistoryAnalyzer has abused suppression rights as a sysop on his userpage for perfectly regular comments. I have removed USHs sysop rights because of this; they can be reinstated by anyone, I won't put this to a vote. I want to make it perfectly clear that suppression is a limited use tool only used for potential libel in mainspace and doxxing. You do not use it to clean up page history because of comments you don't like. If he does this again, I will make this a full coop case. Techpriest (talk) 12:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * As if Rockford wasn't attempting to dox me? UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 12:53, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * A snide comment about your mental maturity is not a doxxing attempt. Techpriest (talk) 12:54, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Trying to publicly expose one's age is doxxing. Regardless of the veracity, it was inappropriate. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 12:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Listen USHA, shut the fuck up! No one gives a damn about your whinging. 13:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * So...did Rockford link to something saying "Analyzer is a teenager at this exact school?" Because if he just said "you're a high schooler..." well A)That's not doxxing and B) calling your debate opponent a child on the internet when you think they are wrong is as old as arguing on the internet.-Flandres (talk) 13:49, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Attempting to reveal one's personal information is doxxing. You can't get around that fact, pal. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 13:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * See what techpriest said.-Flandres (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * So you're forming the circle jerk of Rockford shills, I see. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 14:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * In what possible way is this an attempted dox? An insult that correctly guesses your age is neither a dox nor anything to get worked up over. Calm down. 14:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 


 * Attempting to reveal someone's age is doxxing. You second-rate shills are incapable of understanding basic facts, eh? UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 14:39, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh no! You correctly guessed that I am a second rate shill! This is a DOXXING ATTEMPT and I will take you to the coop, sir! 14:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Just do it like in my case: Leave his sysop rights, but he shouldn’t use his suppression rights for a while. 14:54, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * He has a history of overusing revdel, although usually for more minor stuff. Maybe he should’ve been warned first but I don’t see a reason to restore his sysop rights. Christopher (talk) 15:20, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Damn Monet, you look like you're protective of your still-bad decision. Also Monet you were told to not use user rights management and you said you'll stop. Do you need sysop tools because I think you'll contribute fine without them. Btw UShitanalcyst also tried to remove and revdel my comment too. 17:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I removed a doxxing attempt by Rockford, with you replying to him. Keeping yours while using revdel to only memory hole his would have created confusion, you know. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I love how what amounts to speculation about USHA's age is all but being confirmed here. Also it really isn't hard to guess that USHA is still a kid, his argumentation style and behavior literally just broadcasts it. 18:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The veracity of Rockford's comment is not the emphasis for revdel, the comment is. Attempting to dox others is not appropriate. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 18:20, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah that isn't Doxxing. 18:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I explained already that revealing one's personal information such as age constitutes doxxing (attempted doxxing for this comment by Rockford), retard. Two plus two does not equal five no matter how many RationalWiki shills say so. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * -Flandres (talk) 18:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Save for several reversions, Flandres suddenly returns to join a circle jerk of second-rate shills against me. Hmhmhmhmhmhmhm............ UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 18:30, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Look USHA, Rockford didn't actually dox you. He took what amounted to a shot in the dark, which you are basically confirming right now. No one would know either way if you hadn't lost your shit and gotten defensive. Further, Doxxing is things like your address, real name, and other exact personal info, not "he's still in high school" I know you're still a dumb kid, but grow up a little ok? Also lighten up on the shill gambit eh? 18:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "Grow up a bit ok?" This coming from you? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 18:37, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * USH, the only person that "revealed" anything at the moment is you. It's rather obvious that Rockford was merely slinging an insult. Your massively getting bent out of shape over it only has confirmed the very thing you got bent out of shape over. You were the one that saw an argumentum ad cellarium and proceeded to pretty much confirm that it's true. As for revdelling your comment I'd not read malice into that, it's more an unfortunate effect of how RevDel works. You need to remove all intermediary revisions between the edit that introduced the unacceptable material and the one that removes it to get rid of unacceptable content. Techpriest (talk) 18:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * USH stop collapsing shit on ATIM. Techpriest (talk) 18:43, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * So you admit you're full of shit. I see. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 18:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not doxxing by Rockford. It's barely even self-doxxing by UShistoryanalyzer. There's no specific age, or even age range. Highschool is usually bounded by an age range, but not always. Bongolian (talk) 18:49, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you have more meaningful things to say than baseless personal attacks? Techpriest (talk) 18:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Whataboutism. USHA's really abusing the fallacies today isn't he? 18:51, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Given that this just descended to pointless trolling I blocked him for a bit. You can undo that if it overstepped-I won't press the matter if the mods judge it wrong.-Flandres (talk) 18:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No, leave as is. He could use some time to cool. Techpriest (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Used the r-word too in the process. That's nice. 19:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Once again I stick my neck out for a user who I think is being unfairly treated, only to rewarded later by seeing them devolve into baffling and disruptive stupidity. 19:37, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * He's probably a Conservapedian ("I hate to have to say this, but you guys are beginning to acting like Conservapedia admins with your partisan intolerance.") who came here just to troll and shitpost. It usually devolves this way. Bongolian (talk) 19:46, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

