User talk:Plutocow/Archive1

Unblock
I'd just like to ask why I was banned? This is my first time registering an account
 * My mistake. I read crow instead of cow in your username. If you stay, you'll probably understand the problem. GeeJayK (talk) 20:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Basically, there's this long-term troll, hellbent on making a pervert and criminal out of one of our users whom he has a grudge against, who got coop-banned for harassing said user, and has since continued to haunt us like the Ghost of the Christmas Past by abusing multiple easily-recognized sock accounts. He loves to use the word "Raven" (or some variant to evade the abuse filter) or "Crowtin" (a rather silly insult he often threw at User:Sirius, a mod and tech he also has a grudge against) in his names. -- Goatspeed. 19:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Autopatrolled
Because of your edits to and time on the wiki,  has been added to your user rights. If you have questions, bleat ask away. Christopher (talk) 22:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Sysop
00:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Some context
The user you just unblocked is probably a sock of Conservapedia:Conservative. The info in that article is years out of date, and probably a bit confusing if you’re not familiar with conservapedia itself, but it should give you a general idea of who you’re dealing with. His main RW account Newton was banned years ago for some reason or other, now he just posts about the decline of atheism on people’s talk pages. Pretty harmless, but he is meant to be banned. Christopher (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Award
-- Goatspeed. 00:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks
As somebody who spent a lot of time on the Joe Manchin article, I am happy to see you move it to mainspace (oh, and for all those contributions you made while it was still a draft too)!-Flandres (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

talk page
i just did take it the page, but you were just too quick to reflexly revert revert revert revert. prick AMassiveGay (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Blocking
Please don't block IPs for pi months. That's way too long for an IP considering that trolls just cycle through them. You could end up impacting an innocent person by mistake. It's a small risk, but it's one that comes with zero benefit since trolls know how to change their IPs. It's best to just give them a short block of pi days or hours. 19:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This person has had multiple pi week blocks yet keeps returning with the same IP to make the exact same edits. A longer block is necessary in this particular case. Plutocow (talk) 19:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright, that's fair. 19:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

So that I get this right
Should I use "they", "them" and "their" when referring to you? Spud (talk) 06:51, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes Plutocow (talk) 06:52, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * OK. Got it. Thanks for telling me. Spud (talk) 06:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Blocking
Could you go easy on the blocks? It’s best to assume ignorance over malice, if someone is malicious any damage they do is easily reverted. Our often ignored blocking policy is very lenient. Christopher (talk) 21:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * My bad, you were right to block that account. After a bunch of them started appearing it’s almost certain they’re spambots, although the lack of links to any other sites means their purpose is impossible to guess. Other than William Howard Taft, none of the names appear to belong to real people. Christopher (talk) 22:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Jack Buckby
Why did you revert the text on Talk:Jack Buckby? Bongolian (talk) 04:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Probable trolling, given the "Smear piece written by an Antifa" Plutocow (talk) 04:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Did you look at the Wikipedia link that he gave? Bongolian (talk) 04:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * We already mention his claims of leaving the far right. Plutocow (talk) 04:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. That should be good enough unless 'Jack Busby' wants to make any specific assertions that something is factually incorrect. Bongolian (talk) 04:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't remove talk page content.-Hastur! (talk) 06:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Zachary Taylor revert
What's up with that? The sentence makes no grammatical sense right now. 09:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Given that Johnson was a raving white supremacist who tried to get Tennessee exempt from emancipation, I don't think he regretted it.-Flandres (talk) 14:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The latter, as in exclusively referring to Grant. Plutocow (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah sorry, my dyslexia's hitting in again. I read it as "the later". I've no doubt that Johnson never regretted anything. Apologies for unnecessarily bothering you. 17:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I sounded a little harsh, if you have dyslexia then I understand. Plutocow (talk) 19:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries. 19:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Oxy
You never did tell me whether you left the faith before or after you qualified as a neurosurgeon. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 02:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Fun fact: You still get pings for collapsed threads. Look at you with your little ban-evading sock. Bless. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 02:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Discord
What's your Discord? — Oxyaena Harass  09:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Didn’t you quit Discord ages ago? 13:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't really use Discord, sorry. Plutocow (talk) 18:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, man - she's talking to herself. This account was created 7th Feb, the day after Oxy's ban kicked in. The feverish editing since then is exactly the kind of thing she'd do to deal with the narcissistic injury of her ban. Note the relative lack of talk page / bar interaction, which is unusual for such an active new editor, and the obvious (and very Oxy) enthusiasm for banhammering suspected socks, ban evaders, and doxxers. She must've really missed being able to do that with such abandon.

The creation of the "Plutocow" userpage on 27th Feb also correlates with Oxy's reemergence on the 28th, and ticks enough boxes (non-binary, hard-left socialist, and on the spectrum) to allow her to continue to playing as Plutocow without much additional effort re. characterisation. I wouldn't have noticed apart the instant troll collapsing of my coop comment, and then the clincher was doing exactly the same above without any response (incredulous or otherwise) to the clear accusation of sock-related fuckery.

To be clear, I'm not advocating for any punitive action re. ban evasion - just happy to chalk it up as yet another data point for her hypocrisy and exceptional weirdness as a serial fabulist. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 17:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * [EC]I’m not saying I believe it, but you make a good case. Doing this (and then collapsing everything) doesn’t help you case, Plutocow. Their first edit is also a little suspicious. Christopher (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, no. There are many people who are trans/NB, on the left, and on the spectrum. Plus, I have a history of editing as a BON which goes way back, which should be enough to disprove this "theory". I didn't want to respond since HBC is clearly trying to start shit, but I guess I have to if you are taking it seriously. Plutocow (talk) 18:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The second one is literally because one schmuck sysop or moderator thought they were GodlessRaven because the name Plutocow has "cow" in it and "cow" is one letter shy of being "crow". MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 18:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It takes two seconds to check the block log to see that case being true. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 18:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Your BoN edits do poke a hole in the accusations, and you’re right that the rest of the “evidence” doesn’t amount to much. There’s no way you could’ve known you’d get banned because of the cow/crow thing, so it couldn’t have been an elaborate setup. If you are Oxy, you’ve done a good enough job at covering your tracks that you deserve to get away with it; sorry, I shouldn’t have been so quick to judge. Christopher (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, I would like to point out all of this is circumstantial evidence coming from a user who has been obsessed with Oxy for quite a while.-Flandres (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That troll is only asking to get switfly banned. Next time they do something weird I'll make sure she is permanently banned, even if it has to be a Chicken Coop. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So now, you are claiming I am Plutocow, wow. Guess anyone who thinks Oxyaena is not the literal spawn of satan is a sockpuppet of hers, might as well add ShabiDoo and LeftyGreenMario on the list since they defended Oxy too. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait, when did I say that?-Flandres (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Claiming various leftist users are sockpuppets of mine would be hilarious if it weren't for the paranoid harassment of anyone that's farther left than socdem because of the vague suspicion they may be me. — Oxyaena Harass  18:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * What the fuck are you talking about? I retracted any suspicions I had about Plutocow, and never said you were a sock of anyone. Christopher (talk) 18:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The schmuck sysop is here, and very offended by your post, Mario. And as someone who was once banned for being a sock (by Oxy) even though there was much less evidence, I think everything said is circunstancial. Another reason to enable checkusers on RW. GeeJayK (talk) 18:37, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I was angry when I wrote that comment, sorry. I agree with the addition of Checkuser. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 18:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Same, though I don't know how that'd work. Would it be for all sysops, or only Techs and Mods?  18:43, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * (EC)We have had checkuser abused in the past, unfortunately. Also, I will poliety ask everybody in this thread to calm down. HBCs' sad sockpuppet claims are going to be ignored, nobody has to be angry over any misapplied punishment, and what we have left is just users who don't like each other assuming the worst in each other.-Flandres (talk) 18:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The RW community has repeatedly voiced its adamant opposition to checkuser. 00:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ik other ppl also don’t want it so this is basically pointless, but god please don’t do the checkuser please like just stop the other problems don’t do the checkuser. tbh idk if this is already the case but if not, just make it so ban evasion things are for someone acting in the Bad Way ig. Sockhunting is bad and also checkuser is scary. just some tips for the website ig, like it doesn’t really matter but personally, checkuser would be a hard “no” line on me using this site because of how much personal info I’ve already put on here that can’t meaningfully be erased. And maybe that is a concern for some other ppl also idk uhhh I should really go now and such sorry 18:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ok last edit for REAL (this is asela) i will always be lmoaing at the fact that I was never accused of being an oxy sock despite being also a trans autistic anarchist Ban after edit 1 (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Don’t worry, checkuser will never be a thing here. 00:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it’s obvious here that Plutocow is just yet another sock of Bongolian! 00:39, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

