User talk:Andrew5/Archive1

Welcome!
JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 17:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Autopatrolled
Kevs  Ping!  11:00, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Welcome templates
They’re usually not substituted. Christopher (talk) 20:34, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, whoops, I know they are on Wikipedia and Uncyclopedia. --Gale5050 (talk) 13:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * We also wait a bit longer, one edit accounts usually aren’t welcomed until they make a second or third edit. The account you just welcomed is a sock of a banned user that vandalised an essay and was then abandoned, there’s a reason no one else welcomed it. Christopher (talk) 21:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, oops. I forgot to double verify like I normally do. --Gale5050 (talk) 22:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Stop welcoming accounts so soon, wait until they make one or two good faith edits like everyone else. Christopher (talk) 17:07, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well now I know not to welcome accounts with blank userpages.Gale5050 (talk) 21:53, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah that’s a common Ken move. The real lesson should be to wait until an account makes a few good faith edits before welcoming like I said, insisting on doing things differently from everyone else is annoying. Christopher (talk) 22:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Generally I only wait for 1 or 2, but I do know now to not welcome users with blank user pages.Gale5050 (talk) 22:07, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Don’t just welcome any account that’s made a few edits, they have to be good faith. Creating an account just to vote in a controversial afd is not an indicator of good faith, especially when other new accounts have been created just to participate in the same drama.
 * Are you doing these things on purpose? Christopher (talk) 14:20, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No, he made an addition constructive contribution. Wanting 2 mainspace edits in good faith is...much. --Gale5050 (talk) 16:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

It’s how everyone else does it, and it’s very easy to make one constructive edit with a troll/sock account if you want it to go undetected. If you’re the odd one out, it’s you who’s wrong, I don’t know why you still visit this site after it was made very clear you’re not welcome. Christopher (talk) 16:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Your right that 80% of others do it. However, just because I do something different doesn’t make it “wrong”. In addition I know they could be a troll/sock, I am assuming good faith which we should all do that they are not.Gale5050 (talk) 18:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

You may find this useful
MOS. Christopher (talk) 21:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah ok. --Gale5050 (talk) 23:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Recognizing trolls
The user you recently created a talk page for is an obvious troll. Such a username wouldn't be acceptable. You need to skip the interaction and head straight to revert and block/vandal bin. 21:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think I can block/vandalbin.--Gale5050 (talk) 00:26, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Correct, you may only do so if you're a sysop. I think what LGM means is that you should just revert them, and make a sysop aware. Harry Potter (talk) 00:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't revert in this case, but ok. --Gale5050 (talk) 00:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Now you can block and vandal bin. Hope it works out nicely for you. 01:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--Gale5050 (talk) 01:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Ages
It's more important that ages - even though they are only to within a year - are continually updated as time goes by. Scream!! (talk) 14:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * oh.--Gale5050 (talk) 14:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Joke block
As you might have guessed, my 3 second block of your account was a joke. On a serious note however I have undone some of your page protections as I did not consider them necessary, hence why I thought that I'd single you out for a joke block. :D Harry Potter (talk) 16:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok.--Gale5050 (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Blocking spambots
Don’t bother unless they actually manage to edit. As a non-tech you can’t see the edits they tried to make, so can’t tell if they’re false positives. Christopher (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, I just know from other things spambots normally are indeffed.--Gale5050 (talk) 16:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If you know for sure they’re spambots, they are. The one you blocked was, but like I said you do get false positives.
 * Whilst I’m here (not worth its own section), we rarely bother with block notices, just explain the reasoning when blocking. The templates you’re using are out of date, and it’s weird having one person notifying every blocked user. Christopher (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ik but I like to inform them they were blocked.--Gale5050 (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You’re told whenever you try to edit anyway. Maybe only tell the accounts you block yourself as a compromise? “This other person blocked you” is a strange message to receive, but “I blocked you, here’s why” is expected. Christopher (talk) 19:54, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That is a reasonable comprimise. --Gale5050 (talk) 19:58, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Blocking obsession
In regards to your recent blocking of 121.200.6.169. What is "Convert to soft block due to possible collateral" ? And why are you second guessing other sysops' blocks? You seem to be obsessed with the mechanics of this site, not taking some time to observe what the typical sysop methods are, and clogging up the recent changes with a lot of meaningless administrivia. Please don't take this as harsh criticism; I'm just trying to understand your motivations. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 00:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict), because we don't have any IP block evasion, a legit user may be operating from that IP. Thats it.--Gale5050 (talk) 00:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I still don’t know what “Convert to soft block due to possible collateral” means. Your block looks identical to mine. What other alchemy was involved in your action that is different from mine? And could you explain the statement “ because we don't have any IP block evasion” ? I don’t really know what you mean there. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 00:58, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I meant "exemption", now I am trying to take a wikibreak here. --Gale5050 (talk) 01:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Uh, so what is "IP block evasion exemption" ? And what is “Convert to soft block due to possible collateral” ? —cosmikdebris talk stalk 01:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * IPBE allows a logged in user to bypass an unrelated hard block on their IP.--Gale5050 (talk) 01:14, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * A difference can be seen in the log. Gale5050's block includes "anonymous users only" (just like Bongolian's block some days earlier), while cosmikdebris' block didn't. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 01:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Stop telling users they've been blocked
We don't do that here. If we did, we'd have a handy template for it. There's really no need for it. Those users will know they've been blocked when they log in. A lot of the type of users that get short term blocks here would only see the messages you left on their talk pages as badges of honour and then try to behave even worse afterwards. You are, in effect, feeding the trolls. And telling other users which sysop blocked them is not only unnecessary, since the user can see that in the block record, it just looks like an open invitation to harass the one who did the blocking. Please stop. Spud (talk) 00:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Relevant thread
Hi Gale5050,

You may want to read this thread: RationalWiki_talk:All_things_in_moderation

Take care, Celeste (talk) 02:25, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments/notes
Please be careful not to insert notes as a regular reference. Notes formatting should look like this. Thanks! 23:20, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Crap.--Gale5050 (talk) 00:14, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Tip: Use the efn template to add references inside notes and make the article look cleaner. 06:04, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Advice
Hello Gale5050, once again I've blocked you for a joke. If it gets too much for you, just stop blocking me back and I will stop, LOL. :D

Now on a serious note, I've noticed that you protected your talk page. I've undone that as it is community property and you don't "own" it (so to speak) and you have no right to protect such pages I'm afraid. As for your block of a certain admin, I've noticed that you've revoked talk page access. Please don't do that for a joke block, the user that you block could end up getting desysoped, and you revoking their talk page access would deprive them of the ability to appeal their block. Thank you. By the way, thanks for correcting my mistake in relation to my joke block of a sysop, I guess I forgot the rules there. Thanks. Harry Potter (talk) 07:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Protecting your own talk page temporarily is fine. I’ve been here for years and do it plenty, and so do others. 12:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Plus it was only for 3.6 days, and there is a mass attack. I will shortly create a non autoconfirmed talk page. Gale5050 (talk) 12:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, thanks for correcting me Duce. I was wrong, my mistake Gale5050. Harry Potter (talk) 14:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

You're falling into Unclescrooge's trap
Gale5050, you blocked him for calling you a fascist, which means he'll go around saying he's proven correct on the matter. You're merely adding more fuel to the raging fire. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 02:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I didn’t think about that. I personally am not too worried, nonetheless thanks for the advice. --Gale5050 (talk) 11:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Consider this a last warning
Stop playing wiki cop man. It's annoying as shit. I originally was just gonna shoot you a message but your talkpage is literally littered with this kinda shit. This is a wiki, at it's core we are looking to collaborate, not play cops on each other. If a user is willing to positively contribute and try a good faith attempt at asking things, blocking them over a technicality is NOT needed and is annoying and drives people away. Please don't have this happen again. Next time it happens you might see this stuff escalate to an ATIM case. Techpriest (talk) 16:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

How hard is it to act like a normal person?
I agree with your decision to unblock that suspected Ken sock, but leaving their user page deleted “to prevent further false positives” makes absolutely no sense. Your comment was phrased in a way that suggested you have a lot more authority than you actually do; remember, we give sysop rights to almost everyone. Christopher (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Would’ve let something this minor slide usually, but as Sirius said above this is the latest example of a consistent pattern. Christopher (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Scratch that. The account was a Ken sock, which is very obvious to anyone who’s been here a bit longer than you. Should’ve been obvious to me, but I assumed it wasn’t without checking his latest edits as Ken almost never bothers getting his socks unbanned. Christopher (talk) 20:51, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I promise I am not a Ken sock, . I know I was having issues but I am not Ken. There were a lot of false positives going around but I am not him. --Gale5050 (talk) 21:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I never said you were a Ken sock, you have poor reading comprehension. Christopher (talk) 21:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Whoops, I read it in diff mode, . --Gale5050 (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry about my reading comprehension comment, it’s easy to misread things when looking at diffs. I’m suspicious of you based on your history on other wikis and generally find you annoying (going by the size of your talkpage I’m not alone there), but that isn’t a reason to be insulting when you haven’t done anything wrong. Christopher (talk) 22:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok,apology accepted, but please don't do it again. --Gale5050 (talk) 23:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Gale, Christopher just graciously apologised. Consider doing the same when users tell you you've done a no-no here and ask you not to do it again. I see you repeating the same behavioural patterns here as before. I mean honestly...just read the contents of your talk_page a couple times and imagine it was some other user. There is no reason you cannot be a useful member here who mostly gets on with users...but if you don't listen to people nor rethink the way you do things here...it's only a matter of time until you get cooped (something which is best avoided for everyone). Shabi  DOO  17:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes however I still don't like being attacked and also,I had a reason to do that. Also, one thing I don't like doing is having someone be unblocked and exposed as a sock and re-blocked, it makes me feel sad, hence why I do certain things.Gale5050 (talk) 20:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

'War on Christmas' edit
I noticed you reverted a change to the article. While it may have been a banned/blocked user (I had to read on who Ken is, but now I can understand why he's here.)

An AR-15 is not an assault rifle. An assault rifle is a firearm, specifically a long gun, firing an intermediate cartridge in bursts or with automatic fire. As the AR-15 is semi-automatic, it is not an assault rifle by definition.

Source: Firearms owner.

Good day. --A21 (talk) 20:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not very good with weapons and accidentally made a false connection, all I used to do is play Fortnite. Thanks.--Gale5050 (talk) 20:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry about coming off as aggressive. Good day. A21 (talk) 21:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It’s ok :) Gale5050 (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

You’re still acting weird
What the fuck is all this about? Christopher (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * What if Gale5050 is a sock of Oliver D. Smith????????????????? Unclescrooge (talk) 20:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * They aren't. 20:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It's exactly what you told me to do. Anyway, scrooge, its gonna be a nice 3 months without you.--Gale5050 (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Whatever, fascist. Unclescrooge (talk) 20:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Gale, do you know how a bot works? 21:36, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * kind of. -Gale5050 (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * A bot runs a set of commands until it's either stopped or told to stop. Spam bots will post on any available page given enough time, depending on their programing. To be clear, they're running a fixed set of scripts, similar to an animatronic in a theme park. 22:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I figure you'd learn the block tools but you're not using them appropriately. Just leave blocked users be, it's not hard. 23:03, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Might want to consider removing this user’s sysop. 23:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * To be fair Gale5050 did make a genuine mistake given that Christopher did say that talk page access should only be revoked if abused on my talk page. Can I please ask if this advice applies to LGM's advice applies to everyone then? Harry Potter (talk) 04:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don’t think it was a mistake, it’s not like he’s ever listened to me before. He disagreed with what I said (despite it being in the blocking policy) and wanted to prove a point. My advice applied more to blocking someone yourself; although I’m a big supporter of leaving talkpage access unblocked, I rarely fiddle with other people’s blocks to reenable it, it’s annoying. Christopher (talk) 09:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair point, I wasn't aware. I guess I'll learn that lesson for the future. Thanks. Harry Potter (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Your mop
I've taken it. I'm not giving it back either. Running around misusing sysop privileges on a whim isn't welcome. 23:19, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, well, I knew it was coming. Bye, for real. Maybe i will try again in a few months.--Gale5050 (talk) 23:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Lol just take responsibility. 00:23, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Good job GC, if you agree with Gale5050 then you're more than welcome to take my mob mop. If you don't, then I'll take it that you don't agree, and I'll carry on as before. As for you Gale5050, this thing about you allegedly misusing your mop is about you, not about me. If you have a problem with my alleged misuse of sysop powers then feel free to take it to ATIM or failing that to the Coop. I was only joking when I blocked the majority of people that I blocked, to the best of my knowledge they are all sysops meaning that they can unblock themselves. Thanks. Harry Potter (talk) 04:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Can you please oversight this revision?
I didn't realize for a sec that I was editing under my IP. Absolutely nothing (talk) 20:57, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No, you need to speak to an admin. However, you can ask at a sysop's talk page such as User talk:Christopher. --Gale5050 (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Done as requested. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 21:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Shit show
The fact that you would rather delete the page rather than fix it (e.g., RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Archive 2021), plus your home page that simply states, "A user who just lurks RW:AFD.", plus your talk page User talk:Gale5050 that shows a shitload of stupid, together these indicate that you are just here to destroy and/or cause trouble. It's up to you to prove otherwise. Oh. Bongolian (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia
We I miss you. It&#39;s Farmhand, BTW! (talk) 23:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You were right to cross out the we. Shabi  DOO  07:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Could you do this somewhere else, not on my talk page? Andrew5 mobile (talk) 13:18, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

What's up
I see you're a weather nerd. I was wondering if you'd know much about the future of climate change in China, an area which happens to have insnared my academic interest (historical/cultural interest, not so much meteorological interest). You've definitely heard about the Henan floods, but I was wondering if I could get some uncommonly educated insight out of you. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 04:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I've heard of the Henan floods, partially caused by . I don't know as much on China as other countries, but depending on what it is I may be able to help. I moreso do it with North America and to some extent Europe, Africa and South America. --Andrew5 (talk) 12:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Well I suppose it's only natural that you'd be most informed about the area you inhabit. In that case, I'll adjust my question to your area of expertise. How do you think rising sea levels and worsening wildfires/hurricanes will effect the future of United States politics? Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Whichever political party takes it more seriously. Part of why Barack Obama won with such a landslide here in the Northeast was because of Hurricane Sandy. Part of why Trump lost, was climate change.--Andrew5 (talk) 20:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you think that the West/East coasts could ever become too hostile to inhabit? If so, could ecological catastrophes like that exacerbate pre-existing political instability? It's just that people tend to be pessimistic about United States politics, some going as far as predicting a Soviet-style dissolution. I'm wondering if climate change could contribute to that possibility. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 20:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Depends. Certainly Florida and Delaware could sink due to Global warming, and hurricanes will likely continue to wreak havoc on Louisiana, Texas and possibly even Mississippi, Alabama, North Carolina and elsewhere. Besides low lying areas in the Northeast, I think they will be spared. Could climate change contribute to it? No, because our constitution forbids it. However, it could lead to Democrats dominating in US politics for a while, similarly to the 1930s and early 1940s, or what Republicans did during the 1920s. --Andrew5 (talk) 21:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Well I can see that hurricanes are what you understand best. I live in British Columbia, so the extreme weather I'm familiar with would be wildfires, although it isn't nearly as bad here as it would be down south (California). Would you know much about the qualitative differences between how wildfires and hurricanes damage ecological stability or human infrastructure? Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 21:13, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not too good, but I know wildfires burn things and hurricanes is more-so break things. I also know, that fires were created by a massive heat wave, just 2 months ago, where parts of British Columbia got as high as 121°F or 49°C. (Funnily enough, night was 69°F or 21°C, so....) I do know South Lake Tahoe is getting devistated, and it is causing issues. It did get down into the 30s last night (or just lower single digits in Celsius), and tonight is going to be just one degree above freezing,hopefully that helps.--Andrew5 (talk) 21:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I suppose that all we can do is hope it gets better. It's interesting seeing someone as interested in weather/meteorology as you, I don't think I've encountered someone like that before. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 21:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If you go to Wikipedia, and their WikiProject for tropical cyclones, it currently has 115 members, although weather only has 23...I used to be in WP:WPTC on HurricaneTracker495 before getting for being a sockpuppet and block evasion.--Andrew5 (talk) 21:29, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

