User talk:Scott Hayward

02:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Rude. Have a proper greeting. { {welcome}} —Kazitor Kazitor sig pic.png 03:08, 25 August 2018 (UTC) —Kazitor Kazitor sig pic.png 03:08, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Given that this individual has made exclusively talkpage comments that consist of borderline hate speech, I don't think a welcome is warranted. 03:12, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oi, don't go crossing out my comments. The point is, as long as they stick to talk pages and don't cause unnecessary drama, there's no real issue. (once again, you are too keen to label other people as trolls and vandals. RationalWiki:Constructive dialogue) The content of meh certainly does not apply. —Kazitor Kazitor sig pic.png 03:17, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have accused him of neither. However, his comments, Including one consisting of a well known homophobic trope do not speak well for him. 03:23, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter if you don't agree; they're not being disruptive. —Kazitor Kazitor sig pic.png 03:25, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Dude, Kazitor, the person IS being disruptive by posting acephobic shit like this, this and this. And continues to post more trollish vomit. The MEH was well-deserved. 04:53, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Re-read RationalWiki:Community_Standards:
 * "Discussions here sometimes get heated, but resorting to personal attacks is strongly frowned upon, however justified they may seem. In particular, attacks incorporating racist, threatening, sexist and homophobic language and insults are not tolerated." 05:00, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Ban
I’m not sure if Scott Hayward needed a long term ban, nor if he needed to be placed in the vandal bin. Since when did expressing anti-LGBT+ views become a bannable offense? Is disagreeing with the site principles now “trolling?” I disagree with Scott Hayward’s views, but I’m not sure how he needed such a severe punishment for a few talk page edits. How does one distinguish who is a “troll” and who isn’t? I can see how a short term ban would be appropriate, but 3 months? Also isn’t the vandal bin supposed to be for vandals?--Mr. Bojangles (talk) 23:21, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * You're giving this user too much credit. I do not tolerate bigots or trolls that use bigotry to get responses. This is not a matter of "disagreeing with site principles". I do not wish to have someone who expresses these unacceptable views in this community, and this person would've been banned in other communities for expressing the same views. That's my personal opinion. The rhetoric this person employs is inflammatory and tried to edit war to readd the deleted comments, and the user has already provoked strong responses from users including me (more indication it's trolling), and continued with inflammatory remarks after being told to stop, which prompted me to ban. This member is not here to contribute or be constructive, just here post offensive remarks and get responses. The vandal bin serves multiple purposes, not just for vandals (though mostly for vandals), but also for unconstructive users and perceived trolls, check the log if you want. I don't see any value in this user and I don't see the reason to not leave this user blocked, and I don't see why people should care if a bigot gets blocked for long-term. 23:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * (EC) Hi, . While I agree it’s likely trolling, I’ve always adhered to the “opportunity for escalation” approach when it comes to RW Blocks, unless we’re talking really iffy shit (as in the examples in the long term block box). I’ve changed it to a 3.6 day block and enabled this user talk page. Also, we do use the vandal bin for trolls who incessantly post various crap (de facto vandalism), though I’m not sure vandal binning this user makes much of a difference, as the edit frequency in this case is generally way below the vandal bin threshold. ScepticWombat (talk) 23:50, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I just wanted to avoid productive time being wasted responded to this user. I thought vandal binning would've sent the message, but the user edited for longer than 30 minutes a pop, and he resumed bad comments after 5 or so days after the binning (and provoked responses again), so I figured a long-term block would've made the troll go away. I'd support a week block or longer based on this information, but I doubt this user is going to change behavior if he edits again. 00:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * When we say that we welcome people who disagree with us, we're talking about people who say that the flat Earth with Adam and Eve and dinosaurs on it was created in six days 6,000 years ago. We're talking about people who say that Neil Armstrong never went to the moon. We're talking about people who say that Margaret Thatcher was a lizard person. We're not talking about someone who says that the only normal people are confident heterosexuals who enjoy sex. We aren't talking about someone who says that LGBT+ people should not be visible and should not be proud of who they are. We're not talking about someone who says that homosexuality is a mental disorder that not only can be cured but should be cured. If Scott Hayward makes any of the comments he's made here on a wiki where I am the only active admin, I'll ban him permanently without a moment's hesitation. But I know I can't do that here. Looking at what he's said again, he has just managed to stay away from hate speech. So I'd have to say that a short block is the most appropriate action here. I have enough experience in wiki adminship to know that a lot of people who are blocked for 3 days never come back. Since this is someone who took a break of 5 days before writing something here again, I'd really rather give a slightly longer block, like 10 days, to make sure that he noticed it. But again, that's something I can't do here. I just hope that Scott Hayward notices that he's been blocked, gets the message he's not welcome and leaves us alone. Spud (talk) 02:35, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi . Just curious: Why can’t you “give a slightly longer block, like 10 days, to make sure that he noticed it”? You could just adjust the end date to fit the bill. I was merely lazy enough to just use the standard format that was one notch down from the 3.6 month ban that I thought was a wee bit too much, but higher than the various X-hour bans that I considered were too brief (as Scott Hayward’s edit frequency is quite low, I agree that such a ban might not be noticed). ScepticWombat (talk) 06:44, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that there was a bug that meant that blocks for periods other than the set times didn't work. Apparently not. Scott Hayward is now blocked until Wednesday 5 September. A long enough time so that it shouldn't go unnoticed but not excessively long for a first offense. Spud (talk) 09:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

So, how does one distinguish between users with reactionary views (i.e. RobSmith) and someone who needs a ban, like Scott Hayward? I am entirely unconvinced he needed to be placed in the vandal bin, as he did not vandalize anything from what I can tell. He has simply made some talk page comments that contain anti-LGBT+ views. So, is disagreeing with the site on evolution, age of the earth/flat earth, etc. okay in and of itself, but having homophobic views is grounds for a long term ban and placement into the vandal bin? If that's the case, then the respective policy pages should be edited to reflect such. --Mr. Bojangles (talk) 21:01, 1 September 2018 (UTC)