It's the block log that really convinces me. It's just too similar to Oxy's old behaviour, before she had her block rights restricted as a condition of remaining sysop. If enough "coincidences" pile up on top of each other, then it's silly to ignore what the balance of probabilities is telling you.

Further to that, this account only started engaging in any extended community interaction once Ace's head was potentially on the block, and it's extremely unusual for such a new account to feel sufficiently confident to start troll collapsing stuff in the coop, especially stuff they (supposedly) have no personal stake in. Similarly with the troll collapse above: if someone rocks up on your page suggesting you're someone's sock, you laugh in their face & tell them to fuck off, not try & hide it from view.

I've no idea why Oxy didn't at least try that gambit. I guess she's shit scared of losing her temper and blowing her cover. If that means she's finally learning some impulse control, then all power to her. Apply that thinking to her main account, and I'll have much less cause to point out what an utterly ridiculous individual she can be. And fuck... if she could knock it off with the weird lies and batshit politics as well, I might never need to speak to her again. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 03:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Ken
If he wants to make a prick of himself, let him.--Mercian (talk) 00:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Sysop
I've removed your sysop bit for your repeated banning of User:AngeloJohnGage, whom you continue asserting is a sockpuppet of "Mikey". RW has no mechanism for confirming whether this is true or not, so without better evidence for permanently banning a user who appears to be contesting the content of an article about him, knock it off. I'll return your user rights in 12 hours if you confirm that you've read and understand RW's block policy. Nutty Roux (talk) 00:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * See your talkpage. Plutocow (talk) 00:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Your assumption isn't evidence. Stop abusing your sysop rights. Nutty Roux (talk) 00:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Block parameters- “cannot edit own talk page”
It’s not an issue with the latest block, but it’s not a good habit to get into. It’s only used when there’s a need for it, ie the vandal is spamming their own talk page, most don’t bother and just make a new account or give up. Christopher (talk) 19:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Similarly, don’t protect talk pages unless they’re really being spammed. Two instances of vandalism isn’t enough to warrant it, plus 104 says he’s gone now. Christopher (talk) 21:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

About TAOB
Where was it? I'm not saying he didn't do it, I just would like to know what happened. If it was already deleted nevermind, but I think you should show a mod too. GeeJayK (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC) Nevermind, Just saw it on the Saloon bar. GeeJayK (talk) 23:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it was deleted. Plutocow (talk) 23:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Nice to have another Spanish speaker and translator here
You might like to add yourself to the category Hablantes de español. Spud (talk) 07:49, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I'm trying to make some edits to a page and you keep calling me a long term vandal. Do you want to talk about it?
So, you keep undoing my edits and locking the page of my interest. I don't care about RW mission, and only one other page has interested me so far. Perhaps more will interest me, perhaps they won't. Why are you blocking me?

I'd like an explanation if you don't mind?


 * I'll take that as an admission that you have been socking this whole time, and you have not once taken your proposed edits to the talk page. You shouldn't be surprised when people become impatient with you. Plutocow (talk) 03:13, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello
Thank you for restoring my rights. I thought only mods could change them, I'm a bit curious as to how GC was able to do that.

I'm sorry for undoing your block on HBC, but he was reacting to GC not being entirely nice to me. I think what GC (and a few others) did in a thread in the saloon bar where I was talking to HBC was less civil. I'm fine with them, kind of conversation stoppers, but leave them be. I'm undecided on whether GC is going through a mental health crisis or not, and will likely adjust my opinion of him depending on the outcome. UninspiringNickname (talk) 02:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * GC lost his last remaining fuck and in the middle of a rage and depression spiral. But you don't have to believe that if you don't want to. Think happy thoughts and pretend GC is a liar! Then you can live in your fucking fantasy land in peace free from any evidence to the contrary! It works for Qanoners, it can work for you too! 03:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * (ec)You're welcome, any sysop can add/remove Sysop and Autopatrolled. HBC's assholery to someone that they knew was in a mental situation was bad and why I blocked them on top of having been warned for similar passiveaggressive behavior before. Such situations can trigger me as I have been in such situations in the past. In general, we should assume that they are going through a mental health crisis for now since the consequences of otherwise can be dangerous, but I hope everything just works out safely in the end. Plutocow (talk) 03:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I disagree with you. I don't hate you. I have no idea where you got that from. But I've seen both kinds of situations. Go get yourself some sleep, please. Things always look better in the morning. UninspiringNickname (talk) 03:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, fat fingers when trying to look the contribs of that oddly-named User UninspiringNickname (talk) 15:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

