RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive131

Let Them Eat Cake
Sometimes you get a passive troll that just breaks the rules constantly over a long period of time. This is one of those times. To wit:

has been a user since 2011, and seems to have turned into a far right troll.. from the getgo? We usually don't put up with that shit anymore and have banned several users for it. The reason this was brought to my attention is because of this charming defense of a certain racial slur that veers off into... blaming "the wokies" for not being able to say racial slurs anymore posted in response to a comment from a banned editor that is almost a year old.

That being said, poking their log also includes blatant trolling like moving Nancy Pelosi to Skeletor. More is available here since at least 2016 and several short time blocks from 2017 onwards by several prolific editors.

Given this user has been here for 10 years, I think the only way to get something done here is a coop case, even if in any other scenario we'd just block this as a driveby vandal. -- Techpriest (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)


 * No, I think it's a completely disgusting word, I was not defending it and I even get angry with my black friends for saying it. I was just criticising one particular cretin's defense of the downward spiral this website has taken in past years. Like TV Tropes, it's turned into a website for far-left trolls, crawling out of the fever swamps of Tumblr. I've stayed on the right of reason whilst the left and right have shifted into dangerous territory. But do as you wish. Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 17:24, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Some Tumblr weirdos show up once in a while but I see little evidence that they’ve had any impact at all on the site’s mission. As for the “SJW” rants, I’m both amused and disturbed by the reality in which you think you live. 18:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Given his illustrious past, he deserves vandal binning, at the minimum, for introducing his own opinions onto main pages . His behavior hardly indicates 'right of reason' as so claimed when he apparently thinks that Satan ended the Great Depression and helped to destroy the Third Reich. It's amazing that he's gotten away with trolling for so long. Bongolian (talk) 18:27, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I’d support a vandal bin since this user has a history of being a lunatic in main space. Don’t see a case for anything further though. 18:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I am personally torn on a full ban. This is because while he has a history of trolling, but the fact that he has been around for so long gives me pause. I want to wait for further comments before making up my mind. Andrew5 (talk) 18:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Trollski already gave us a 'parting gift', so don't hold your breath. Bongolian (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * What sort of drinks does 'RW is a website far left trolls' justify (and 'far left in the US or UK senses?). Anna Livia (talk) 19:23, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems like he's already gone: absinthe makes he heart grow fonder. Bongolian (talk) 20:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, I removed his autopatrol privileges after some questionable edits today. GeeJayK (talk) 21:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * (EC)I'd definitely want the vandal bin for this guy. Having dealt with him before, I privately think he should just be blocked...but I recognize he is, if you will, "grandfather claused" in.-Flandres (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I would not oppose a vandal bin for the guy. Is that all of the mods?  21:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * We're missing lefty and spud.-Flandres (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It appears Bongo already vandalbinned him, the question is for a block. I think, if you remove their autopatrolled and vandalbin them, it's enough, but his edits are questionable enough I wouldn't oppose anything. And in this case, it was long term enough that a temp block wouldn't solve anything. --Andrew5 (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Infrequent editing will make the vandal bin ineffective to address inflammatory edits, but will support vandal bin as bare minimum. Support pi months minimum per our block policy explicitly calling for long term blocks for transphobic remarks, though not opposed to longer blocks, especially an indef block due to long term trolling. I do not find the user's long-term status important when I deem user too harmful and not redeemable for wiki upkeep. 21:53, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I already vandal binned, as that did not require a coop. Unless there's a serious proposal for further action, we can close this coop. Bongolian (talk) 22:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd like at least some scrutiny from the moderation of my decision on his user rights. For the record, the reason was the edit war here. GeeJayK (talk) 22:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's okay. I don't care if a troll loses their rights if all they do is be a disruption and detriment to the community, especially if losing rights means making them easier to deal with. 22:08, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * A quick glance doesn't give any blockworthy content, just mildy annoying. Anyone want to point me to repeat cases of abuse?  22:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Transphobia here ("preferred pronoun as opposed to actual pronoun" quip). and check the dates and context of that post and the post it's replying to please.] 22:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Personally I support an indef; this user will not be affected by shorter blocks (they do not edit frequently enough) and almost all of their recent edits range from complaining about cancel culture in mainspace, to supporting TERFy behavior to in general complaining about SJWs. Keep in mind that other editors (and mods) reverted all this stuff. I could also be swayed on a three month general ban + a topic ban on any edit involving mention of "woke" or "SJW"; they don't appear to have issues with right wing cranks ironically. -- Techpriest (talk) 22:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Such a topic ban would need to be strict, as in pi months per violation. Otherwise it won't work. Andrew5 (talk) 22:25, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @LGM Seems to be excessive vitriol, the sort a warning should normally be sufficient for. Not quite blockworthy on first offense, but blockworthy if they continue.  22:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Given that a) this behavior is fairly constant over a literal decade and b) they have been given a fair amount of short term blocks for it, I think we have entered penalty vote territory. If they were a younger account, we probably would have already done so. Given that Cake fits into the "I'm an edgy iconoclast fighting against the woke hordes" mold I don't think any warning would really do anything. It's like GR-"punishment" (very loosely defined) is a gratifying act that supposedly affirms how correct he is. I support a long block but again I understand if the community doesn't want to open a vote.-Flandres (talk) 23:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd advise some level of mercy. Firstly, they seem to have left for good, though we'll see if that's true, and secondly because they literally live in 2015 YouTube. 22:55, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The GR dispute taught me to never trust these types when they say they are gone for good. That's just me though.-Flandres (talk) 23:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * GR case found at - RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive116. Interesting read. Andrew5 (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't agree about characterizing that as "vitriol", it's not accurately describing transphobia. Transphobia crosses into territory that's unacceptable for this community. If a newer user made that same quip, we'd remove them pretty quick. 23:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking at their block history, the majority of blocks are mostly joke blocks. I'm quite sure my block history was worse. 00:00, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps our definition of "fair amount" differs. At any rate, the prior blocks point is only a somewhat relevant tangent. What matters is the "excessively offensive comments/bigotry over the course of years" thing. It's been pointed out here already the only reason he is tolerated is the age of his account. There's also no reason to think a warning would achieve anything.-Flandres (talk) 00:13, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Eh, I don't think I'm going to support a ban, but I may not oppose one either... 00:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That'll be a shame if your block history was worse, because this user's way worse than you. 00:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Had to check. My block history is 95% 0 second joke blocks and/or discussions, one or two hour-long blocks from someone saying to calm down, and a couple of perma-blocks alongside removing my user rights from people abusing their powers.  00:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The main thing is CU and GC got into a fight in December 2020...Andrew5 (talk) 00:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I wouldn’t vote for a ban, but I certainly wouldn’t stick my neck out and vote against either. 01:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)