USHistoryanalyzer, you don't have to spend your time online like this. Cheap drama like this may fill your time with bland entertainment but it just contributes to your own general unhappiness. There are so many other things you can do online. Shabi DOO  01:40, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Vandal bin
Get me out of the bin. GrammarCommie was told in the coop case not to remove my Saloon bar posts. I did not commit "Mindless generic vandalism." My mop did not deserve removal. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 03:26, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Your first action in the Saloon was to repeat the actions that got you temporarily blocked from the site. Are you a moron? 03:40, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Why Da Faq am I tagged in this? I gave up my mod rights ages ago because I'm just too busy to care. Ace303, 808, 909 03:46, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I suspect UShistoryanalyzer is pinging anyone he thinks might take his side. Enjoy the rest of your day/evening. 03:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Just get me out of the vandal bin, please. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 03:57, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Stop fucking sharing bad sources. This feels like the third time you shared a goddamn National Review Online link. 05:52, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Stop doing ridiculous things USHistoryanalyzer and find something better to do with your time. Shabi  DOO  10:38, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that previously I would have been the most likely user to push to have UShistoryguy taken out of the bin. However, my patience has now been tested to the point where I think the bin is a wonderful idea. 19:01, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

We can see here that pinging "Get me out of the bin." to random Sysops is an excellent strategy for getting out of the bin. People have dropped what they were doing during their busy schedules to rescue him… well maybe not. He knows history better than any of us, yet he cannot figure out how to get out of the dust bin of history… what is wrong here?! Bongolian (talk) 19:13, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Ironic. He could analyze others' histories, but not his own. 主要行事月 (talk) 20:43, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Why was he binned?-Hastur! (talk) 04:52, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * For the absolutely awful thoughtcrime of citing National Review in a Saloon bar post. But no matter, my time will no longer be spent up to hours conversing on a wiki which gives leniency to Holocaust deniers (refer to below). I understand, moderately conservative dissenting opinions are just too much for everyone else to handle. If the intention of everyone else is to maintain a boring echo chamber of left-wing circle jerking second-rate shills, then I will take Ken's side and hope RationalWiki's online performance tumbles into utter oblivion and the entire toxic waste dump excusing itself for a community shuts itself down in embarrassment, shame, and disgrace. I'm sorry the only sane users left are you, Monet, and I. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 22:43, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Your arguments are shit. Your sources are usually shit. Your reading comprehension and the analyses from the good sources are shit. You've repeatedly ignored advice on improving these. If your intention is to prevent groupthink circle jerking shilling, you've failed. And maybe try not going into meltdown because that's what you're doing right now. 22:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * USHistoryanalyzer, why don't you just fuck off and go find another website to troll? Shabi  DOO  22:56, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The block I just received from LeftyGreenMario due to merely her disdain and dislike for my response should demonstrate the toxic waste dump this "community" is. Is this what RationalWiki stands for, hyperpartisan intolerance? What is this, a clone of Conservapedia where sysops play a game of Karajou? Yeesh. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 23:34, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Meltdown, 1, 2, 3, GO!!!! 23:57, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Dealing with plagiarism?
Well guys, what's up? An autopatrolled editor appears to have copy and pasted the entire Wikipedia article on Whippomorpha and brought it over here, first to draft space and then to main space. This user requested deletion of the draft on the talk page. I obliged, then saw the entire article is plagiarised and nuked it on the spot.

TECHNICALLY though, the Community Standards don't specify whether or not I can do that. Did I just abuse my mop? I think I might have.

Also, the editor left a message on my talk page, asking to restore the draft? What's the standard procedure here?

Sorry for wasting everyone's time with my derp. If there IS a document here where the procedure is outlined, I don't think I have seen it.