UShistoryanalyzer
I don't think your vandal binning is warranted. Can you please show me, with diff links, the vandalism? If not I'll will parole the user (BTW - getting in a shit fight on a talk-page does not constitute vandalism). Ace//about blank 03:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I warned him on their talkpage that if they continued to engage in edit warring after their last ban that they would be vandal binned, and they completely ignored the warning. UShistoryanalyzer was told a ridiculous amount of times to stop with the constant edit warring and they never listened, so a long-term solution is warranted. See User talk:UShistoryanalyzer. Plutocow (talk) 03:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The only solution I can see besides binning would be a topic ban from US politics/history. Plutocow (talk) 03:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Edit warring =/= vandal. You're going to have to justify it better than that... Ace//about blank 03:39, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's unclear whether UShistoryanalyzer is even a good faith user in the first place, given their complete refusal to listen to warnings and the fact that all of their edits are only there to push the Dixiecrat fallacy, but they were a problem user for a while now. Regardless, the vandal bin doesn't seem to be exclusively for vandals, we've put trolls there before. Still, the bin gives UShistoryanalyzer a chance to improve their behavior without allowing them to go on huge tantrums that result in them edit warring in multiple pages at once. Plutocow (talk) 03:44, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Since you've opened a case against him on ATIM I believe he should be paroled for now, so he can at least defend himself. GeeJayK (talk) 04:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Ken socks
We've been banning these socks for days right now and I think I've seen a pattern that they usually (but not always follow): they create a blank page. Have you seen it? GeeJayK (talk) 04:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen it all that often, I can usually tell because they spam the same pages and usually talk about the decline of atheism or RationalWiki. Plutocow (talk) 04:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've seen in at least a couple of times. I'd add talking to Ace on his talk page (which he doesn't seem to care) to the list. GeeJayK (talk) 04:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't fucking care. If Ken wants to pleasure himself, discreetly and in a Jesus Loves Me manner, then he can have at my talkpage. Ace//about blank 05:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, your page, your rules, but I really think you should do something more interesting than catering to that idiot. GeeJayK (talk) 05:41, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * He garners the least amount of attention from me. If he wants to post rambling screeds then so be it. But I predict 2021 WILL BE THE WORST YEAR FOR CHRISTIANITY! Operation Who gives a flying fuck is successful! Ace//about blank 06:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Gentlemen, I do hate to do it, but on behalf of atheism I declare VICTORY! Ole! Ole! 06:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If Ken needs Machismo training I can offer it at 100K (US Dollars - not our stupid girly NZ dollars). If Ken really had a sweetheart he wouldn't need to brag about it. I declare victory! As Sun Tzu was often quoted as saying... you're a fucking idiot. Ace//about blank 06:39, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd say 2021 is probably going to be better than 2022. Every year from now on will be the worst year for Christianity, until Christianity is no more. GeeJayK (talk) 13:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I will point out that lots of new users create blank user pages. That is not necessarily a sign of anything. 13:43, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Deleted drafts
Have we decided anything on that matter? GeeJayK (talk) 06:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * He's topic banned so he won't be able to edit the drafts, and thus nobody was going to improve them, and all were low quality anyway and only served to push the Dixiecrat fallacy. There's no real reason to keep them. Plutocow (talk) 06:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not what I've asked you. I don't think we can just delete them solely on our opinons on them. We have procedures after all and there's nothing about it on the topic ban description. It might be the correct thing to delete them? It's very possible. But we don't have this right. I think you should at least post on the ATIM thread before making these monocratic decisions. GeeJayK (talk) 06:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Pages created by a user that is not in good standing are fair game to delete. If anyone wanted to dispute these deletions, they could bring it up with me, but if your problem is with the procedures and not the deletion then we have nothing to discuss. Plutocow (talk) 06:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, according to who are they a fair game to delete? Maybe I've been working for the feds for so long, but I don't see how procedures can be arbitrarily ignored just because we believe there's a faster way. . GeeJayK (talk) 07:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If anyone had a problem with the deletion, they could bring it to me. Anyone could have undeleted them but no one did. There is no need to get upset with this if you're not going to dispute the deletion. Plutocow (talk) 07:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm actually inclined to undelete them, but I don't like revert decisions of other users who have the same rights as I do. I didn't read them, but I remmeber Bongolian saying some of them are decent. GeeJayK (talk) 07:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe you shouldn't speak authoritatively on pages you didn't even read. It's similar to you defending UShistoryanalyzer when you admit you didn't read through his edits. Please try to understand a situation before commenting. Plutocow (talk) 07:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Plus, people like Flandres and Christopher had already deleted crappy drafts without going through AfDs before. Plutocow (talk) 07:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * (EC) I don't think I need to read them to say that we didn't decide anything about it. The problem is not the content nor the user, is procedure, which is something I believe in and live by, and I don't think we can just delete things based on our opinions, we have rules for that. Otherwise we have arbitrariness. I defended you on Scrooge's page a few hours ago, but right now fascism accusations aside you're doing just what he accused you to do. I'll ping  here as I believe he also thinks things should be done by the book. GeeJayK (talk) 07:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Would you mind posting these? I'll see them when I have time. GeeJayK (talk) 07:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't need to be so bureaucratic that we need to go through procedure to do every damn little thing, like removing drafts posted by a problematic user who was topic banned from the subject that the drafts are posted in. Also Christopher has deleted drafts before without going through procedures, are you gonna call him a fascist as well? Plutocow (talk) 07:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * First. Maybe I wasn't clear enough, I said you aren't a fascist. I never call people that, unless they're actually fascists, because when you use this word a lot people stop caring and vote for fascists (I've seen this happening where I live). I said that I consider your decision was arbitrary. Second, in my opinion, yes I think we should go through procedures. But that's my opinion, others might disagree. Christopher will probably answer in a few hours, I have to sleep. Let's see his opinion. GeeJayK (talk) 07:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I say restore them all for now, nominate the best one for deletion and ask people to vote on whether they should all go. I’m careful to only delete hopelessly tiny stubs or pages that were only ever worked on by sysops (so they could easily restore them if they wanted to start working again). Christopher (talk) 08:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Good enough for me. GeeJayK (talk) 15:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Supposing we're doing this, how are we going to choose the best of them? Let him decide? Or would you like to decide by yourself? GeeJayK (talk) 17:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m not sure, personally I’d nominate one or two. Should probably ping and get his input, I imagine most people would let any technical violations of the Iban that happen during the process slide. Christopher (talk) 17:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pinging me. It was utterly ridiculous that Plutocow outright deleted them just because he thinks I'm pushing some fallacy when I make good points backed up by sufficient sources. Unfortunately Plutocow has exhibited a high level of cognitive dissonance and intolerance. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 17:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Please, let's stay on topic. GeeJayK (talk) 17:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's the thing: Plutocow made sure all my page creations would be in the draftspace so they could mass-delete them simply because they doesn't like the factual points I'm making. The info in my page creations were accurate and correct. Plutocow doesn't care about facts. I spent a good deal of time working on them to add onto RW's category for past U.S. political figures, but Plutocow doesn't care. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Plutocow has put personal derangement over truth. The facts speak for themselves. I was 100% correct to say that Rumsfeld held a pro-civil rights tenure as a member of Congress, but Plutocow point-blank reverted. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 17:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Yo, smooth brain
Remember that totally-a-ban-evading-sock-of-Ken you b& and then burned the evidence when it give you a sweary earful on its talk page for being such a dumb fuck? The one that you then re-b& with talk page access blocked?

Yeah, that was me. I suggest you take you and your idiot wikicop spidey senses on a nice long lurk moar leave of absence while I try & rediscover my previous goodwill re. you retaining any kind of blocking rights. A few weeks should do it. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 11:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * At the end of the day it doesn’t really matter if a “ban evading” account slips through the cracks, it’ll be abandoned in a day or two at most either way. Failing to consider the real impact of a block (often almost nothing) and instead blocking because you believe the account “deserves” it is an attitude far too many people on here have. Christopher (talk) 11:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Meh. If one does stupid troll-y shit like that (create a few new accounts just to post completely stupid comments on the Salon Bar and even being bored enough to reply to your own sock), one might easily be mistaken for the stench of a certain banned troll known for creating new accounts and posting completely stupid comments on the Salon Bar, as also happened in that thread. It's kind of Poe's Law-ish in a way. Plutocow wasn't the only user that thought your accounts were a certain banned user. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 12:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah I don’t think the banning of an account made with the goal of getting banned is an issue, but Plutocow has banned innocent users in the past. Christopher (talk) 12:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I never cease to be amazed by people's eagerness to comment trumping their (presumable) desire not to come across like a lazy fucking moron who hasn't bothered to look at any of the available evidence. Most immediately, from the restored Fullest Nelson talk page: "Your "superior" pattern recognition skills have blocked a blindingly obvious joke sock created in response to the Full / Fuller Nelson accounts." And if you can look at these contribs and see Ken DeFucking Myer, then your brain must have achieved a smoothness hitherto unknown to medical science.