 * LTEC has made about 30 edits in the last calendar year. They hardly seem worth the bother. Bongolian has probably done enough for now by putting them in the VB. I think the coop should close too.UncleKrampus (talk) 02:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, all that does is make the vandal bin more useless because they are unlikely to be affected by the 30 minute timer, which works better with people who rapidly make disruptive edits like USHA (there were two others but they both got permabanned in ATIM votes, one of which due to ban evasion coming to light and one of which via a 22-3 vote, recommend reading the archives). Also, others are correct that if this was a newer user, they would be long permabanned by now. Andrew5 (talk) 02:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If you take the time to look at the last 30 edits, 20 of them were in clusters of 2-6 in half hour intervals. So, you know now...UncleKrampus (talk) 02:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Still, a vandal bin is way more leniant then a new user would get. Hence, I think a ban is worth it. Andrew5 (talk) 02:38, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm another one who wouldn't vote for a ban but wouldn't oppose one either. Spud (talk) 05:44, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * its not like they have produced a sudden storm of problems and what not. they have been very sporadic posting and egregious stuff is seemingly a single post here or there with long intervals between. long enough intervals to treat a single posts that might require tut tutting and no more unless something more comes along. i dont think its that fair to treat the posts taken together a problem thats accumulated over time. they have built up because we no was paying attention to controversial edits, or something was said on the talk page querying sources and then they moved on. anything that might be deemed abuse and might spur a closer look is generally between long intervals that cannot suggest an escalation and so disconnected from other dodgy posts the flame cant be considered harassing. so its just contentious edits in articles that we as a whole let slide for what ever reasons. there are plenty such edits in plenty of articles that dont get spotted at the time in articles that dont often feature in recent changes, then they slide by. we aint wikipedia, with huge armies of obsessive nerds fixated on every subject under the sun. stuff is gonna be missed. just fix it when it is noticed. this user in specifically, i recall an afd for an article they'd put up, loads of obvious problems and comment on talkpage but seemed like any concerns just werent posted and anyone looking lost interest after maybe waiting to see where things were headed. thats a whole article of dross and thats down a lack of action from community. its not like they've been sneaking in stuff here or there that you have to be really paying attention to spot. all we can do if stuff pops up and is noticed is go through contributions if we think necessary. bans or vandal binning for stuff of lets just say poor quality months years after the fact seems pointless. it would not have been warranted at time if things had been picked up.