Peace. - Rairyu75  ( Talk ) 23:57, 12 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Deleting plagiarized material on sight is normal procedure. You did nothing wrong. 23:58, 12 August 2021 (UTC)


 * That editor was me. I haven't fully plagiarise the article there was some changes. SixtyNine (talk) 00:04, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Making minor changes to a page plagiarized from Wikipedia is still plagiarism. Write your own material in your own words. 00:09, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The articles in question, according to the plagiarism checker I ran it through, was 62% Wikipedia article. That means the edits in question changed only 38% of the article. 00:12, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Could I please have Draft:Whippomorpha back please? Then I will ask for and  permission before I have it on the mainspace. And I will never do this again, I am already writing another draft (on another subject) that is completely my own words. SixtyNine (talk) 00:16, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Plagiarized articles are nuke on-sight. Even if WP allows copying, we can and should do better than that. Write your own stuff in the future. There was no mop abuse. Techpriest (talk) 10:42, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No, you cannot have the plagiarized draft back. You can, however, start the draft again from scratch in your own words. Spud (talk) 11:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

The reason why I don’t create a page on Attila Hildmann; it would be basically a translation of the German Wikipedia page. 17:41, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

USHA MAD!!
So Holocaust denial can stay under a collapse, yet any questioning of Biden and Cuomo must be removed. Not a good look for RationalWiki. Then again, a site managed by second-rate shills with the level of stupidity to demop me doesn't surprise me that it gives leniency to neo-Nazi vandals. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 01:21, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The Holocaust denier was banned and the post was collapsed immediately. You still appear to have your megaphone to tell us how much you've been persecuted. Bongolian (talk) 01:31, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * How classy [sarc] of you to shill for a Holocaust denier. "oH nOZ Ushit linked to National Review QuIcK rEmOvE hIs PoSt!!1!!!1" "A Holocaust denier? Just collapse it and let the comment stay."
 * Bongolian, you couldn't be more obvious. I'm ashamed not only at you, but every other active user since that post who stubbornly refused to remove it outright. The same second-rate shills vouching for GrammarCommie's "right" to rollback my Saloon bar posts won't remove Holocaust denial. 'Nuff said. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 01:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't see you attempt to delete it. This wouldn't happen to be a case of hypocrisy now, would it? If it was the case that you think you're being persecuted and didn't want to delete it yourself, you could have raised the issue in the Saloon or here in a non-accusatory manner. You didn't do that either. Bongolian (talk) 02:06, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * My block persisted for the majority of today. The blame on the refusal to remove lies on the majority who had the opportunity to do so but didn't while my block had not yet expired, spanning many, many hours. Your whataboutism in desperately attempting to deflect from the hypocrisy of you shameless coddlers of Holocaust deniers and simultaneous enablers of GrammarCommie's hyperpartisan intolerance is failing, pal. I recommend an immediate apology from you and everyone else before the news reaches elsewhere and RationalWiki is permanently associated with coddling Holocuast denial. You wouldn't want that to happen, now would you, Bongolian? UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 02:24, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * When you use phrases like " the party of death's ringleader..." you ought to know you are going to get some kind of a hostile response. I presume you are not without insight altogether. UncleKrampus (talk) 03:04, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You have anything aside from whataboutisms/off-topic sneers, buddy? UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 03:07, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Given that self awareness isn't your strong suit, I feel obligated to point out that you began this thread with a "whataboutism", to whit " why do this to me when you didn't do this to the other guy for something worse?" It is not a punishment to have a comment stricken from the record, although it is admittedly nothing to be proud of.UncleKrampus (talk) 18:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I would've deleted the Holocaust denial content but was probably collapsed under that the discussion at first seemed plausible and benefit of doubt still existed. You had less benefit of doubt than the denier's first comment. 04:13, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * All of this antagonism must be terribly exhausting UShistoryanalyzer. When I was your age, on a Saturday evening I was meeting friends, or playing card games or meeting people around the world online or watching SNL or experimenting with beer and substances or watching stupid teenage movies or basically anything other than pointlessly pissing off strangers online. Shabi  DOO  04:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Is he still whining about me striking his shitpost? Gods, what a child... Let me know if anything that actually matters gets mentioned. In the meantime I'll be watching the clusterfuck that is the Afghanistan pullout. 20:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I love Plutocow, Rockford the Roe, Spud, LeftyGreenMario, GrammarCommie, and Marquee Moon!!!
Rockford attempts doxxing me, I remove it, LeftyGreenMario puts it back. I remove it again, Plutocow blocks and reverts me. My post to the Saloon bar gets outright removed by GrammarCommie because I cite National Review, a neo-Nazi posts Holocuast denial and it only gets collapsed by Spud. I point this out on RW talk:ATIM, and LeftyGreenMario ridicules me. Hastur takes me out of the vandal bin which GrammarCommie pointlessly put me in, Marquee Moon returns me to the bin.