Please feel free to continue humiliating yourself in public, or - and hear me out here - try something along the lines of "Yeah, totally dived in here without reading or thinking, and I'll endeavour to stop doing dumb shit like that." Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 13:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, if you're gonna impersonate a suspicious user, don't be surprised when you are mistaken for being that user. Speaking of which, aren't impersonating usernames banned anyway? Plutocow (talk) 13:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Wiki break. Take one. It's a good deal. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 13:54, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Searches
I believe that only the first letter of a search is case insensitive. Scream!! (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No, they all are. Try it for yourself. Plutocow (talk) 00:10, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry
For the misgendering. It wasn't intentional. Techpriest (talk) 11:38, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Sherri Tenpenny
I just saw your edit about Tenpenny being one of the “disinformation dozen”, which, for me, drives home the importance of improving this article. Are you considering doing more work on this article? If so, I’d be happy to collaborate. I’m currently checking out what Snopes have on her, here—Snopes: debunking & fact-checking Sherri Tenpenny. Leucippus Jodie Foster made me do it! 00:20, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Edit filter blocks
I have to ask; why are you blocking random IPs with the "see edit filter" reason? The edit filter works as intended, you don't need to block people for edits that don't go through. Techpriest (talk) 12:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I used to do it as well, it was somewhat necessary when the filter kept disabling. Now that’s been fixed there’s no reason to continue. Christopher (talk) 12:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * There are still a few spambots who slip through the cracks or repeatedly offend. Plutocow (talk) 14:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * They don’t slip through the cracks, they’re stopped by the edit filter. It’s a waste of your time, confuses anyone watching recent changes, and forces a tech (I used to do it) to go through your logs to unblock any false positives. Christopher (talk) 14:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think he needs to stop overthinking about the spammers. They're burner accounts, they come do their bidding and then never shows up again. A 3 days block is the same as an indefinite block for these guys. 21:10, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Many of those accounts do actually come back after a three day block. Also I'm nonbinary. Plutocow (talk) 22:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Why are you giving spam accounts indefinite blocks? Even if this account was a repeat offender, it doesn’t seem to be policy to give IPs infinite blocks. Leucippus Salva veritate 00:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There's no reason not to, they will never be constructive editors. Though I might start a vote in CS. Plutocow (talk) 01:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I can understand why you revert my edits
You couldn't handle the truth. It takes a leap of faith to become a Christian. ADefenceOfChristianity (talk) 04:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I only answer to things that can be demonstrated through repeatable evidence. Plutocow (talk) 04:19, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * (EC) See Russell's teapot. Later I'll probably regret giving a sincere answer, but whatever. Have a good night, both of you. GeeJayK (talk) 04:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

AFD for Xenogender
Seriously, you forgot to actually start the debate. --Andrew5 (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi
Thank you for unblocking me, if you did. Don't worry, I'm definantly here to contribute. Da Wyyzrd Ohai 01:16, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Unblock Gorilla lover
You are being abusive, his last few edits he did not do anything wrong. One of his statements "Chimps are smarter than humans" is not completely wrong either, just miscaptioned. Senioritas (talk) 19:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * He added that at the beginning paragraph of the article right after the statement about the amount of chromosomes apes share with us, so if that isn't vandalism, he might be too young to genuinely understand how wikis work. 19:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * All were unconstructive, and they even tried to blank the chimpanzee page but was stopped by the edit filter. The problem is that they were told multiple times to stop and bring it to the talkpage, but they never listened. Plutocow (talk) 19:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "The problem is that they were told multiple times to stop and bring it to the talkpage, but they never listened." Where? His talkpage is blank and empty, except for a pair of templates.
 * And for the record: I am unable to find the edit filter log, so I would like if someone verifies for me whether that's accurate. Senioritas (talk) 19:31, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Filter log here. He was told the first time he was blocked and when I binned him. Plutocow (talk) 19:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's an obvious joke troll account who basically made nonsensical edits in mainspace. There are places on this Wiki where one can be silly like that, but mainspace is not one of them. (I'm actually not surprised by which accounts are actually complaining about an obvious troll being blocked, either.) PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm new here, okay? And was the revert necessary when that added actual content to the article? Senioritas (talk) 21:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Fight! Fight! Fight! 21:39, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The dude is just one of these ¨return to monke" spammers, not an even remotely productive user. 21:56, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

vote in atim
i feel like you might have jumped the gun with the vote concerning tc's user page. kinda would have preferred a little more debate over the general issue and not focus this one user. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks
While I found it annoying thanks for restoring the material at Talk:Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ. Yes IMHO it was a primrose walk through the irrelevant and 'throw everything at the wall and hope something sticks' but it also serves a prime example of why we need the three article on the topic.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:14, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Owen Jones
Thanks for blocking the IP. Can you semi protect that page for a bit? It seems there is a lot of IP vandalism and the IP you blocked is also probably 82.132.234.67 (same /21 network). Thanks! --Andrew5 (talk) 21:22, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Just a heads up…
Your edits on several different talk pages for proper archival have been clogging up the Recent Changes. You can use your Ninja ability to prevent this and hide your edits by going to your User rights management page and enabling the bot group. 06:32, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Bald weirdo
Mind revoking their TPA? It's been abused. --Andrew5 (talk) 17:32, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

"They share the same IP"
How do you know this? 01:15, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Check the block log, if it doesn't create a new autoblock they're using the same IP. Plutocow (talk) 01:16, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Does mainspace pages needed to be archived or only talkpages?
Sorry. I'm still new here. BeardOfZeus (talk) 03:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You've never answered my question. BeardOfZeus (talk) 02:10, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you even mean by archiving mainspace pages? Plutocow (talk) 02:57, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well using Inferno Bot of course. BeardOfZeus (talk) 03:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Why would you need tp archive mainspace pages? Plutocow (talk) 04:26, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Why would we archive talkpages? BeardOfZeus (talk) 03:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm just going to assume you're intentionally being dense at this point. Plutocow (talk) 03:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I honestly still don't get it. It like the Anchorman movie. I didn't laughed once. BeardOfZeus (talk) 03:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

The Lincoln Project
Please come to the Talk article. I just don't understand why you insist on the phrase GOP is far-right in international standards. That's actually European standards, not international standards.--Umaru16 (talk) 00:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It is not Cherrypicking that many Asians are very social conservative. I live in South Korea. I live here as LGBT and belong to other minority groups. Do you know what kind of abuse and terrible things I've experienced in my life? People in South Korea's minority group view the United States very positively. If you haven't lived in person, don't talk. And even Koreans and Japanese who are not part of the minority group think that the United States is culturally very progressive. Does it seem like I'm lying? --Umaru16 (talk) 02:21, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's cherrypicking because one you are only considering social policies rather than economic or anti-democratic ones, two only looking at Donald Trump rather than other mainstream Republican figures, three only focusing your analysis on one area of the world. Plutocow (talk) 02:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said in another article, South Korea is actually more conservative than the United States in terms of economic issues. This is because working conditions and welfare are poor. And right-wingers from South Korea, Thailand, Myanmar, and Japan praise the dictatorship. You are doing cherrypicking. The United States has never had an anti-democratic dictatorship in history. (Trump has shown some authoritarian aspects, but it is hard to say that he is a dictator in the general sense.) --Umaru16 (talk) 02:35, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * All politicians in the United States are liberal in an academic sense. The right wing of the United States has a strong social conservative side, but they are also classical liberals. You don't know what a real 'Anti-democratic' and 'dictatorial' is. South Korea actually suffered from anti-democracy and dictatorship. And South Korean right-wingers miss that era. --Umaru16 (talk) 02:40, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * As I've said before, Republicans want to remove most of the welfare policies and regulations that are in place, and most Republicans backed Trump's voter fraud claims that he tried to use to steal the election. Economic liberalism is right wing economics. But I'm tired of talking past you so let's stop this for now. Plutocow (talk) 02:41, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You are glorifying other Wingnut Countries to criticize the Republican Party. This is a very serious Cherry-Picking. You can fully criticize the Republican Party without having to fantasize about other countries.--Umaru16 (talk) 02:44, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You are talking past me, and that is a fairly big strawman, so you should probably stop. Plutocow (talk) 02:46, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Episcopal Church
Can you protect the page please? It's been getting a ton of vandalism recently, and unprotecting was a mistake.--American time change coming up November 7, Andrew5 (talk) 18:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks
That vandal was really annoying. Like to say thanks. Here have this

BeardOfZeus (talk) 23:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah you are seriously pretty cool. MyHero!! (talk) 23:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * BeardOfZeus (talk) 23:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Seconding this, massive thanks. Seeing the notification that my rollbacks on that guy had been reverted made me sigh very deeply, but I was pleasantly surprised that you had dealt with it all. Undoing their work was tiring last time, so big props to you. armed_roomba (she/her)What am I doing wrong this time? 23:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

My apologies
I was erroneous in reckoning that the nighttime picture of the Korean Peninsula was inaccurate. I sincerely apologize for temporarily deleting the photograph off two wiki pages.--A p r i l Chat? 18:48, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Mistakes happen, that's why we're a collaborative project, so we can all keep an eye on each other. You've proven yourself to be a constructive user, you don't have to apologize for that (although that doesn't necessarily mean you shouldn't). Just saying that you don't have to take it too seriously IMO. GeeJayK (talk) 19:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Glenn Youngkin
Kensock yes, but I still think it's missional enough for a RW article. Any way it could be undeleted? Besides I have intentions to work on it. (Or at least a draftification). --American time change coming up November 7, Andrew5 (talk) 21:42, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It could be missional if we talk about how Republicans are using education as a dogwhistle, but the draft was hopeless in the condition that Ken left it in. If you really want to work on it, start over from scratch. Plutocow (talk) 21:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I have trouble starting from scratch (not very creative) so can you maybe start it and I can expand it? --American time change coming up November 7, Andrew5 (talk) 01:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If you want the article to be made, you're gonna have to put the work into it. I just don't consider Youngkin to be particularly high priority at the moment, especially as we still don't have an article on Ron DeSantis and I still need to finish the draft on Kyrsten Sinema. Plutocow (talk) 01:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Timeline of Gamergate
Would you be willing to provide some sort of justification for reverting these edits, considering that I posted a lengthy explanation for them on the article's talk page and received no objection? You've even reinstated the glaring errors in English that I pointed out ("Gamergate has for months been accusing her of pedophilia because of she had copied and pasted the content") DVS (talk) 10:23, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Mainly because it was edit warring, and having no response on the talkpage isn't really a green light for going through with that edit in those situations. Plutocow (talk) 16:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Not a big deal but
I think we should in fact remove the entire phrase here. I loathe Christian Rock as much as probably hates what I listen to, but I really think we should start avoiding weasel words like "some" and "most" more often, especially when they are unsourced. I'll probably suggest this next year when I have time on the CS page. That phrase just looks like something that someone dropped just to needle Christian rock fans. Can it be correct? I'd say yes. But we don't have any source. GeeJayK (talk) 21:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

IRC invite?
You have been invited to talk with J3wzus on #RationalWiki on Rizon.net. Do you except? I'll set up a time and date if your willing to, and see what is good for both of us. 13:01 1 December 2021 (UTC)

seriously
go fuck yourselfAMassiveGay (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Please stop, I don't want to have to take this to ATIM. This is not a matter in which you should be slinging insults at others. Plutocow (talk) 22:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * how about a) stop blocking me and b)actuall y 'take it to the talk page' when you tell me to 'take it the talk page' - as i did c)sure take to ATIM you whiny prick, you already escalated to blocking me with no cause AMassiveGay (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Dude, you're an admin. Any block inflicted on you is toothless. Chill.-Flandres (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * --Andrew5 (talk) 23:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Rest assured, for when the RationalWiki civil war breaks loose, I will most definitely stay tuned. 😎🍿 Ushit the dipshit (I shit, Ushit...) 23:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Block evasion?
My message under the LGBT:Talk page has been removed and my IP banned for "block evasion", even though I have never made a single message on this website before today. Lol. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 162.243.6.8 / talk
 * Well, it was concern trolling anyway, and similar to a spate of recent bad-faith actors. Please try to behave next time. Plutocow (talk) 03:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Pointing out serious flaws of the LGBT community is now considered "trolling"? &mdash; Unsigned, by: 162.243.6.8 / talk
 * Posting apologia of homophobia is unacceptable here Plutocow (talk) 03:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't defend nor justify homophobia. I equated homophobia with homosexual chauvinism, both are the big issues of our society, because they co-exist thanks each other, not in spite of. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 162.243.6.8 / talk
 * I think you're seriously overstating "homosexual chauvinism" 03:28, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The key word is "I think", RightyRedLuigi. This topic deserves a separate discussion, perhaps in the format of a debate, because the final outcome for me is obvious: once I list actual facts about LGBT doing bullshit things, you will simply delete my message and block my IP. If I'm wrong with my last statement, prove me wrong. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 162.243.6.8 / talk
 * Tell me why you're not a concern troll again. Plutocow (talk) 03:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I got it, everything that you consider "mean" or contrary to your opinion is trolling for you? If I were a troll, I would simply vandalize your pages. If you have strong evidence that homochauvinism "does not exist" within the LGBT community, then just prove it instead of accusing people of being "trolls". &mdash; Unsigned, by: 162.243.6.8 / talk
 * Yes, because the straight people are oh so oppressed by the EVIL gay agenda. Take your persecution complex elsewhere. Plutocow (talk) 03:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * BoN, sign your posts. 04:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, it might help if you defined "homosexual chauvinism", with sources. 04:03, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The issue is that gay people are not oppressed by the EVIL straight people in America anymore since 2003, when George W. Bush legally decriminalized homosexual acts throughout the whole country. The media, corporations and many liberal politicians stand by the LGBT side in any conflict they are involved in. People from the LGBT community actively harass not just religious people, they also go after people with non-traditional sexual orientation who oppose their activism, because many homosexual people consider the LGBT movement to be a marginal cult which points them in a bad color. Now in the community, especially on this site, any criticism of the LGBT movement is considered taboo, while people of heterosexual orientation are considered "oppressors" just because they do not support LGBT values. This is the real homochauvinism, which causes an anger from the other side and turns them into homophobes. And yes, take your opportunistic cheap insults elsewhere too, just because you are an admin of this website doesn't mean you can behave childish.
 * P.S. I just noticed that this discussion has been marked with a "concern troll" plate. You didn't even wait until I could write anything detailed, lol. I genuinely feel sorry for you, because this is just pathetic. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 188.170.77.136 / talk
 * Wow, zero examples provided. 04:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * And you call me a concern troll after writing this, lol? Your shaming tactics are worthless, anyway. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 188.170.77.136 / talk
 * Without any sort of supporting sources and whatnot that goes against what's established, your statement is absolute horseshit. 04:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * So, you wanted specific examples? Here you go https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25942288/ also, thank you very much for banning me again, that's so rational and objective way of holding this discussion. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 159.89.120.93 / talk
 * https://townhall.com/columnists/joannemoudy/2014/06/08/armed--dangerous-the-terrorism-of-the-lgbt-radicals-n1848920 another one &mdash; Unsigned, by: 159.89.120.93 / talk
 * First link: "The results revealed no significant difference in the prevalence of child sexual abuse between homosexual and bisexual people for both sexes." One should learn to read before trolling. :p PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 04:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * https://www.nclrights.org/sexual-assault-in-the-lgbt-community/ and another one. And yes, I did read it, they said "between homosexual and bisexual", not "homosexual and straight". &mdash; Unsigned, by: 159.89.120.93 / talk
 * Bringing up child sex abuse by lgbt community to try to hack out a point is super gross bigotry, even if the sources you share don't even support a shred what you're arguing. 04:28, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * HAHAH fucking townhall. Also your second source doesn't really support your claims. 04:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, reading an article with the actual text and closer examining the title, the title is childhood sexual abuse of members of the LGBT community. Not by. Should've caught that. See, that's the problem with trolls and the thing that makes Internet culture so "fun". It can take time to parse things, where spewing brainless bullshit takes no time at all. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 04:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I know it's not ACTUALLY about LGBT being abusive and more about them being victims and how that's an actual concern among the LGBT+ community, but BoN here is trying to link here for way less than good faith reasons. 04:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * (ec)"Oh no, we're not allowed to treat LGBTQ people as shit anymore, help we're being repressed!" Methinks you are just a bigot. Also, sign your damn comments. Plutocow (talk) 04:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I really love how you and your personal lovers who came into this discussion when nobody even asked them are trying to twist my criticism towards the LGBT community into a hatred of homosexuals. I have provided you with all needed examples and gave a detailed explanation to why homosexism of LGBT is a treat to all people, including gay people as well. All you could do is to fall into cheap demagoguery, insults, shaming tactics and blocking of my IPs. After what you did I really don't wonder anymore why everyone outside of your chicken-shit website hates you, because you are too immature and delusional. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 178.62.33.74 / talk
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8ukak8P2vY&ab_channel=BoxyBrown Plutocow (talk) 04:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh people like you hate us? I don't exactly want to make friends with you, a person who shares "sources" with the opening text "When the word ‘terrorism’ is used today, most people equate it with Muslim extremists, radical bombings and hijacked aircraft. But there’s another form of terrorism happening right here in America, and the perpetrators are out to destroy the very fiber of our Judeo-Christian heritage and U.S. Constitution." Wow! You can't be any less subtle. 04:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

reverting with no comment shows me utter contempt
im not even gonna bother bothering explaining why the lazy sweeping statements you put back in the daily mail are just so fucking broad that they are just pointless and inane and they still need supporting with cites and egregious examples would be better than lazy assertions. im not not gonna bother arguing over the the readding of complete dross because there is so much dross in the article. i will say reverting with no comment is the height of disrespect, showing no more thought for my opinion than a mouse click, unworthy of any explanation from your grace. you wonder why ive reacted with anger previously? why im doing my utmost to be civil in the face of the utter contempt your thoughtless actions show me? are you so blind if you dont want to provide the common curtesy of explaining why you a reverting my edits, then dont revert.

i will not be so civil next time. learn some manners and show some respect - explain to whom eve made an edit why you are reverting it. its not a fucking difficult concept. AMassiveGay (talk)


 * This is a problem I deal with too. I'm pretty sure it's because this place isn't neutral like Wikipedia, it veers in one direction only and anything opposing that direction is met with suspicion.--Back2theroots34 (talk) 05:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Stop removing my edits
I feel like I can't get anything done.--Back2theroots34 (talk) 03:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe stop with the dominionist trolling and start with actually bringing disputes to the talk page rather than edit warring. Plutocow (talk) 03:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * What the hell is Dominionism??--Back2theroots34 (talk) 03:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * We have an article on that, y'know. Plutocow (talk) 03:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not like that.--Back2theroots34 (talk) 03:58, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Then stop acting like that. Plutocow (talk) 03:59, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm just not, even if I'm acting like that, whatever that means.--Back2theroots34 (talk) 04:01, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Bull shit. 04:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not Dominionism. I don't think there should be some huge Religious empire.--Back2theroots34 (talk) 04:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * "Dominionists believe that the civil laws laid down by the Old Testament (as distinct from the moral laws such as the Ten Commandments) should be enforced by reforming the U.S. legal system along theocratic lines, which would entail a substantial increase in the use of capital punishment." (From the article) This is not what I believe at all. No Christian I personally know believes this at all.--Back2theroots34 (talk) 04:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

"Unfortunately, this position is a strawman against feminism."
Hi Plutocow, why do you think this is valid? https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Apex_fallacy&diff=2438614&oldid=2438328. Just because some feminists sometimes use a fallacious argument that does not mean the fallacy itself is a position against feminism. &mdash; Unsigned, by: Londondare / talk / contribs Requesting thread archival (why?) Plutocow (talk)

For forgetting to add vote closed bottom when you closed RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive56 to permaban USHA
Please remember if you don't do this the entire archive page will be closed under that too, not just the vote we want. It's possible other things happen in archive 56.--Andrew5 (talk) 12:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

The CS not only allows me to but encourages it
Like I said: Do not start this giant argument again.--Spoony (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't allow you to edit other people's comments. Also, don't feed the troll on the TS page. Plutocow (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes it does when it's inflammatory. I am not your enemy, stop lying about these things.--Spoony (talk) 00:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not inflammatory, it's explaining my reasons for bringing that case to ATIM. I can't tell if you notice, but I have bigger problems to deal with right now. Plutocow (talk) 00:34, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. It's passive-aggressive remarks directed towards me when you're talking about another user.--Spoony (talk) 00:36, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * What the CS clearly lays out is, when a dispute arises you fucking take it to ATIM rather than continuing to edit war. Take it there if you're serious. Plutocow (talk) 00:37, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Why do you edit war then accuse other people of doing the same?--Spoony (talk) 00:38, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The burden of edit warring falls on the person making a change in the status quo, in this case, you. It says something that your only response is tu quoque. Plutocow (talk) 00:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Burden of proof? tu quo que? lol I bet you know what those mean and feel so smart. Stop being condescending and learn how you make others feel sometimes. Oh right, I get accused of the very things you do because you can't deal with the things you're ashamed of in your life.--Spoony (talk) 00:48, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * And now we're at ATIM. Again. Con-grat-yoo-lations. Plutocow (talk) 00:50, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This should be good.--Spoony (talk) 00:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

The only article you got done on your main page is the Opium page
Do you do opiates?--Back2theroots34 (talk) 01:29, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * First off, that's a redirect, not an actual article, and the two I got done, Rhodesia and Diamond were removed from the list. Plutocow (talk) 01:32, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * And no, I don't do opiates, but I'm familiar with the topic since the place I live was hit hard by the opioid crisis. Plutocow (talk) 04:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

As usual, no one cares
Quit embarrassing both of us.--Spoony (talk) 04:26, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You do realize that a mod ruled against you on both counts. I think you're just salty. Plutocow (talk) 04:27, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Quit being embarrassing--Spoony (talk) 04:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If you find this embarassing, then you only have yourself to blame, as you were blatantly in the wrong in that situation. I'd argue the whole edit war over the Gnosticism page was far more embarassing than anything I had done, but what do I know. I'd appreciate it if you didn't leave pointless comments like this on my talk page, though. Plutocow (talk) 04:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * As usual, no self-awareness or care for how your actions affect others. Literally no one in ATIM cares about your problem with me, and im telling you that you're an embarrassment to me and others in general. You're on the spectrum like me. Do you comprehend why you're being embarrassing? If not then idk how to explain it but i'd sure try. If that's how you get your rocks off though, there's literally nothing I can do about it and I hope you have your fun.--Spoony (talk) 04:37, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * What's more embarrassing, having the dispute resolved peacefully in ATIM or going on a massive edit war hissy fit? Your entire post reads like self-projection on your part, but nonetheless I will continue to bring you to ATIM as long as you continue to act like a jackass. If you don't like it, there's only one solution: don't fucking edit war. It's really not that hard. Plutocow (talk) 04:42, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * LMAO whatever helps you sleep at night. If you knew embarrasment you wouldn't have even made that post in ATIM in the first place. You clearly do not understandand keep bringing up red tape and edit wars and block logs. Not only are you a hypocrite but you ignore the spirit of the website and keep bringing up CS but once you understand the whole "spirit vs the law" thing you'll understand why that stuff goes nowhere. Rationalwiki is a school playground. And I like it.--Spoony (talk) 04:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You're basically acting like a Kiwi Farms troll right now, I would recommend taking a walk outside. Plutocow (talk) 04:53, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you even know what Kiwi Farms is? It's a hate site that disguises "bullying" as "lolcows". Comparing me to something like that is laughable at best.--Spoony (talk) 04:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Making mocking comments about how I am "embarrassing" and bringing up that I am on the spectrum for no apparent reason is exactly how those people act. If you don't like being compared to them, maybe do a bit of self-reflection as to why I would perceive you as acting that way. I'm just tired of this. Plutocow (talk) 05:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * People on the spectrum sometimes do not understand how their actions affect others but they can certainly feel it. It's that simple. The fact you decide to twist my words involving that does not give me high hopes that you do understand, you just don't care and do not, which usually means a much, much worse assumption: that you are not on the spectrum, but you are a psychopath.--Spoony (talk) 05:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You're calling me a psychopath based on what, exactly? You being embarassed by a situation that you were at least as responsible for as I was? Also, isn't that a little ableist? If you truly wanted to avoid embarassment, you wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place, but here we are. Plutocow (talk) 05:10, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Cool, call another guy on the spectrum an ableist. Keep going. Keep digging that grave for yourself. Based on the fact that you know, but don't care instead of the opposite.--Spoony (talk) 05:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you please stop responding on my talkpage for now? If you have any further disputes, bring them to ATIM. This conversation went nowhere, is going nowhere, and will never go anywhere, so if you have any of the self-awareness that you claim you have, you too will realize that it's best to stop. Plutocow (talk) 05:20, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * To stop what lol keep digging I did nothing bannable or desysopable and literally no one cares.--Back2theroots34 (talk) 05:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

LOL, you just gave away that Back2theroots is your sock. Well done. Plutocow (talk) 05:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok buddy. Stop being embarrassing.--Spoony (talk) 05:25, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This just makes the Gnosticism edit war even funnier in hindsight, since you acted like there were three people on your side when it was all actually the same person. This also shows that you believe in creationism, that we are living in the end times, and that Satanists control the media, either that or you were trolling. But I'd like to thank you, since that revalation has shifted my mood from "on the brink of an aneurism" to "uncontrollable laughter". Once again, I must say, well done. Plutocow (talk) 05:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep making those claims... If you think a hyper-religious person wouldnt outright just say those things boldly, then you have not grown up or been around them. Maybe stop being paranoid, assuming you're not being outright deceptive.--Back2theroots34 (talk) 05:39, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

LOL, you had a blatant slip-up, are you really going to keep denying it? Plutocow (talk) 05:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC) K.--Spoony (talk) 05:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that stuff. If that's what you choose to portray me as so be it. You think this is laughable this is dumb to me.--Back2theroots34 (talk) 05:43, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

So you were just trolling then. Got it. But that makes your complaints with me even more laughable. You weren't even trying to be subtle - you were always online at the same time, involved in the same conflicts, and making the same kinds of edits, so I was suspicious of you for a while, but it's nice to see that confirmed. Try harder to stay hidden next time. Plutocow (talk) 05:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * How much more stupid is this going to get? And yet you revert the edits by the alt. If it's an alt why do you care about its opinions?--Spoony (talk) 05:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It isn't just any alt, it's your alt. Why are you trying to hide the evidence? Plutocow (talk) 05:54, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * At this point I'm just screwing around until someone who isn't trying to be annoying makes a veredict.--Spoony (talk)
 * Are you done yet?--Spoony (talk) 06:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There you go putting your usual contemptful labels on things, you likely don't even know what a concern troll is but have fun getting your rocks off if you do but don't are. Insinuating I'm a concern troll implies I'm not an anti-authoritarian.--Spoony (talk) 07:18, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Someone IRL was asking wtf was going on and my response was to point at the screen and laugh.--Spoony (talk) 07:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Stop making alts
Embarrassing.--Spoony (talk) 10:50, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * At least when I make accusations of alting, I have something that's called, you know, evidence. Maybe you should try it sometime. Plutocow (talk) 16:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Quick, personal question
I actually forget. Are you male, female, or something else? Want to make sure I remember to call you "he", "she" or "they". 20:03, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Nonbinary, I prefer "they/them" Plutocow (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright, good to know. 21:22, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Being a Wikipedian...
I sometimes have to bite my own heavy hand, but who gave you the authority to permaban anyone? 71.208.x.x (talk) 00:07, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Why are you defending an obvious troll? Especially since we don't have checkuser and thus the guy can easily return if he wants to stop being disruptive. Plutocow (talk) 00:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * LOL, defending trolls... Said to the guy whose done how many rangeblocks to stop trolls? RationalWiki just doesn't do things that way. If someone is a clear sockpuppet or whatever they get permabanned, but in all of my memory just standard vandals get binned or blocked for escalating amounts of time, leading up to a permaban if they don't knock it off. That's the whole purpose of the bin. I can see why you end up at ATM all the time. 71.208.x.x (talk) 00:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * They were already blocked for vandalism, then returned to do the exact same thing. They're obviously not here to contribute so there's no use in fighting over them. What gives you the impression that a second or third block will do what the first couldn't? Also, I'm not sure if you're allowed to do rangeblocks other than /64 on IPv6s without consulting ATIM, but that's neither here nor there. Plutocow (talk) 00:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Interesting that you bring up lack of checkuser, you know they're just going to create a new account, that's why I suggested binning so we can identify patterns of abuse, but hey. Whatever. Who cares about a troll? Just don't go going TK/Oxy on the wiki or I will report you to Nutty Roux, lol. 71.208.x.x (talk) 00:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Interaction ban
This is a formal notice that you are hereby banned from interacting with User:2friedeggs.

Specifically, you are banned from doing the following actions:


 * Edit their user talk page. This extends to subpages in their userspace and essay talkpages.
 * Reply to them in discussions. Participation in the same discussions is still permitted, but direct responses are not.
 * Reference them anywhere on RationalWiki, directly or indirectly.
 * Revert their edits in any shape, way or form through the MediaWiki interface.

This sanction can be enforced by any sysop with incrementing blocks and attached talk page notices. Repeated violation may result in another Chicken coop or ATIM case being raised against you with the potential for further sanctions. TranslationForAll (talk) 00:57, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Autoblock
Well sir, it appears that when I try to write essay, I got an autoblock. Even though I stepped out of politics and the realm of a certain user, this still happens. Intriguing indeed my fellow. 37.120.153.206 (talk) 01:04, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You have no hits in the filter log. Are you admitting to being another user? It's worth noting your IP was blocked for vandalism. Plutocow (talk) 01:28, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Public school
If you're going to put back snark give an edit reason. Fargggu (talk) 06:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Nominated for the Board
Bongolian (talk) 17:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Possible ninja rights?
I'm assuming this user can't contact you directly, so they've been wanting you to have Ninja rights so your blocks don't clog up recent changes. Here's the edit in Requests for user rights. 01:03, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

ፕሉቶኮው
Their name is apparently romanized as "pilutokowi" according to Google Translate. Not sure if you're comfortable with that. LongStylus (talk) 03:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Preemptive block & possible mercy
Hey, I noticed that you just blocked someone (AceDidNotDie) indefinitely before they even did anything on this wiki, let alone anything ban-worthy. Your reason was "ban evasion", but as they have done literally nothing before being blocked, and their IP address is not visible, it is impossible to tell if they actually are a banned user trying to set up a new account. As such, I have tentatively unblocked them, but I want to be ready to re-block them if they actually do commit vandalism. Is there any way for me to keep an eye on a specific user's contributions? --Luigifan18 (talk) 17:13, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's obviously a Ken sock that was made to harass Ace (which was confirmed in the block list as the account shares an IP with "Lindell"). Leave them banned. Plutocow (talk) 17:23, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * …I wasn't able to see their IP address, so I can't confirm that. Anyways, I'll keep an eye on their contributions, and if I see any more "death certificate" nonsense from them, I'll give 'em the boot. I simply want to extend the benefit of the doubt for the time being. --Luigifan18 (talk) 17:25, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There's no reason to give them the benefit of doubt, the username only exists to harass Ace, and anyone who has payed attention to the wiki for longer than you have knows that Ken will make inflammatory pages and account names to harass sysops. Plus, as the account shares an autoblock with Lindell on the block list, it is undeniable that the two accounts share an IP and are the same person. Don't be naïve or obstructive please. Plutocow (talk) 17:31, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

On some of the spambots...
You've been blocking a lot of spambots manually for a long time. I just looked at the list, and saw at least some of them are the lottery spam type. For that type of spam (I guess there's more it won't catch), Uncyclopedia and Illogicopedia (which got it from Uncyclopedia, and where I'm an admin) has a good filter, which blocks those who add formulaic lottery junk for 3 months, and usually hands such IP blocks out daily. Would it be a good fit for RationalWiki? Might save some effort if so. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 08:04, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

"post-Kronstadt"
The Soviet Union was a dictatorship from day one. In 1917 the Bolsheviks closed more than 150 newspapers, created a and  and banned all the other parties. Kronstadt wasn't by any means a watershed moment. GeeJayK (talk) 03:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Kronstadt resulted in a crackdown that led to the opposition parties being dissolved. While the government had been getting more authoritarian since 1917, 1921 was basically the point of no return (hence the use of the word especially). Plutocow (talk) 03:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Others parties were banned in 1917 (see the Kadets and the Octobrist, for instance). Again, I don't see anything special happening after Kronstadt. GeeJayK (talk) 03:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Viewsridge — attempted ban dodger?
I saw Viewsridge's comment in the Saloon Bar, and it sounds similar to ButterCashiers' and Truflip98's comments. Do you think it's the same guy? I'm not sure what to do with them (nor am I 100% sure that ButtersCashiers should have been banned just for apparently being a tankie), so I put them in the vandal bin. --Luigifan18 (talk) 22:43, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's obviously the same person, and ban evaders get banned. If they don't like it, they can raise their case with the mods, but continuing the behavior that got you banned is not acceptable. Plutocow (talk) 17:37, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * How can they raise their case with the mods if they can't even edit their own talk page? --Luigifan18 (talk) 18:25, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Undeleted page edit
The page edit I deleted to Impact of science (that you undeleted) was literally a now-blocked spam troll blanking the page and replacing it with a repetitive non sequitur. Why do we want that staying in the fossil record again? --Luigifan18 (talk) 16:55, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh no, not again.
Please check the block log. I think I saw that Vilia-whatever guy who made 50 freaking accounts last night just create another one. I took the liberty of blocking it for a few weeks so you can take a closer look. --Luigifan18 (talk) 16:57, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know I created another section less than 30 minutes before making this one, but this is a completely different topic. But seriously, how the heck do these people get around IP blocks so fast? A full-grown adult who knows what he's doing such as Ken is one thing, but you'd think a snot-nosed 14-year-old edgelord wouldn't have any idea how to operate a engine (or whatever that thing that lets someone change/mask their own IP address is). --Luigifan18 (talk) 18:25, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * About the CAPTCHA, it isn't effective, no matter whether it's bots or humans, see the Foundation's noticeboard, where I explained why the CAPTCHA doesn't actually stop anything and suggested to the board to stop using the CAPTCHA for various reasons. No CAPTCHA will stop humans, since the purpose of them is to differentiate between bots and humans.
 * About the IP blocks, automatic IP blocks in this wiki last for 9 hours, and usage of Tor and open proxies are allowed, which I consider a good thing to be honest. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 18:33, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking a CAPTCHA to block humans, that's silly. I'm asking how a bot managed to get past it, because, seriously, creating 50 accounts in a single day?! What? I can't see a single human having enough time on their hands to do that, since it would also require having 50 separate e-mail addresses, going through the account creation process 50 freaking times (CAPTCHAs can be pretty annoying to complete), and… I can't think of anything else right now, but the logistics of making 50 freaking accounts makes it pretty unlikely that a human would do that IMO. --Luigifan18 (talk) 18:39, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Emails are not needed for creating accounts or passing CAPTCHAs, I didn't have one in this account until recently. Bots can complete Google's reCAPTCHA, the one used here, pretty easily, check out ConfirmEdit's section on ReCaptcha ("ReCaptcha has been cracked by most spambots targeting wikis, mainly due to its accessible captcha alternative"). Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 18:42, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand!
I think it happened again… I just saw a bunch of accounts starting with "Serz" and "Illushik" in the user creation log. I went and applied tentative blocks to the lot of them, but could you look into the IP address they're using or something to confirm whether or not this should be nipped in the bud? --Luigifan18 (talk) 16:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Checkuser (the extension used to check IP addresses of registered editors) is banned in this wiki. While techs can pull off something similar (in no way as accurate as checkuser, not even close), the moment that's discovered the tech doing that can have their rights instantly removed by the first tech or mod that spots it. It is not possible to check their IP addresses. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 16:11, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * While it is impossible to find a user's specific IP, it is possible to test whether two accounts share the same IP based on how the autoblocks show up in the block list. In this case, the autoblock proves that these accounts share the same IP, and can thus be banned. Plutocow (talk) 16:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I think I just saw another one!
Is it just me, or does the name of the recently created "Servasym" account seem… suspicious? I haven’t taken action just in case their claim of lurking the Saloon Bar is genuine, but I think a more experienced sysop or mod should take a closer look. --Luigifan18 (talk) 14:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * They won't find any dirt on me, came up with this username, sounds cool, thank you lmfao Servasym (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * They literally just created an userpage, there's no need to do anything. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 14:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I know that, it's just that their username looks a bit similar to the pattern followed by the 50-accounts-in-one-day guy that Plutocow and I dealt with over the previous two days, so that looked like a bit of a red flag. The main thing keeping me from blocking them was their claim of lurking the Saloon Bar making them look more legitimate, which is why I asked a tech to take a closer look. --Luigifan18 (talk) 20:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's best to wait until there are multiple accounts with the same structure before blocking, plus the activity proves they're not a spambot. Plutocow (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Recent blocks
Hey, could you and review some of the recent blocks I've made? I still can't see the actual edit filter content, so I'm just going off of people tripping the edit filter at all multiple times without it blocking them (often with article titles that we clearly have no need for) and, in one instance, a string of accounts getting created and 3.6-day blocked by the filter in suspiciously quick succession. (On a similar note, I don't think 3.6 days is a long enough block for the Blackhat SEO Spammer filter, seeing as you or I usually end up perma-blocking those accounts anyways…) --Luigifan18 (talk) 14:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Your most recent block attempted to create such gems as "Newest On The Web Casino For 2022", which obviously belongs in this wiki /s. If you see them attempting to create such pages, they are obviously bots. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 14:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's why I blocked them. Obvious spam is obvious. --Luigifan18 (talk) 20:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Trout
You just called Mr Larrington a "Mop":. I thought you were better than that. LongStylus (talk) 01:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I fixed the template so it shouldn't be a problem again. Plutocow (talk) 01:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's better. Thanks. LongStylus (talk) 01:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Ken Magnet
Thanks for archiving that - I actually hesitated before posting it initially because I knew Ken wouldn't be able to help himself but I stupidly thought that because it was regarding my family (specifically my child) that Ken would show a little more class than to interject. I forgot Ken has no class. Acei9 21:24, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Bingo
All other Bingo cards are under "fun", not "essay" so I have reverted the move. Acei9 01:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, this one is from a tankie, so I'm not sure that it belongs with the others... Plutocow (talk) 01:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Still bingo, mate - just like the others. Acei9 01:09, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a shitty driveby tankie screed. I'd actually support deleting it based on the Youtube link claiming that 97% of citizens under Stalin never faced any repression. 03:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Then AFD it but you can't just designate it Essay, unlike every other bingo, because you don't like it. Acei9 11:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)