 * its not niche articles on subjects neither current nor likely to stumble across posted by occassional editors across that are problem, if we talking about suspect editors and and dodgy articles. its more current and contentious issues with dedicated true believers that seem more problematic to me because i ignore stuff i dont miss because i gonna get burned if i say anything. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I recommend a straw vote to help get this over with.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Take some further action

 * 1) -- Techpriest (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) A vandal bin is not enough, and any new user would not recieve such leniancy. Site and/or topic ban at the very least needs to happen. Andrew5 (talk) 18:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) I would at least like to see a ban vote happen. 19:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) I think enough people have expressed desire for sanctions that would require votes we should hold one, just to represent them. Besides, I don't see the harm in having a vote. This has a pretty weak emotional charge by coop standards so I don't think we would enter HCM just by keeping this open for a week.-Flandres (talk) 19:44, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I dunno, there's been a lot of tension in the coop, not just because of this particular coop but because of things that went on during on in the vote, see below. Many coops have unique stuff going on, this definitely has that.
 * Though, I have endured a lot of emotional charges recently. I have watched Tapped, which talks about the Tragedy of the Commons in great depth. Also, some of our band music, especially Sky Dance , has emotional charges as well. Andrew5 (talk) 21:35, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Sysoprevoke, vandal bin, have fun reverting. Block for three days to encourage them to stew in their bitterness and leave again. 20:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) ✼sigh✼ If we must vote, I favor LGM's suggestion: sysoprevoke, vandal bin, token block. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 22:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Far-right people should not be welcome here. I see nothing wrong with banning them.--A p r i l Chat? 05:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's far better to punish people because of behavioral problems rather than ideology. People from the political extremes tend to quickly show behavioral issues (trolling, abuse, vandalism, edit warring), though there are exceptions as to how long it can take. Bongolian (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Our mainpage says: "We welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue."Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:52, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that doesn't make edits like this and especially edits like this appropriate, and this was just in his 12/20 edits, there were a lot more before hand. Andrew5 (talk) 00:50, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Goodness gracious this eerily reminds me of the days when Conservapedia blocked people for "liberal vandalism" and we all laughed at them for that... Are we sure our site hasn't been infiltrated by tards from Conservapedia who somehow changed their ideology but not their style? 71.208.x.x (talk) 20:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not that alt-right people aren't welcome here, it's that they disruptively share their point of view. We would tolerate people from the alt-right if they wouldn't also be jerks. LTEC's contributions clearly show. (Btw, if anyone is wondering why Ken was banned, check RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive101.) Andrew5 (talk) 21:18, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 71.208.x.x: Bad take lol. "retard" has fallen out of favor, I don't advise using it. 21:41, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You know, every damn time I say something like this, a heap of users respond with generic platitudes about respecting others...who the hell made so many of you the knights for fascists?--A p r i l Chat? 21:45, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Because we all grew up and the next generation of new hires at our offices are now the spoiled man-children who expect to be coddled? 21:59, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  Yeet this kid. This reeks transphobia (and NB-phobia).  14:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Vandal Binning is enough for now

 * 1) They come on the site, they act childish, they leave for months on end. There's no reason to ban, and barely any reason to bin.  18:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Revert vandal bin

 * 1) This user is just a part of RationalWiki's ecosystem.  We do not now nor have we ever demanded ideological homogeneity in our user base-Hastur! (talk)  02:07, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Ineligible