The shit I'm dealing with from those worthless wastes of space is beyond ridiculous. Permaban their asses. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Look, I understand children have issues understanding the concept of "cause and effect" but maybe try doing something different than what you've been doing over the last few weeks? Or, predictably, pivot to insulting me and using whataboutism. The choice is yours! 21:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * GrammarCommie, you mocked me in the above section for pointing out RationalWiki's coddling of Holocaust denial. 'Nuff said. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 21:54, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Meltdown, 1, 2, 3, GO!!!! 22:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I feel insulted by not being included on UShistoryanalyzer's enemies list. Bongolian (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Mockery is the sincerest form of deflatery. Bongolian (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * UShistoryanalyzer is merely ashamed of you. Sadly. But maybe he'll change his mind for the better. 22:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Merely pointing out that RationalWiki coddles Holocuast denial constitutes a meltdown? Of course a Nazi scum like you would say that. You demonstrated yourself the need to permaban your worthless ass from RationalWiki. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 22:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Tsk, tsk, resorting to Nazi analogies. How desperate are we now? Bongolian (talk) 22:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I see he went with insults and whataboutism. Strawmanning too. 22:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * He's got a point. QuantumHead called me a Nazi and I thought everyone forgot about it by now, but sleuth analyzer found me out. Sorry guys, I guess I have to put the national in my socialism and start smelling the evil flowers. 22:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I think you're a diva, UShistoryanalyzer. Of course a stark raving diva like you would say that. You demonstrated yourself the need to permaban your worthless ass from RationalWiki. 22:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * So...I'm just going to point out our articles on holocaust denial and Nazism are hardly that favorable to their subjects. Not to mention Neo-Nazi trolls regularly vandalize the site to say we are, ah, "SCHIZOPHRENIC ANTI-WHITES."
 * Also, he gets mad whenever we collapse HIS posts. "Suppressing him" and all that. Does that mean we are coddling him?-Flandres (talk) 22:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Coddling? Ew.... he's a high schooler. 22:34, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * GrammarCommie removes a Saloon bar post of mine for the absolutely horrible crime of citing National Review, but a Holocaust denial comment is only collapsed. I point this out, and get mocked.
 * If none of you possess the brain capacity to understand why that constitutes coddling Holocaust denial, then you're a load of utter retards who I will have no sympathy for when you one day burn in hell and scream in pain endlessly. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 23:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Nice try, you can pretend to be a metal head, but we all know you're a diva. You're a load of an utterly insufferable diva who I will have no sympathy for when you one day swim in a pool without a pool ladder. 23:11, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hell isn't real. I have no fear of fictional places. As for my removal of your section, I did it because you refuse to use better sources, or to move beyond shitposting about "Biden bad". I know you're a child, but really, do you have to be an idiot as well? 23:36, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Give it up. Can you do something more productive? 69  Annoy  23:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I count six topics on this page concerning USHA. I'm seriously getting pissed off by this nonsense. 00:27, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Lol I noticed too. In fact all topics except one concern this person. 00:29, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If this is nonsensical waste of time, and y'all know this is a nonsensical waste of time, then why bother to respond at all? Omicron (talk) 00:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 🍿🍿🍿🍿 Want some? 00:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You can complain about USHA, but a few users here keep enabling USHA's behaviour by protecting them or saying "they did nothing wrong" or it is just "minor irritation" every time we try to do anything about it. And USHA knows that and will keep doing it, getting worse and worse until finally the enablers are even annoyed by the "minor irritation" and UHSA is finally booted. You can tell this because they pinged Hastur twice, this websites biggest troll defender and enabler. And the cycle will just begin anew with the next troll. Shabi  DOO  02:34, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Just permaban USHA 69  Annoy  02:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I've come back from spending a period of time on other things, and I still remember clearly when Unclescrooge was banned and how the surrounding drama looked, not having experienced the drama in-between then and now. And to me, it simply looks like USHA and Unclescrooge are two of a kind. They pull off exactly the same routines. The only difference seems to be, Unclescrooge ended up in that pattern faster, USHA a bit more slowly.

As with Unclescrooge, the problem seems to be that USHA is not doing anything terribly wrong, but instead constantly being a small to moderate pain to deal with. Thus, support for harsher actions (mainly bans) in response can be expected to build over time, in exactly the same way as with Unclescrooge, I think. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 04:34, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, getting tired of mocking him. His time will come. Bongolian (talk) 04:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If we are tired of dealing with UShistoryanalyzer - can't we make a sanction that only allows 1 post here per week? --Gale5050 (talk) 14:23, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * He's already vandal binned. Or do you mean a topic ban on ATiMs? 14:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, a topic ban on ATiMs, . --Gale5050 (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC)