RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive56

UShistoryanalyzer
Since it looks like Spoony is going to continue to be disruptive, then I might as well start a case here. I feel we've given this user far too much of a pass for their behavior over the last few months, and the only reason they are still around is because their topic ban and vandal bin have simply limited the amount of damage they can do. Otherwise, their only contributions are blatant drama-mongering/trolling  just plain insults   and making terrible essays that likely only exist for shock value rather than making a point  Otherwise, no mainspace edits, no attempts to even have a productive conversation, and it's clear that their issues with hostility haven't gone away from his last ban. And then there's this, with "him/her/idiot self" already feeling like an attack helicopter joke, and it's directed at me, a person they have held a grudge against for a long time, and I just so happen to be nonbinary - if they were able to stalk through my edits to try and find one that would prove my point, they certainly were well aware of me being nonbinary. And the main problem with this user is we've already tried the works on them - temp bans, a topic ban, civility parole, three-month ban, vandal bin - and yet, they double down on their behavior each time and have kept the same attitude throughout this whole process. I think it's about time that we have a conversation about whether we seriously want to keep this user around, because after a year of this crap something needs to change. Plutocow (talk) 03:09, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * implied that UShistoryanalyzer engaged in block evasion in February. If there's evidence, that would be worth another 3 month block at any rate. There's also some evidence that UShistoryanalyzer was socking as the now-banned User:UKempireanalyser who was summarily banned for being paid in-kind to write an essay. If people agree that he socked a now-banned user, that's worthy of a ban. Bongolian (talk) 03:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Being a lackluster contributor is no reason to ban a user, but the the dig at a user's gender designation is something we do not tolerate without more austere admonitions. I see CU has blocked him for 9 hours. Good. He might need more time off, but good. Ariel31459 (talk) 19:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes

 * 1) In case harsher sanctions don't pass. Plutocow (talk) 03:09, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  05:16, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Vomitorium (talk) 06:34, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The antipathy and scorn I now observe to elicit from a sorry pile of vomit excusing themselves for a user is a proud badge of honor I shall wear. Ushit the dipshit (I shit, Ushit...) 18:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) In case harsher sanctions don't pass.Scream!! (talk) 10:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  Shabi  DOO  14:25, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Mass murderer stan votes for undue punishment of Ushit. 'Nuff said. Ushit the dipshit (I shit, Ushit...) 18:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Unwilling or unable to participate here without acting like a fool. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 17:23, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, so says the lackwit who pressed the delete button for a draft of an important topic on the mere grounds it was created by me. Ushit the dipshit (I shit, Ushit...) 18:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Your "important topic" was off-topic, off-mission shit and deserved to be vaporized on sight. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 22:11, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm sorry, but I have to. --Andrew5 (talk) 18:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry your sorry ass is one I ever defended so passionately and persistently. To the extent which it should baffle me silly, the validation of Scrooge's assails of you nonetheless now stand as unexpected farsighted wisdom. Ushit the dipshit (I shit, Ushit...) 18:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * With very deep regret I am voting in favor to ban you, because it would be best for the mob. Also, when you try to defend me you can make me look worse. --Andrew5 (talk) 19:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) earned it CorSock (talk) 23:50, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Goat

 * I love how USHA, rather than arguing the merits of each choice, instead decided to engage in ad hominems. Really proving everyone wrong! Genius! 19:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes

 * 1) In case harsher sanctions don't pass. Plutocow (talk) 03:09, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  05:16, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Vomitorium (talk) 06:34, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) In case harsher sanctions don't pass. Scream!! (talk) 10:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 5)  Shabi  DOO  14:25, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) Unwilling or unable to participate here without acting like a fool. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 17:23, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 7) Since the last ban didn't get them to stop, even though it was overharsh IMO. --Andrew5 (talk) 18:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes

 * 1) I still don't know why we keep this user around. Plutocow (talk) 03:09, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Main reason is the "him/her/idiot self".  05:16, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Seems he is only here to egg on conflicts. Not sure what the point is of keeping guys like that around. Vomitorium (talk) 06:34, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 4)  Scream!! (talk) 10:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 5)  Shabi  DOO  14:25, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) He went past the point of tolerance a long time ago  14:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 7) Unwilling or unable to participate here without acting like a fool. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 17:23, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 8) Pretty obviously acting in bad faith and completely unrepentant about doing so in spite of numerous warnings in numerous forms over a long period of time.-Flandres (talk) 18:01, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 9) I was waiting for a defense to be made by UShistoryanalyzer regarding the charges, but there have only been attacks. Bongolian (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 10) Good riddance. 21:57, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 11) Has always been a troll and a defender of other trolls. Has recently become more blatant in his support for any old potential other troll that comes along.. Hasn't improved. Hasn't learned. Has had his last chance. Spud (talk) 00:16, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 12) 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒   talk  00:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 13) Stuck my neck out for this guy once. I’ve been pissed off ever since I got burned for it. 23:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You're never wrong to give someone a chance. But, you learn.CorSock (talk) 23:57, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * --Andrew5 (talk) 00:04, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) LongStylus (talk) 00:21, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Lets get this over with!!! Adam Warlock (talk) 05:19, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Likely LT sock, and even if not, has made over 10 socks. Ban. Sievert 81 (talk) 23:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Goat

 * Abstain. In my mind he shouldn't have been banned for pi months, but only pi weeks, back in August, but also, the ban evasion and incivility mean I cannot reasonably oppose. --Andrew5 (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I rarely vote to perma and Usha didnt do enough in his latest douchery to merit one. But he didnt do anything to merit a reason to stay, so... bye CorSock (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Edit filter
Another rampage again. Disable account creation for a while please. TranslationForAll (talk) 20:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I suppose that one could match username in a filter with "*" to do that, but that's unprecedented here and in the 9+ years I've been here I don't ever remember this type of drastic action ever being taken. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 21:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * "in the 9+ years" well not a long time in this year, someone did it when this user went on a rampage. TranslationForAll (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It is probably a good idea, for a few hours or so. But no longer. That way if the guy keeps spamming from IPs we can block more of his proxy rangesNature&#39;s Mockery (talk) 21:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Way too much collateral. I suppose Cosmik's idea could work though. --Andrew5 (talk) 21:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Aaaand thanks to that guy's self report his IP range is gone. That block may cause some collateral damage but since it doesn't affect logged in users might be a good idea to keep it for longer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2607:FB90:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 is banned for 3 years on Wikipedia. Nature&#39;s Mockery (talk) 21:41, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, now I remember the GR spamflood. That user registration block was probably of very short duration. I'll defer to the mods before doing anything like that myself, as I am just a lowly tech. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 21:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I blocked 2607:FB90:0:0:0:0:0:0/64 for pi days, which would seem to be a minimalist intervention at this point. Continued account creation of that particular ilk might warrant further action.Bongolian (talk) 01:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)