 * 1) Would not be a bad idea to take some more drastic action, considering how this isn't exactly new behavior. I don't think someone's account age should give them a pass on being a dummy. Ozzyboo (talk) 02:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Vote was in favor of more drastic action, but account needs 3 months and 75 edits to both. User has neither. Andrew5 (talk) 02:42, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * To make sure I understand correctly, for me to vote I need 3 months and 75 edits in total? Ozzyboo (talk) 02:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That is true in this case since it will be a penalty vote (RationalWiki:Community Standards). Policy votes also have the same requirement. There are no requirements for other types of votes. You are free to make comments in all cases. Bongolian (talk) 02:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. tşk, maşallah. Ozzyboo (talk) 02:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Goat

 * Just in case anyone wants to know, GrammarCommie voted exactly 30 seconds after me. Andrew5 (talk) 19:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Goody for you. If you want to make an accusation, then make it. Don't act like a coward. 19:56, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not what's going on, and I find it a bit rude for you to assume that. Now my only accusation is you accusing me of accusing something when I was not (that might not have made total grammatical sense.) Andrew5 (talk) 20:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Really? I find that hard to believe when you, for seemly no reason other than to insinuate ulterior motives, highlighted the gap between my post and yours. So, again, if you want to accuse me of something, then do it. Don't be a weaselly coward about it. 00:31, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If you want me to accuse you, ok. I can accuse you for your this pointless discussion which I'm still upset over. I got a bit of stress during that time and even if I didn't, I still felt it unnecessary to take SB discussions over to a user talk page. Andrew5 (talk) 00:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If you weren't intending to make insinuations, then what pray tell was you're comment supposed to be about? 03:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure if this was about the comment I made back in October or not, but if it were, I was citing why the death penalty is appropriate in circumstances. Andrew5 (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I paradoxically care enough to let everyone know I don't care. Careception!  19:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think there's sufficient straw votes to put this up for an actual vote on specific sanctions. Bongolian (talk) 22:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like it. If there are no objections, go ahead and set it up.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:44, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 6 votes to proceed, 1 in favor of leaving just the vandal bin and 1 in favor of reverting the vandal bin. Andrew5 (talk) 02:38, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Vote on Let Them Eat Cake
Per CS, votes to block/ban require a two thirds majority.
 * I'm correct in saying it needs to hit 2/3, not exceed it, right? Because that's what happened with pi years. Andrew5 (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Yea

 * 1) Sysoprevoke and block. Revert and block again for at least several days if they troll. 16:00, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Bare minimum.--A p r i l Chat? 18:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Yes Shabi DOO  13:03, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Nay

 * 1) Too short to do anything even close to remotely reasonable. At that point it’s better off just not blocking at all. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 17:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Zero point. 17:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Non-coopworthy punishments shouldn't even be a voting option. Bongolian (talk) 18:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) -Hastur! (talk) 04:20, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Goat

 * 1) abstain. 15:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Yea

 * 1) Sysoprevoke and block. Revert and block again for at least several days if they troll. 16:00, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Not totally the length I would have envisioned, but still a modest length nonetheless. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 17:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) --A <font color="Pink">p <font color="EBECF0">r <font color="Pink">i <font color="55CDFC">l Chat? 18:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) -Flandres (talk) 18:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Minimum. 20:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 6) -- Techpriest (talk) 22:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 7) -- LongStylus (talk) 00:08, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 8) Yes Shabi DOO  13:03, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Nay

 * 1) And zero point... 17:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Ditto, non-coopworthy. Bongolian (talk) 18:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Generally pi weeks is coopworthy. Andrew5 (talk) 18:19, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) -Hastur! (talk) 04:20, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Ban Andrew. Nutty Roux (talk) 12:41, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 00:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait, what did I do this time? Andrew5 mobile (talk) 13:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 08:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Goat

 * 1) abstain. Won't be upset either way.  15:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Considering that there has been some support for banning me, I'd like to ask - what's the rationale behind this? Given their previous behaviours towards me I don't think this is a joke but rather an actual attempt at banning me, but (1) this coop is about LTEC, not me and (2) no rationale provided. Andrew5 (talk) 00:44, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Yea

 * 1) Sysoprevoke and block. Revert and block again for at least several days if they troll. I'm not gonna unblock even if you attempt pi months. 16:00, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Any length shorter is too short really, given his tendency to leave for months at a time. Better to just yeet his problems out into the distant land of March/April. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 17:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) --<font color="55CDFC">A <font color="Pink">p <font color="EBECF0">r <font color="Pink">i <font color="55CDFC">l Chat? 18:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) In my opinion his remarks have crossed the line into outright bigotry, and if you think he is here for constructive dialogue you may need to learn what "constructive dialogue" actually means. Just leaving that in to tell off the usual morons who think disciplining these types is "enforcing ideological conformity" for some bizarre reason.-Flandres (talk) 18:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I suspect that Hastur has an extremely broad vision of constructive dialogue, and he thinks very narrow punishments should be given. I mean….I guess it is open to interpretation even though 99% of the mob disagrees with him (these issues am even caused him to not get mod back in 2020). Andrew5 mobile (talk) 19:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * His opinion is of little value. 21:28, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't entirely say that. Sure, nobody is ever going to use his vote as a stepping stone into their votes (and users like GC are also unlikely), his vote does count. In RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive124, we see Hastur voted against banning HBC for pi weeks (because of course). That was a tipping point vote tho, as had he even abstained, it would be 15-7 in favor of banning, which is 68.1% support and enough to ban. Not saying every coop is like that, but a thought to keep in mind. I wasn't involved with RW tho, so I could be missing something. (The actual tipping point one was Monet's vote, although had HBC not saved themself in their coop it also would have passed. Really any oppose was a tipping point). Andrew5 (talk) 21:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Sounds good to me. What a pest. 20:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Given that the Marie Antoinette has sometimes been gone for more than 3 months at a time, this is a fairly weak punishment. Bongolian (talk) 20:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Doubt this would do anything but shrug. -- Techpriest (talk) 22:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) -- LongStylus (talk) 00:08, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Yes Shabi DOO  13:03, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 6) —cosmikdebris talk stalk 14:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Nay

 * 1) Zero point... 17:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) -Hastur! (talk) 04:20, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Goat

 * 1) abstain. Won't be upset either way.  15:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

2π months
I made this as a middle ground option as it appears there is opposition to a permaban but π months might be too little. But I'll abstain on this for now. Andrew5 (talk) 20:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Yea

 * 1) I made it as a more fair in-betweener. Said user will not be able to edit until July. Also you really can't say this is a silly proposal when you then propose pi years below, which I'm on the fence about. Andrew5 (talk) 22:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 04:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Nay

 * 1) ?  20:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 2pi months is equivalent to 6.28 months. Andrew5 (talk) 20:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Ik, but the vote already started. 21:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it was only six hours. I could've started it closer but didn't have the time. Andrew5 (talk) 21:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You could have at least tried and made it πxπ months. As it is, it's both ridiculous and boring. Cogratulations Andrew5, you've become the Mike Myers of this wiki. 23:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * πxπ is ~9.86 months. I feel it's longer and that 6.28 is a better value. Andrew5 (talk) 01:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Silly. -- Techpriest (talk) 22:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Fuck off Andrew! 23:42, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) [[File:Mario Huh.png]] 02:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) -Hastur! (talk) 04:20, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) No. 22:00, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Goat

 * 1) What, no Tau months? (pi/2).  21:37, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No, tau is 2*pi. Andrew5 (talk) 21:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Multiply that by the value of the ideal gas constant (R) in SI units (8.314 J⋅K−1⋅mol−1) and I might reconsider. LongStylus (talk) 00:06, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That calculation wouldn't work for me. Andrew5 (talk) 02:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Normally this is the point I would withdraw such a vote, but given UShistoryanalyzer also supports the motion, it would be improper. But I would not object to an early closure on the lines of it's 2-6 to pass, and would need ten more support votes (highly unlikely) to pass.Andrew5 🎄 (talk) 15:42, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Yay

 * 1) Upon further thought, I prefer this over a permaban. The user is generally not active enough otherwise. -- Techpriest (talk) 22:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Sure. 02:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Yes Shabi DOO  13:03, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 14:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) --<font color="55CDFC">A <font color="Pink">p <font color="EBECF0">r <font color="Pink">i <font color="55CDFC">l Chat? 14:39, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) —cosmikdebris talk stalk 14:46, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) -Flandres (talk) 16:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Get rid of alt-right fuckers. TallMan (talk) 02:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Not much value to the wiki due to too much disruption and bigoted remarks, but too easy to deal with for now for an indef.  19:44, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 6) Plutocow (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Nay

 * 1) -Hastur! (talk) 04:20, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Same thing again.  08:20, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) I feel like this is a roundabout permaban.  Only just barely opposing this ban length, but if enough users override me, I won't shed any tears.  15:55, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) CU has actually made a critical point. Given how most RWians don't edit for pi years and how, if after a certain amount of time might be able to come back, pi years is too long. Even Kiko4564 took a LANCB after under ten months. I mean if you think about it - pi years ago was October 2018, when our world was totally different then now.Andrew5 (talk) 19:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) No. 21:59, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 6) Harsh. Dutchbag (talk) 01:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Goat

 * I'll abstain on this. While I like the idea in theory, pi years might be a bit long. That's the length of my Uncyclopedia block. It also would not allow the user to edit until it's literally 2025, and while I can see this given the disruptive editing ongoing from the account, my preference would be something similar to 2pi months. Andrew5 (talk) 22:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC) Opposing because of CU's comments. Andrew5 (talk) 19:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Yea

 * 1) You can't peaceably chatter with somebody who clearly fell into the alt-right pipeline.--<font color="55CDFC">A <font color="Pink">p <font color="EBECF0">r <font color="Pink">i <font color="55CDFC">l Chat? 18:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone wants this person around but they're not difficult to deal with for the time being. I see little benefit to keeping them around but I do think revert and block for an arbitrary time over pi days, hell even minimum pi weeks, is manageable as long this doesn't lead to a sort of block unblock war, which I can unfortunately see happening with some particular "ha-ha-stirring-crap" guy I'm having in mind. 02:32, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean, but I just worry. This seems like somebody who'd learn nothing from a π ban; who'd immediately return to the wiki to perpetuate toxicity. Perhaps they'd even become more active due to these temporary bans. In my opinion, it's best we get this over with now and not throw it under the rug till April arrives or whatever.--<font color="55CDFC">A <font color="Pink">p <font color="EBECF0">r <font color="Pink">i <font color="55CDFC">l Chat? 04:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Eh, I find that the Alt-Right is actually more agreeable than the Alt-Left. Same with the regular-right and regular-left.  Most studies show that Rightwingers are more willing to have Leftwing friends than Leftwingers are to have Rightwing friends.  It's a tolerance paradox, that was first explained to me when I read "Death of a Salesman".  Why would Willy Loman be a friend of his much more successful neighbor?  Because in cities you can choose your circle of friends, but in small towns you are either friends with your neighbors or you have no friends at all.  So people from small towns are willing to overlook a lot more quirks and oddities than people from cities.  Living in more rural parts I saw this as well; if a Bluegrass music festival happened that month, you went there whether or not you liked Bluegrass because that's all there was.  But in NYC, if you want some sub-sub-genre of metal, you could get that every week, so you never needed to try new things or meet people outside of your clique.  So these Leftwing city folk are some of the least tolerant personally in spite of adhering to an ostensibly more tolerant philosophy, whereas the country-folk adhere to a less tolerant philosophy yet are far more welcoming and tolerant than their Rightwing ideology would suggest.  15:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * True, but not all cities are deep blue, and not all parts of the country are deep red. For example, Jacksonville, which shifted left in 2020 (compared to the rest of Florida), voted for Biden by only 3.8%. In 2016 it voted for Trump by 1.4%, and voted for Romney by 3.6 in 2012. It's rare, but they happen. Meanwhile, Maine's 2nd district is >72% rural but only tilts Republican, voting for Trump by 7.4% in 2020 as an example, and having a Democrat representative. Vermont, meanwhile, is >65% Democrat and 61% rural. It's not totally accurate. Andrew5 (talk) 19:37, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That's just a bizarre reasoning for an absurd argument imo. I can kind of see the whole "the 'right' is less choosier due to their living circumstances" but it's not a clean generalization and I wouldn't rely wholly on this for a credulous statement. Just think real hard about the differences between alt-right and "alt-left" ideology, not to mention how even more ill-defined the latter is. 19:39, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The main problem is, there is an overgeneralization in the city vs rural stuff. Around 50% of Americans lean blue and 39% lean red, but 19% of America lives in the country and 81% lives in cities.  This is how places like Northern New England can even be Democratic, and why the most democratic state is also the most rural, weirdly enough. (Ok, maybe Hawaii is more Democrat and Maine is more rural but you get my point). Look at ME-01, which solidly voted for Biden by 23%, but yet is split roughly fifty fifty between rural and urban land, despite containing Portland which, despite being the largest city in Maine, has only 65,000 residents. Generally, you do see that the very rural counties are the ones that are the most deep red, but it doesn’t always work out like that. Alaska, one of the most sparse states, is not even close to the most Republican, although Alaska is quite urban mainly because of Anchorage and Fairbanks. And even then, Republicans can carry Fairbanks and Biden only narrowly carried Anchorage, though did manage to win much of Alaska’s frontier regions in the north and west which, sure, do contain Nome and Barrow, but both have under 5,000 people.  This is probably because Inuits do lean democrat, but still. And while they might be slowly becoming more Republican, way more of them are going out to vote.  And these people certainly don’t have a lot of entertainment, indeed, Barrow hasn’t seen the sun for a month and won’t for another! And in Nome, the sun literally rises at around noon local time, and sets at 4pm local time. They are in their two months of having an earlier sunset then NYC.  Also, both places are freezing with it being around 10°F (-12°C) in Nome and -15°F(-26°C) in Barrow! Though that also might mean they’re not going out as much. Also, I do want to point out that while yes, a city like NY might be 77% Democrat and 17% Republican off 2020 elections results, Staten Island does still lean red (hence, will be cracked to allow Max Rose to win again), and that 17% of 8.5M people is still over 1.4 million republicans. Of course this all is massive over generalizations but still. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 20:29, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Get rid of alt-right fuckers. TallMan (talk) 02:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Plutocow (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Nay

 * 1) I’ve thought over this long and hard. Since he’s never had a coop like this before, a permaban is too harsh at this moment. I don’t know if he will troll again in pi months, and probably will, but I don’t think it’s fair to ban him on his first case. We gave Scrooge an extra chance, he immediately wasted it. USHA, meanwhile, has not wasted his chance yet even though people have gotten made with him at SB, so might have reformed. And we should give LTEC another chance too, which, again, is his choice if he wants to waste it or not. Unless it’s as bad as ADOC, which I don’t see in this case, I don’t see the positive impact for an instant permaban. If anyone wants to say “I told you so” if there’s a coop in April, fine. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 17:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Perma should be reserved for most extreme of circumstance. This ain't it.  17:25, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Zero point. 17:28, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 4)  18:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Prefer pi years instead. -- Techpriest (talk) 22:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You are free to start your own vote proposal below. Andrew5 (talk) 22:18, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) -Hastur! (talk) 04:20, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Goat

 * 1) If their comments bother enough people then I'll reconsider. They made gross bigoted comments for sure but they're not actively causing trouble like the way Raven was. I don't want this person active in the wiki, however, I'll revert and block to keep their screeds off. 02:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I am moreso on the lines of "first coop, give them a 2nd chance at some point". Probably going to be either in early April 2022 or late February 2025, but we'll see. Andrew5 (talk) 02:35, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Minimum time is over. Just give him a pi month ban and archive this coop. 18:30, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Given the fact that pi years is currently 9-5, and one vote is all that's needed to change the result, I could see some people wanting it to be extended to allow further discussion. The Community Standards does allow these votes to extend for up to two weeks, and while I doubt that would happen this time, I could reasonably see users wanting to extend it. Then again, they said no to doing this in HBC's coop which was similar.Andrew5 (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Given that it's 10-5 now for pi years, it appears that, while narrowly, there is consensus for pi years. Andrew5 (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Hang on
While pi months had the highest vote percentage, isn't it that any option with 2/3 passes. We discussed it 7 months ago and that was the consensus (RationalWiki talk:Community Standards/Archive24). As that vote was 10-5, wouldn't that mean LTEC is banned for pi years and not pi months? I will be going to bed now and therefore be unable to reply until around 13:00 UTC. Andrew5 (talk) 02:40, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No, the vote was 10-6. 06:19, 30 December 2021 (UTC)