For being unable to wait a couple minutes
I was obviously working on starting the debate. Plutocow (talk) 16:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And the AFD wasn't even formatted the right way, well, I'll try to fix it. --Andrew5 (talk) 16:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Death penalty discussion
Let's continue it here so we may each respond at our leisure. What positive social effects does the death penalty have? Why should I support it? 22:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying you should,, I'm saying I do. Looking at this article, it is just being used improperly. A four year old literally had an entire life, and lost it due to murder. They deserve it. --Andrew5 (talk) 23:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think such moralistic arguments are very good. US military command signed off on a drone strike that killed seven people, including at least one child. Do they deserve to die? 23:03, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Depends. Were they attempting to save a country from invasion? Or just to be mean? As an aside, the answer should be to cause less civilian deaths, but sometimes are unavoidable when attempting greater good, However they had nothing good to do by killing a 4 year old and most would say they deserve to die. --Andrew5 (talk) 23:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The US military doubled down on that drone strike after it became an embarrassment. Also, serial killers aren't just cartoonish "bad guys". Usually they're lashing out, or promoting a cause, or detached from reality. So, what's the difference? Why shouldn't we execute political leaders? 23:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll remind you that at least one child was killed in said drone strike. 23:44, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I heard. But was this drone strike in an attempt to free Iraq from terrorists? If so, great! If not, then they should be punished, albeit not sure if death is appropriate. It depends. I'd definitely say, though, it is inconsistent. --Andrew5 (talk) 00:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It didn't even happen in Iraq. Also, your understanding of geopolitics seems a bit juvenile. Plutocow (talk) 00:20, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * So let me ask you another question then. Do you think the legal system should enforce morality, or do you think it should enforce law? 00:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Law,easily. But sometimes mortality is necessary to enforce law. It's sad...but true. --Andrew5 (talk) 01:12, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * So what if the most legally effective thing is, in your view, immoral? 01:33, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I’d say it depended on how necessary it is legally and how immoral. Think of how heartbreaking the story is and whatnot. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 10:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Why? The legal system isn't in the profession of providing sympathy, as you yourself acknowledge. It is in the profession of enforcing a set of rules and standards, nothing more. Be the story heartbreaking or be it not, all should be judged without favor or zeal. 10:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Side discussion
Andrew, would you be in favour of the state chopping off the hands of serial thief's? Would you be in support of amputating a criminal's leg if they chopped off say, an ex-girlfriend's leg as some revenge for leaving him? Shabi DOO  00:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No. Although these analogies are getting a bit ridiculus, complex and irrelevant. I mean, would you want still alive? --Andrew5 (talk) 01:11, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Really Andrew? Why is it ridiculous. Why is chopping off a hand ridiculous but murdering someone not? Shabi  DOO  01:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Please stop calling execution "murder". It isn't. 01:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed you are right commie. I should be using "homocide". Good catch.  Shabi  DOO  01:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You should be using "killing", not legal terms. It does no one any favors by trying to conflate legality and morality. 01:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Homocide is not a legal term commie, and I would prefer to hear Andrew's response than disagreement over terms. Shabi  DOO  01:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Homicide seems to be a legal term, but "when one human being causes the death of another" is perhaps even broader than killing. Either way, I'm not sure why you jump to amputations for less severe crimes; would amputating limbs from Tsarnaev be justified?  Would it be too much, not enough?  It seems possible that somebody could think that theft doesn't justify amputations, but that murder, say, justifies execution, but it seems more difficult to maintain that cases wherein execution is thought to be justified are also cases where amputation would be prohibitively cruel. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒   talk  02:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Dictionary entry: the killing of one person by another. I don't see anything in that definition which makes it a "legal" term. In the first scenario I am referring to an example which happens in some Islamic countries (amputation for theft) and in the second scenario it is a "tit for tat" punishment. I thought it would have been obvious for anyone familiar with examples of sharia punishment but I guess I should have been more clear. Again though, I would like to hear Andrew's answer in any case instead of bickering over one of the least important terms and questioning why I am using an analogy before I even get to my point. Shabi  DOO  08:40, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok, well I was asleep for the last like eight hours (it’s still well before seven). Anyway, would I view chopping hands off of thieves practical? No. Or the other one? Well, that’s a bit more complicated. I’d still say no, but they might have killed her, justifying life in prison. In most cases, murder justifies just that. But sometimes people go above and beyond there murders, and think the murder of very small kids for no reason, or the murder of 10 people. That’s when the death penalty is needed. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 10:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Andrew. Could you explain why you answered no to those? Shabi  DOO  11:12, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Because in those cases, it's completely impractical (and for the thief, they can still steal with legs). In some cases, the death penalty is not impractical, and is reserved for the worst of crimes. Btw, what you said is what they used to do in ancient Mesopotamia. --Andrew5 (talk) 12:13, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * So practicality is what matters as opposed to retribution? Shabi  DOO  12:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Both matter, equally as much.Andrew5 (talk) 13:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If they are both equally as much then I don't understand how an amputation would be that different in either case. Let's take robbery: While chopping off one of their hands doesn't completely stop someone from physically robbing again, it certainly makes it somewhat more difficult. Unless they go to incredible lengths to adapt, there will be at least some forms of physical robbery that cannot be done anymore (for example sophisticated pick-pocketing), not to mention it will be more difficult to convince other criminals to cooperate with them in physically stealing things. It isn't ideally practical, but it is practical to some extent. You could for example blind the prisoner and then it would make stealing in the future extremely difficult (though not impossible). In fact, I would argue that blinding the prisoner would be more practically effective as jailing them for 10 years, as long jail sentences are not effective deterrents either. In the case of someone chopping off another person's arm (either as torture or the unfortunate result of an attack), having one less arm will make it pretty difficult to do it again in the future (more so than theft) and chopping off both their arms will make it extremely difficult, blinding them will make it an extremely practical solution. Both examples are also clearly quite retributive and satisfy some human beings fairly dark and primitive lust for revenge and the criminal suffering terribly. But the only practical punishment you seem to be entertaining here is if they are never able again to commit the crime again in public. I am not going to debate whether this is reasonable when there are almost as practical alternatives (such as blinding a prisoner), but if keeping them from committing the crime again towards the public is one of the two most important goals, then wouldn't life long solitary confinement keep them from both attacking the public AND attacking fellow prisoners? And wouldn't that also be a particularly vicious punishment, enough to satisfy the lust for making that criminal suffer terribly? Shabi  DOO  13:23, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * [ec] I didn't think about it that way. My support for the death penalty has weakened, but I believe in extreme cases it could be appropriate. Definitely to be used sparingly, few and far between. Like at Terre Hutte, from 2003 to 2020 there were no executions, as there should be.Anyway rn I am busy IRL.Andrew5 (talk) 13:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

WTF
You reverted my edit of a talk page? Are you phuqing serious? Furthermore, the fact that you would stoop to calling me a sock based on that edit is altogether clownish on your part. I'm just a new RationalWiki editor who believes in the site's mission and was answering a valid question.Field Dreamer (talk) 13:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll reinstate it. But,, I'd still be careful. Please keep in mind that we have been having a lot of accounts like you who were socks of Ken or Mike and we don't want to give them attention, so I reverted your edit out of fear. My advice - work on mainspace first before going to other namespaces, or set up a user page, so people don't misunderstand like I did. --Andrew5 (talk) 13:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, I didn't check your contribs good enough. Sorry. --Andrew5 (talk) 13:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Andrew, the fact that you have been so quick to apologize makes me regret the rudeness of my response. I apologize to you for that, and I thank you for your own apology. In that case, you don't have to restore my edit. I will indeed be more careful in the future. All the best to you.Field Dreamer (talk) 13:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Rant and rave: mammatus clouds
Figure it's a topic of interest. Good thing I was also into that stuff a while ago, so I know a thing or two about weather and clouds. 03:26, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not too familiar with clouds, and that I am least familiar with. --Time change coming up November 7, Andrew5 (talk) 12:36, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Please stop being a bureaucratic pissant.
Just a polite reminder that we don't have to relitigate every single obvious alt or bad faith actor. Some people are worthy of a defense, but seriously it's not worth clogging the ATIM/Coop with that stuff. All it does is feed the trolls. -- Techpriest (talk) 14:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I read over ADOC, and it seemed kind of iffy. TBH though, ADOC was almost as established as Scrooge, so since we did something for Scrooge I figured here was a good idea too. The main reason I started it was because I saw the situation, and I wanted to stop a "wash rinse repeat". Time change coming up November 7, Andrew5 (talk) 14:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Moral of the story: Tone it down somewhat. Shabi  DOO  19:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I will take that into account next time.--Andrew5 mobile (talk) 19:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

And.... you're hatted
Bruh. 04:03, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Just another reminder that not every troll account requires an ATIM. Plutocow (talk) 23:36, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I still don’t think Dunbar is a Kensock, but rather a Ken meatpuppetry (although meatpuppetry is a form of block evasion). I see what you’re saying, but I feel caution should be used. --Andrew5 mobile (talk) 23:39, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Your Warning
Sorry about losing my composure in editing that user's talk page. I lost my cool in the heat of the moment and, upon revisiting it, immediately began to regret it. I won't let it happen again.Field Dreamer (talk) 23:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry - I should've known. I know warn-v, warn-t, warn-s exist, but I shouldn't have overextended. However, I still do have a hardline view of gravedancing and consider it to be personal attacks. How I was treated on WP reflects some of my behaviour here. --American time change coming up November 7, Andrew5 (talk) 23:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

For thinking of using a racist argument in the Saloon Bar
Even if you didn't go through with it, the fact that you thought it would help your case says a lot. Yes, I'm aware that I'm trouting you for a thoughtcrime, but really, you should know better. Plutocow (talk) 00:28, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well then shouldn't the fact that I didn't go through with it help my case? --American time change coming up November 7, Andrew5 (talk) 00:52, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No, because you essentially admitted that I refuted your non-racist arguments yet still held on to your position, suggesting that the racist argument is the reason why. Also, you basically admitted that you're racist. Plutocow (talk) 01:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The last statement is completely false. The only reason it was is because it would be how Republicans would conquer New Orleans, and why it's a good idea. American time change coming up November 7, Andrew5 (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This isn't 1860, New Orleans isn't a valuable city anymore because without constant upkeep it would be underwater. And you said here that your only "good" counterargument would be offensive, which you later clarified was racist against black and Chinese people. The fact that you apparently thought it was a good argument does say a lot about how you view those groups. Take this as a lesson about keeping your mouth shut on embarrassing details, since now I'm not going to have as much patience with you if you say something bigoted since I'll know that it likely wouldn't be an accident. Plutocow (talk) 01:13, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * (ec) I mean, the Mississippi watershed does feed into 31 states. However, I can see your point about that. However, if you had known my Uncyclopedia issues in May, or my Wikipedia issues in December, you'd eventually find out that while I can generally keep them down, I can't always. beliefs can't be suppressed forever. American time change coming up November 7, Andrew5 (talk) 01:20, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * (I'm starting to see why you were banned from Wikipedia) Maybe try working to change your beliefs on the subject? At least you're somewhat self-aware, but racism isn't rational. Plutocow (talk) 01:37, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, I’m gonna ask a question - on what date did you learn I was banned from Wikipedia? Andrew5 mobile (talk) 01:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure you've said as much here multiple times. Again, best not to reveal embarassing details. Plutocow (talk) 01:46, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh…right. I think it was first revealed by Cassie, on 5/28, as I tried to conceal it. From there I got kinda open about it. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 01:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Andrew, even seemingly "light" racism can be menacing and in the aggregate it makes the lives of minorities difficult. If you're lucky to be someone from a non-marginalised group, it is easy to dismiss it all as just banter or something people should "not get so offended about" but over time this shit can be draining and an impediment to a less barrier filled life that non-marginalised take for granted. Please be mindful of this and respect everyone on this wiki. You don't get banned from Wikipedia or uncyclopedia for nothing. You fully deserved your block/bans. You've been relatively amicable here. Don't ruin it now. Shabi  DOO  10:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I will keep that in mind. Andrew5 (talk) 12:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

soft reminder
Hey, please don't make edit reasons like this again. They're kinda spammy when on people's watchlists. I see that Bongolian gave you a short block already for the offensive nature of the content (since you might not be aware, it's a corollary of the "autistic screeching" meme), but keep in mind that other people do usually read the edit reasons. While jokey stuff doesn't matter, please don't make it spammy. -- Techpriest (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I had one other edit idea I was debating, and then I decided to do what I wouldn't do on Wikipedia (in light of recent events). Long story short, for once, Wikipedia's way was correct. --Andrew5 (talk) 21:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That edit summary was indeed offensive, and I deleted it for the same. Don't do that again. LongStylus (talk) 01:47, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I am not ban evading
I am not ban evading. I know my contributions have been sometimes disruptive, and I have misused admin tools, but I am not ban evading. I am the same as Andrew5 on Wikipedia, and Gale5050 on Uncyclopedia. There was crosswiki abuse but I have not previously used another account. I was simply removing the banned tags because consensus has ruled against tagging socks. I would like a re-evaluation of the situation please. --Andrew5 (talk) 21:10, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, if it was a misclick I do understand. (Though I do doubt that). --Andrew5 (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, it was a mistake! Bongolian (talk) 21:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That’s ok, I have made accidential rollbacks all the time. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 21:52, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Heading text
I sincerely apologize, I didn't realize this vote ended a few weeks ago.--A p r i l Chat? 19:04, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's ok. In the future,check the top of the AFD, if it says "Keep" in the result, then that means kept. I agree it probably could have a better signal for closing, such as vote closed and vote closed bottom. --Andrew5 (talk) 19:08, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Another reminder
Your edit summary here is disruptive. You've already been told to stop doing that and you haven't. Stop it. LongStylus (talk) 22:32, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I actually do remember that. However I assumed it meant "don't do things to offend autistics", not "don't spam vowels". (As an aside, there is a 45% chance I'm autistic). --Andrew5 (talk) 22:53, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I can assume it's disruptive only because of the way the edit summary forces the screen to elongate, and I will admit I didn't realize that. Technical oversight on my part. We should consider adding this to CS. -Andrew5 (talk) 23:15, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Techpriest clearly warned you for writing a "spammy" edit summary. LongStylus (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It was subtle, but it was there. Probably should've read that a few times. Fun fact: I didn't understand quite what went on with Ken till I read his coop the 2nd time. --Andrew5 (talk) 00:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright. Be careful next time and happy editing. LongStylus (talk) 00:46, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Andrew, this site runs in part on "don't shoot your own foot off". We don't need to amend the CS for disruptive edit summaries because it's just one of those things that makes sense. -- Techpriest (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I have a question for you
Don't take it wrong please. By any chance, are you from an EAS discord server? I cannot help but think that. If I am wrong, sorry. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 18:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No.--Andrew5 (talk) 20:13, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Award
As one of the users that complained about you on the support chat I must say I'm surprised. GeeJayK (talk) 22:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Never would've expected that. --Andrew5 (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Discord
RW discord is awful. I caught LGM and a few others talking shit about me too. It’s the posse, man. Acei9 07:07, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm really sorry Andrew5 for talking about you like this on Discord. I don't think you're a bad person, I was just vexed from the behavior and thought venting in Discord where there's not much response and "main" drama, was a good idea and maybe try to get a bigger opinion on how to approach. I want people to trust me and see me as honest and sincere, but this is my fault if people start thinking I'm gossiping behind people's backs and they start doubting my sincerity or maybe they think I'm an asshole who shouldn't be running the wiki. Hell maybe you'll think I'm apologizing only because you "noticed". If you don't like me, that's understandable. I don't fault you. You're learning place, you'll probably get the hang of it eventually, In the meantime, though, I'll probably curtail conversations about people there; though I admit, I've complained about USHA and probably a few others too, so that'll have to change. 07:58, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * fuck off. Acei9 14:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yikes, Ace, why are you an asshole, I'm trying to change. Hmmpghgh. 22:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Listen up, pal. You talk shit about me on Discord, allow Oxy carte Blanche to lie and abuse his her rights, haul me - for no reason, to the Mod page for merely speaking to you and you follow that up, within a matter of days or weeks or whatever, with a happy birthday message on my user page. And you think I’m treating you badly? Are you sure you wanna die on this hill? Acei9 06:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * At least pretend to have some modicum of self-awareness. Acei9 06:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Nice Ace, misgendering Oxy for the umpteenth time. Also, I am amazed how you can be both "relaxed and not giving a shit about anything" and cursing at people for shit that gets you riled up. At least pretend to have some modicum of self-awareness. Shabi  DOO  07:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Please Ace. I just want to be forgiven. I'm trying to resolve this and apologize and show regret. Andrew5 doesn't need this either. 07:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Wow Ace way to be a passive aggressive asshole and a massive dickwad at that! Can’t you get it through your thick head that Mario is trying to move on from this or are you too fucking stupid to realize that? Adam Warlock (talk) 07:33, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should continue this on Andrew5's talk page. 08:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. --Andrew5 (talk) 12:09, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Admitting fault
Ping me when you're ready to do so. 17:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Contending block
That block isn't fair. You should know I'm busy improving an article and not to block someone indefinitely for minor issues. Also remember; I'm not a sysop and can't unblock myself. --Andrew5 (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware that you aren't able to unblock yourself. That's sort of the point. 17:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That might be true, but it's not allowed per CS. Generally, the block would go to 9 hours. However if you demand we discuss this on my user talk page first, I guess we can do that. --Andrew5 (talk) 17:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no discussion. You tried to play tone police and looked the fool. Fess up. Or stay blocked. Either way the intellectual level here improves. 17:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll admit it, I was trying to take Dutchbag's side here without revealing it. --Andrew5 (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Nice try, but being snarky won't move me. 17:55, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that Dutchbag was correct here, however I wasn't sure how to express it. So I failed to read That's not a joke or outburst by the way, I really need to know if I'm engaging with someone with severe developmental issues. to attempt to dink you out on something mainly because I am still upset over the whole debate we had four months ago, which you kind of managed to win. --Andrew5 (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Uh huh... Sure... 18:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Requesting outside input of the situation. --Andrew5 (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I would need to see where the source of the dispute is to comment. I also don't have time now to deal with it for a few hours. Try another mod. Bongolian (talk) 18:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * An infinite block, GC? Unblocked assuming this is a massive overreaction. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks Pan. Andrew5 (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Reblocked. I set very reasonable criteria. 18:21, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No, you didn't, because you refused to accept my concession. Honestly I should've filed at ATIM when I had the chance. My mistake not to.--Andrew5 (talk) 18:23, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Flandres for re-unblocking me.Andrew5 (talk) 18:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Honestly, given it's 2-1 on sysops for unblocking me, you should just let it stand and have us discuss this in the Saloon. You're really making yourself look worse. Andrew5 (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You didn't concede anything. You just claimed you were acting maliciously. And here's the thing, I don't care. I'm just tired of tone arguments. 18:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Seriously, all you have to do is ping me and be willing to admit that you jumped the gun and that my bluntness wasn't an ad hom for the reasons I laid out. 18:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Or failing that, explain how it qualifies as an ad hom. 18:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, if you're tired of tone arguments, then why didn't you just say so in the Saloon and ask me to back out of the discussion. I would have done so. And all of that without the drama. In any case, I consider that to be insulting to Dutchbag, and when I said that I factored in your other recent behaviour in the Saloon. Andrew5 (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Because three users in the last week have misused accusations of ad homs to shut down discussions rather than engaging in the meat of the matters, and when pressed they all run away like weaselly cowards. So I'm forcing your hand. 18:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, but then you should have described that, saying something like, Andrew5, three people in the last week tried to use that exact same argument and when pressed they ran away. I would recommend backing out now, or else I will block you, not block me first. Andrew5 (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That would be a fallacious argument. Which is sort of the thing I'm trying to clean up... Because the point is for you to show me, if I'm wrong,. how I'm wrong. Because I want to be correct, not incorrect. Duh. 18:42, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Even if it wasn't ad hominem, it was still mean of you to say and you should not have said it. --Andrew5 (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This isn't daycare. I don't care if it's mean, only if it's correct or not. 18:44, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This isn't daycare, you're 100% right. However, Dutchbag did nothing to justify calling him retarded. If you tried doing that in public you would be under fire. Also, may I remind you if not for Dutchbag, LTEC would be banned for pi years, not pi months (probably not relevant but)Andrew5 (talk) 18:46, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for blocking GC, can you unblock me now? --Andrew5 (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Much ado about nothing. Ignore, mock, or refute—censorship is uncalled for. Leucippus Salva veritate 18:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

For repeatedly interacting with Ken
17:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, . I got in trouble the last time I accused someone of Ken (RationalWiki:Saloon_bar/Archive404), so I decided not to accuse. And because I was interested, I decided to discuss it with him. --Andrew5 (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Probably the biggest clue that an account might be a Ken sock is that they excessively start talking about Christianity and/or Atheism in governments. Granger in that case didn't do anything that is typical for Ken to do. 17:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. --Andrew5 (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

A statement
It appears I am under fire for not condemming the Alabama gerrymander. Well, in my opinion it isn't a super big partisian gerrymander, and it wasn't sued for such. It was sued as a racial gerrymander. But I don't think its as bad as partisian gerrymandering (hear me out), because it allows blacks to elect members of choice. But they aren't a political party, and plenty of majority white districts have blacks. Black Republicans exist! I support the VRA as a whole, but the congressional districts stuff sounds confusing. This is a slightly right position to have. However, remember I'm center-right, not pure center. If your accusing me of thinking of my opinions because of my ideology, then this is proof I'm not. While I find gerrymandering to be horrible, I also need to be convinced it is a partisian gerrymander. Not that I don't support fair black representation; I do; but I don't support forcing an amount of Democratic districts to do so. --Andrew5 (talk) 12:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That was painful to read. You are just digging yourself deeper into your hole of bias and hypocrisy. Yikes Shabi  DOO  15:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

"You do realize that, according to an expert UN official, solitary confinement is considered a form of psychological torture?"

You: "That's unfortunate"

This sort of mellow, shrugging reaction to a person arguing about a potential human rigths violation(!!!!!) is completely inappropriate and considered by others to be outright disgusting, you do realize that right? 15:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you not realize what happens to prisoners? They are getting attacked by other prisoners in gangs. By advocating against punitive segregation you are advocating for prison violence. Punitive segregation must continue. It is too dangerous for our country. The people advocating against it are the progressives, some of which believe crazy lies like white people ruined this country and are really far on the left and sometimes are almost as bad as MTG or Boebert. You commit crimes? You get punished. That’s the law, which I believe firmly in. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Minus the cheating, I’m politically similar to Nixon. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 16:34, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you not realise that there are more effective measures for preventing violence in prison than solitary confinement? 'Punitive segregation' is a pretty disgusting euphemism for what solitary confinement actually is in practice. Anyone who enact punitives segregation is committing torture, and for justice to have any meaning they themselves should be convicted, and probably go to prison. It's as simple as that. There are few things quite as disgusting as the spectacle of someone rubbing their hands in glee at the thought of committing violence or abuse with "justification". The gun nuts who obsess over fantasies where they kill an intruder with their hobby toy, the wannabe hard men who get sloshed at a bar and wait for an excuse to start a fight, the cops who are itching for a member of the public to show any degree of defiance so they can wade in with fists and batons - they are all the same kind of fucked-up shitheads. You may believe in 'the law' but you sure as fuck don't believe in justice. Queexchthonic murmurings 16:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Andrew. Have you ever been incarcerated? 16:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * To address "I also need to be convinced it is a partisian gerrymander. Not that I don't support fair black representation; I do; but I don't support forcing an amount of Democratic districts to do so.", the average black American votes Democrat. Racial Gerrymanders are de facto partisan gerrymanders, and vise versa. 16:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You probably shouldn't say things like "Minus the cheating, I’m politically similar to Nixon.", it makes you look pretty bad. As to belief in law, that's all well and good, but if you believe in law instead of morality you're kinda a garbage human being, since you'll support whatever the current legal status quo is. I really shouldn't have to point out this issue, anyone with a basic understanding of morals, ethics, laws, and history can understand the problem here. 17:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * there probably are ways of stopping prison violence before punitive segregation, but at some point, you don’t have other options. Also I already understand I can be a garbage human being at time. --Andrew5 mobile (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Punitive segrgation does not stop prison violence: it is a form of prison violence. Queexchthonic murmurings 17:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't go ignoring me. You've never been incarcerated have you? 18:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No, although my dad is a probation officer. --Andrew5 (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

That is a stupid statement about Nixon. It's like saying if we take all the milk out of the production of this product, we can still call it cheese. Nixon fundamentally was a cheater since he was opposed to the rule of law, "When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal." This was not an offhand remark of his, it was connected to his criminal activities and paranoia. Bongolian (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, so why should we preserve solitary confinement as a method of punishment? 18:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That's from a legitimate, albeit fringe, school of political thought. 18:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The idea that Nixon was a crook is a fringe thought? That he was paranoid? That he thought himself above the law? Bongolian (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Nixon did, and should be condemned for thinking like that. But besides that, my beliefs are pretty on par. Watergate really tarnished what would have otherwise been one of our greatest presidents. Also, the reason I want to preserve solitary confinement is similar to why I support the death penalty, FYI. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Andrew, try not to think in such ridiculous black and white terms. There are rarely cases where something must be either everything or nothing. That is, it cannot be that because some prisoners face violence you can only choose between allowing violence or locking them up alone in cruel conditions. There are MANY other solutions. Thinking in black and white is what has led to America's absurd and inhumane justice system. Prison populations need not be so high, the conditions that lead to such crime and violence can be dealt with, better funded prisons are something such a rich country as America can easily afford...when poorer countries already can. Locking away someone alone for their own protection should be an extremely rare policy, a last resort, and one in which another solution should be found. While so many far right Americans focus on "freedom of speech" and "the right to bear arms", they ought to focus as much on every single other article and amendment to the constitution equally. "Cruel and unusual punishment" seems to be a chronically ignored part of the constitution considering that fear of being shanked or raped is a daily concern for a not tiny portion of the American prison population. A rather cruel punishment for anyone...especially someone who committed tax fraud or lied in court. Shabi  DOO  19:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Andrew, I have no doubt that Nixon, like most (though not all Presidents) did achieve something notable and admirable. Could you give us five examples of unique and impressive things Nixon did? Shabi  DOO  19:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The idea that the president has the power to shape the law, and should act as such. I forgot the name of the school of thought but it's a real one. So you think criminals are "Bad People" and that the law should have free reign to treat them as it will?  19:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * America probably can afford better prisons...although like everything with the economy, in order to do one thing, you have to sacrafise something else (and the $600 billion we spend on the military is probably necessary.) As far as what Nixon did, he funded the EPA, SALT/detente, Ping Pong Diplomacy, and ended the war in Vietnam, for four. Although I might discredit the Vietnam stuff due to the fact that I jumped on Biden for Afghanistan, and I have to think of it on both sides as like Afghanistan, we lost. --Andrew5 (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

"Watergate really tarnished what would have otherwise been one of our greatest presidents." "the $600 billion we spend on the military is probably necessary." I cannot imagine anyone writing either of these things except as a piece of performance art. Nixon was racist and anti-Semetic to his very core, and it showed in his administration. The US could comfortably slash its military budget by 90% (although some of those savings would have to go to demob programmes to properly support the ex-military personnel) and would actually be safer as a country. Without a grossly over-provisioned military, it wouldn't be able to interfere in other countries to satisfy the whims of corporate interests (which is most of its ill-starred ventures, let's be honest), which in turn would result in less well-deserved animus towards it, hence greater security. Queexchthonic murmurings 19:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Please answer the question. Do you think that criminals are "Bad People" that the State should do as it wills with? 19:28, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Nixon was anti-Semitic? I mean, I’m Jewish, but I don’t look at antisemtism that much in factoring in this unless it gets to a level of Steve King, the former representative from Iowa’s 4th district who was thankfully ousted in 2020 by Randy Feenstra. But yes, I do think criminals are bad people that the government can do at will with. When you commit a crime, you waive your personal freedoms. That’s why they can lock you up in the first place. They shouldn’t on your first offense but if it continues, yes. I agree we can cut some out of our military, but not 90%. China has 60% of our economy and 40% of the soending, so i wouldn’t be comfortable with anything less then $400 billion. But that’s still $200 billion going elsewhere including safer prisons. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 19:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, I think we've safely established that you have no moral or ethical framework whatsoever. Further, we can also infer that your objections to the abolition of solitary confinement on humanitarian grounds are a complete farce, as you'd have no reason to object to any (mis)treatment of inmates by the State. 19:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Morals are important, but the law is more important. Also, the laws were established on grounds of morals. For instance, laws against stealing and land ownership laws are derived from the Tragedy of the Commons, which is in APES 5.1. Andrew5 (talk) 19:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * So, were this the 1800s, you'd defend the institution of slavery against abolitionists? 19:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I would argue that if you had a son Andrew, and he foolishly cheated on his taxes and ended up in prison for five years, you would be upset if he were at fear every day of being stabbed or raped just as much as you would be horrified if he were locked away 23 hours a day from other human contact wasting away his mental health because of fear of other prisoners. It is easy in the abstract to think of prisoners as remorseless agents of evil, but it is another to do the less sociopathic thing as see them as human beings with the ability to rehabilitate and, gasp, every once in a while have extenuating circumstances that perhaps don't mean they deserve prison rape and having their brain rot away. It's up to you which way you look at fellow humans Shabi  DOO  20:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd be more afraid of him getting abused by prisoners then him being locked up 23 hrs a day. Physical abuse is worse then mental abuse. You said, don't mean they deserve prison rape. Locking up dangerous prisoners in solitary is how to prevent that. --Andrew5 (talk) 20:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean, I would strongly suspect that Andrew's cold heartedness is pure performance, mainly because he didn't open with indifference but with supposed concern for the well being of inmates. He has the unfortunate habit of trying to be what he thinks people want to see, rather than having an authentic self. 20:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No it isn't. 20:16, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Then how do you suppose we do it? --Andrew5 (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Nixon was deeply antisemitic, what one could call vulgar antisemitism (Nixon). He included Jews in his White House staff (e.g., Kissinger) because he was above all pragmatic, but the Nixon tapes revealed he frequently used racist slurs, stereotypes and paranoid ideas about Jews. Bongolian (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, wow. Andrew5 (talk) 20:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * By not choosing between letting the state torture them, or them torturing each other. Seriously, this isn't rocket science. 20:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * But their is no way to do it w/o a risk for prison violence. I guess...give them some access to things, but then that kinda defeats the purpose of prison IMO. --Andrew5 (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "But their is no way to do it w/o a risk for prison violence." You've asserted this quite a few times, you should elaborate. "I guess...give them some access to things, but then that kinda defeats the purpose of prison IMO." And what's the purpose of prison? 20:54, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * To lock up criminals,protect them from society, make them pay for what they did, and most importantly, to show society whey not to commit crimes. --Andrew5 (talk) 21:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "To lock up criminals" And why do you think we should do that? "protect them from society" Why do you think we need to protect them from society? "make them pay for what they did" And why do you think being brutal to inmates accomplishes that? "and most importantly, to show society whey not to commit crimes." Historically, the more brutal the prison system, the less viable this goal is. Further, where does the state get the right to dictate any of this? Whence cometh law? It's not morality, at least not in full. Thus, logically, law comes from something besides morality. 21:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The answer to part #1 is stated in the other parts. #2 Wow. Just wow. We need to protect criminals from society as the crimes they committed negatively affected other humans shouldn't be repeated. #3 "You shouldn't commit the crime if you can't do the time." Every negative action has a negative action. #4 I'll agree with you on. --Andrew5 (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "The people advocating against it are the progressives, some of which believe crazy lies like white people ruined this country"
 * Who??? Which progressives? Weasel wording are you? Because that argument is typically employed as dog whistling racism to fearmonger about crt and whatnot. Racists use this shitty strawman, you've argued like a racist. 21:09, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "Physical abuse is worse th[a]n mental abuse."
 * It is most definitely not. Have you experienced mental abuse?!!!!?? 21:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The progressives, aka the far left Democrats, are the once pushing for radical government change. Think people like AOC or Sanders. And physical abuse is worse, I've felt it (never mental though, well once minor), because it leaves people injured, with broken bones and other conditions, requiring them to go to hospitals and in some cases even killing them. --Andrew5 (talk) 21:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * just leaving this hereAMassiveGay (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Some people commit crimes so egregious, they are beyond rehabilitation. --Andrew5 (talk) 21:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Andrew, multiple European countries go every day with minimal prison violence without resorting to excessive solitary confinement and in fact keep their prison population low and have low crime anyways. A few Nordic countries in face have an extremely successful prison system and low-violence in general and very low recidivism (repeat offenders) after passing through prisons that do not grind the life out of them but help them reintegrate into society (so they hopefully don't maintain the cycle of violence). But then, to get there, you have to withdraw slightly from the "purge and rape all those evil villains who broke the law" and other black and white think. Again, it is up to you how you want the state to treat fellow humans.  Shabi  DOO  21:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, that's good for Europe, but sadly America has too many problems to allow for that to happen. Namely, Europe doesn't have two political parties nearly at war with each other. Life is calmer. Also, in a way I consider people who commited crimes, especially Class A felonies, as subhuman, because a true human wouldn't do that. --Andrew5 (talk) 21:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Those are just lame excuses. America could easily be like Nordic countries if you wanted it. Also...that sub-human talk is really ugly. I'm disappointed to see you say that. Shabi  DOO  21:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * We probably could be like Nordic countries for more lesser crimes. Like, maybe up to a Class D or C felony. But at some point, crimes become so egregious that it's not an option. And even in these countries, for crimes like murder, rape or other similar offenses, they don't rehabilitate. They're is a reason Sirhan was denied parole, in spite of California having a progressive governor. RationalWiki also said at RationalWiki:Saloon_bar/Archive405 that they didn't want someone to get parole. As far as sub human, well, would you consider someone to be equal to you who has taken a life from another human? --Andrew5 (talk) 21:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Without a doubt. Else soldiers and police officers would be subhuman. 21:54, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, soldiers are protecting their nation and police officers are protecting their city. --Andrew5 (talk) 21:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * And how do you know they're doing that? Because you were told so? What makes criminals subhuman but not those who enforrce the will of the state? Your explanation is largely special pleading. 22:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * (EC) "aka the far left Democrats," There is no such thing. AOC, Ilhan Omar, etc. are, at most, centre-left. I consider myself on the left, but even I don't qualify as 'far-left'. Here is a smattering of policies I would like to see in the UK, which are not enough to qualify as far-left: renationalisation of electricity, gas and water supplies, a top income tax rate of 70%, a nationwide cap on rent at 85% of a typical mortgage on the property, criminal penalties for exeuctives and accountants who enable corporate tax avoidance and universal basic income. Queexchthonic murmurings 22:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, Fox News disagrees. Remember - Manchin is center. So if AOC is center-left, Manchin would be center-right. Progressives may not be socialists, but then you're assuming US politics is right of nation. --Andrew5 (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Fox News is literal propaganda. Also, please explain why soldiers and police aren't subhuman, in your view. 22:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * (EC) Fox News is horseshit, and only ever correct by accident. US political discourse is extremely displaced to the right of (nearly) everywhere else. Manchin isn't even centre-right, he's as solidly right as I am left. Queexchthonic murmurings 22:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I could find a source saying we are center right, which Manchin and others seem to line up on. Also, while Fox is unreliable, they can be trustworthy at times. Soldiers aren't subhuman because they are defending their country from attackers, so therefore more would die without them. --Andrew5 (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Lol, no. The military doesn't exist to protect any of us. That's a byproduct of its primary function. Further, am I to conclude that since you failed to defend police that you now believe them to be subhuman? 22:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, some of them are subhuman (I'm looking at you, Derek Chauvin), but they, as I said, protect cities in most cases and are the ones who take down crime. --Andrew5 (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Leaving aside (for the moment) the fact that police as an institution do not exist to protect the public, by what right do they exert their will? 22:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * --Andrew5 (talk) 22:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That doesn't answer my question. That book is not the source of an officer's authority. Also, what is the distinction between someone who has been shot by a criminal, shot by a police officer, and shot by a soldier? Hint, the answer to all of these questions is the same. 22:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the impacts are different. --Andrew5 (talk) 22:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * As an analogy, the death toll from the Moss Point, MS EF1 and Fort Washington, PA EF2 are the same, but the destruction is not. --Andrew5 (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * So you say, but you have not demonstrated such. 22:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Because when a soldier shoots someone they are shooting another soldier who is attacking their nation, a police officer is shooting a criminal cause harm to a city, but a civilian? Who are they protecting? No one. --Andrew5 (talk) 22:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you want me to just give you the answer rather than have you try to poorly explain to me how states and violence work? 22:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It would probably be more productive then this. --Andrew5 (talk) 22:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The answer is simple. The police and the military are granted authority as elements of the state, and the state gains its authority by having a bigger stick than everyone else. Criminals are of course, not subhuman, even the small percentage that kill people, as they are merely those who have run afoul of laws. Laws draw their authority from the state's ability to enforce them, not morality. See also my point about states ultimately deriving their authority from might. Thusly, we should obviously act to treat prisoners humanely, since the state will not do so of its own volition. Also, have a better moral system than "law =good", otherwise you'll have to defend shit like slavery and genocide. 23:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

As a conservative living in the Bible Belt, I borrow my two cents on solitary confinement from someone who works/worked for an animal shelter: no kill is slow kill. Now, I don't agree that the worst scum of society who do things like rape and murder children or teenagers should be out of prison in 40 years like many against solitary confinement would probably advocate for (those people should be put to death, many here may disagree, but that is how I feel), but I do see where they are coming from in opposing life in solitary confinement, which is essentially a death penalty without finishing them off with a lethal injection or electrocution. One common argument against the death penalty is that is costs more than life in prison because of all of the appeals, and I wholeheartedly disagree with that argument because people sentenced to life in prison should be getting the same appeals, holding prosecutors and law enforcement to the same high standard as in an official "death penalty" case, so really the LIP sentence is worse than a sentence to lethal injection for the offender, partially due to the arguments raised here against solitary confinement. 71.208.x.x (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, that makes sense, but RW clearly opposes the death penalty. --Andrew5 (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's kind of what I said, silly. ;) And as I said, I don't agree with other RWers on that, but I can appreciate their position at least. 71.208.x.x (talk) 22:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Honestly its easier to do that when they don't harass you with 50 endless replies. --Andrew5 (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

"Think people like AOC or Sanders. And physical abuse is worse, I've felt it (never mental though, well once minor), because it leaves people injured, with broken bones and other conditions, requiring them to go to hospitals and in some cases even killing them."

Show me where they said that "white people ruined America". Cuz again you're basically echoing racist pundits that misconstrue what they say to fearmonger about actual systemic problems. Also you are completely wrong about physical abuse being worse; emotional abuse also leaves people injured, deeply wounded scars and linger, and can also eventually kill them. The thing about psychological abuse is that they're not visible and that's why they're so deadly. I didn't say psychological abuse is more deadly or less, but you're seriously downplaying this. 00:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Emotional abuse only becomes deadly when people commit suicide, which is an issue but suicide hotlines prevent this. Also I never said AOC and Sanders said it, but some far left Americans did. --Andrew5 (talk) 00:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it's not just suicide. There's a ton of issues that develop from psychological abuse, like read up on long term consequences, you don't know this very well. As for "some far left Americans", like....? Twitter and Reddit randoms don't count. 00:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm....
Very interesting. 21:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's interesting I only get dinged out for supporting Republicans. Everyone agreed with me it was good Ohio's map got thrown out, but when it came to me being upset Illinois's was upheld, then I get political debates and called a troll over it. Multiple maps (some which disturbingly have no legal action on) need to be taken down. These include New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Tennessee, Utah, Georgia, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, and possibly states such as Texas, Connecticut and Maryland. These are all extreme partisian gerrymanders. Not being leftist is not trolling. Don't I have the right to a political opinion? It's unfortunate that 62% of Americans won't share their political opinions out of fear of persuection, but me being in the other 38% isn't wrong. --Andrew5 (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I like how you pivot straight into proving my point for me rather than any form of introspection. 22:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * And also how I didn't bring up any accusations of you only defending republicans. So your hard pivot defense really shows your hand there. 22:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You didn't ding me out directly for that, only indirectly by saying I was trolling for opposing the VRA. You didn't even read why I am opposed to it.--Andrew5 (talk) 22:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't "ding you" for that at all. Your entire pattern of editing is pretty much just trolling. 23:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * How is opposing the VRA trolling? I thought of it independently of RW, 3 days ago. Besides I have fought against numerous vandals before and even recieved an award for replacing Wikipedia citations with actual references. --Andrew5 (talk) 23:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * See? You're doing it right now. I say "I'm not talking about your stupid VRA take" and you go right back to defending it. You're literally indistinguishable from a troll. 23:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The only things I have arguably done is Breaking the normal flow of debate/discussion. and Making itself the main topic of interest or discussion. Also, while you don't mention the VRA stuff, you removed it from the Saloon within the hour. Interesting. --Andrew5 (talk) 23:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You've literally engaged in all of the traits. Especially pretending to be an idiot, which you're doing right now. 00:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not, nor am I pretending to be, an idiot. In fact, I am in relatively advanced classes rn. --Andrew5 (talk) 00:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. You post shit you know will rile people up, then act ignorant when confronted. When you're confronted with an argument you don't like, you duck out and refuse to address it. You're weasel, a liar, and a troll, and every word you utter is suspect. 00:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I post stuff because it interests me. Gerrymandering interests me. I embraced centrism. I've only posted stuff to deliberately start an argument twice. No wonder I act ignorant, because I didn't think it would cause drama. --Andrew5 (talk) 00:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. 00:44, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Instead of arguing if I'm a troll or not, maybe we should talk about the VRA since that was the point of contention in the first place. Also do I sound like USHA? --Andrew5 (talk) 01:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing if you're a troll or not. You are, in all practical uses of the word, a troll. Your engagement with this site is indistinguishable from that of a troll. You are, therefore, a troll. Whether you acknowledge that is irrelevant to the truth of the matter. 01:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Meh
Andrew, try to get along with people. Being "right" is worthless if you aren't able to work with others. 21:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

For calling JFK Jr the most evil person in history.
So your response to being blocked for trolling is to troll harder? Grow up. Inmate XIII (talk) 08:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * At this point, it sounds like you’re ganging up on me for having different political opinions. I am firm on my anti-JFK stance. And honestly, I am sympathetic to the Soviet Union. If we were in a utopia, we would be using communism. Obviously the fact that it was ruled by evil dictators sucked, but if nicer people ruled the USSR it would actually be a place I might want to live. --Andrew5 mobile (talk) 14:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Andrew, just for the record, you know I'm not a leftist, right? Not even center-left. GeeJayK (talk) 14:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, your apology of the USSR seems... kinda iffy and looks like forced centrism again. AFAIK not even GC thinks highly of them. Any place can be Eden according to your post. GeeJayK (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I know, but I don’t think I was refering to you. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 14:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I see Andrew you are reverting to your "everyone is ganging up on me" rather than conceding multiple users may be right and trying to get along with people. Bummer Shabi  DOO  16:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC):
 * This time I think it’s true. I think over half the site wants me out, at least out of the saloon bar if not the site as a whole. Really if you think about it, USHA and Scrooge and LTEC was ganged up on as well.
 * What I understand more now then I did at Uncyclopedia is why everyone is ganging up on me, why half the site wants me out. It’s due to my political opinions and the way I spew them out, and given how I’ve lost sysop rights there really is nothing I can do about it. However, I don’t like reforming my opinions based on what everyone else thinks, and I think that until I do that, I will have these problems. Have a feeling I’ll wind up being banned from the Saloon as a whole. Which would be unfortunate but a milder sanction then what some people want.
 * I learn typically from real world encounters, not those over the internet. I have had a few real world encounters where I began to learn that sometimes in life, people in positions of authority don’t like me, and I have to suck it up. I think this is one of those times.Andrew5 (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, at least you've admitted that you have no principles beyond being an authoritarian. Inmate XIII (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I will admit I am a slight authoritian, but I have other principles. However that being said, I do have the right to be an authoritarian.,I have the right to a political opinion as does everyone else.Andrew5 (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not that people don't like you, they do not like your refusal to change and/or better yourself. Your inability to accept that what people say about you could be true is a serious life impairment and you will always struggle until you can seriously listen to people and get along with others. If this is too big of a task to take care of on your own (which is likely the case) take advantages of whatever resources you can to do so. I know you will ignore this and repackage and restate this in a way that allows you to keep maintaining your own impervious world view...but perhaps if I repeat it enough it will plant a seed of change in your mind. Shabi  DOO  21:37, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Define rights. 21:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

An important message.
Very important. 14:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I watched it but what is this video about? --Andrew5 mobile (talk) 14:55, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

One request
One think I would like to get out of this block is to curb my extreme addiction on RW, and learn to take walks, without phones, and just do more naturey things. I request nobody comment here during the block. If a moderator could protect This page for the duration of the block (March 17, 2022 expiration time) that’d be nice but I 100% understand if that isn’t possible. My problem is I don’t know how to stop spending so much time here and I need to curb it. But I can’t do it alone, I need the solitude. Thank you. --Andrew5 (talk) 00:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Take care. Queexchthonic murmurings 00:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

My trinity, you have returned.
Welcome back sir. 2600:387:F:D14:0:0:0:9 (talk) 00:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello to you too. --Andrew5 (talk) 00:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Nice to see archiving ratchet move forward again. 2600:387:F:D14:0:0:0:B (talk) 03:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

are you fucking simple?
really are you some kind of fucking imbecile? just about to save my reasoning only to find you have reverted it all. you godawful fucking prick. do i=you even know what is going on here? AMassiveGay (talk) 14:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * might have jumped the gun there. sorryAMassiveGay (talk) 14:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The AFD was deleted by someone else. I just wanted to avoid a redlink transclusion. --Andrew5 (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * the afd was vaporised just as i tried to post my reasoning and your name was on the page and i saw red. again apologies AMassiveGay (talk) 17:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I was in the middle of fixing that
And it wasn't a good edit. He made a bunch of useless stylistic changes and made an attempt to switch it over to British spelling that only got half of it correct.

Now I have to start over. Inmate XIII (talk) 01:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

FYI
The Inferno Bot can be used to mass delete categories. It would certainly save you from getting carpel tunnel syndrome after hundreds of repetitive edits. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 01:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I know, but I was going to bed after, and I was getting impatient because it wasn't running for days. I'll keep this in mind in the future. --Andrew5 (talk) 11:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

no sweat!
No sweat it's crazy out here! I just appreciate the discourse at the bar yo. 138.207.198.74 (talk) 03:09, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Tip
Focus less on words like "left" or "right" and more on ideas. Good ideas are good because they make logical sense and are based on empirical evidence, not because they are on the left, on the right, or on the center. GeeJayK (talk) 00:32, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

you are the worst
An extreme far right actor in the United States just murdered ten people in Buffalo. He would have murdered many more given the chance. This is a thing that simply DOES NOT happen on the far left in the United States. Are you picking up what I'm laying down here at all? Talking crazy is one thing, murder is another, yes? And the far left may talk alot of crazy in the United States, but they don't actually MURDER many people, do they? While the far right in the United States just goes on murdering people, like clockwork, every fucking month? Are you picking up what I'm laying down here my dude? Or are you just what GC says you are? 138.207.198.74 (talk) 02:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have the right to a political opinion, so do you. The was an attack by black nationalism (so left wing) injuring 29. Both sides commit attrocious acts, and as such both should be condemmed. --Andrew5 (talk) 14:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I would not describe that guy as left-wing. His beliefs seem to resemble color-inverted versions of what (right-wing) white nationalists believe. Vomitorium (talk) 15:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait, was the Unibomber a far rightwing nutter?
 * I don't think it's entirely a "right" vs "left". Mass murderers are the kids who believe the game is rigged against them so they don't just flip over the board and walk away, but set the game on fire too.  The idea that someone else is to blame for all your problems does create an "us vs them" mentality, which does make the far right a bit more attractive but it's hardly exclusive.  15:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * --Andrew5 (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * (EC) Well, his manifesto was explicitly anti-leftist. That said, trying to ID where he stands with respect to the left-right spectrum sort of misses the point. Vomitorium (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * How is Black Nationalism left wing? Because it's black people doing the nationalism? 15:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * (EC) This particular case is a bit personal to me, for... reasons. I'm generally against the use of the death penalty because it's overused for every random murder, but this is one of those cases where it's valid.  Mass murder of people the man never even met?  Yeah, fuck that guy.  15:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hang on, if you're agreeing with Cory's post that it's not a left-right thing, then that's a bit different from what you said before, which framed black and white nationalism as opposite sides of the left-right spectrum. Vomitorium (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Why are you expecting his political views to be coherent or well thought out? There's no reason to do that. 16:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I good posted the post for the line that said I don't think it's entirely a "right" vs "left". Mass murderers are the kids who believe the game is rigged against them so they don't just flip over the board and walk away, but set the game on fire too. The idea that someone else is to blame for all your problems does create an "us vs them" mentality, which does make the far right a bit more attractive but it's hardly exclusive. Those reflect my views. --Andrew5 (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * So you do honestly believe that black nationalism is left wing, or was that just a position you took because you thought it’d help you win an argument? Christopher (talk) 18:02, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This is yet another example where the "left" and "right" division fares poorly. US Black nationalism actually doesn't fit the generic "left-right" template very well because of it's strong alignment with the Black equality movement. If one is a stickler with the traditional alignment, you would be left with a situation where Martin Luther King Jr. is "left wing" for being a strong advocate of equality where Malcolm X is "right wing" for extending that more in a Black nationalist direction. That just makes a mess of the complexities.
 * Andrew5, I think there is no problem condemning extremism including Black nationalism. I also have no problem seeing white nationalism as a much bigger threat. Let's put it this way: a significant portion of the 2021 U.S. Capitol riot was led by white nationalism. Let me know when the Nation of Islam or other shithead groups of that ilk get that much political power. Meh (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * His silence speaks for itself. 00:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I haven't thought about it. My political beliefs were never called this much into question. --Andrew5 (talk) 00:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "My political beliefs were never called this much into question." Exactly. Maybe that is why we all take such time and effort. Your mediocrity being challenged is a very good thing, one which you may thank us for later. 138.207.198.74 (talk) 02:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Asking whether you actually believe anything you say isn't that deep a question buddy. Your silence is deafening.  02:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Sammy's reply (before it got removed) is eerily similar to what Andrew would say. LongStylus (talk) 02:15, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Like many others I'm also waiting for Andrew to actually answer 's question.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Black nationalism is usually left wing. Blacks identify to be Democratic nearly 7/8 of the time, and Democrats are on the left. --Andrew5 (talk) 18:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * So you'll say whatever you think will "win" the argument. Gotcha. 18:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Surprise at this discovery is not universal.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Statement
I am appalled by some of the comments and reactions I recently made in the Saloon called into question. First of all, even if I did support Trump, that doesn't make me a troll. Trump is not a criminal ringleader and I'm sick of people saying he is. If he did commit treason, then so did Washington. I don't get why people can't admit I have political opinions and call me a liar and call it into question. If I have a political belief, that's my right, protected by the 1st Amendment. --Andrew5 (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Tentatively inclined to say this is online harassment at this point. --Andrew5 (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean you literally said you had to think about whether you were engaging honestly so... Yeah. Also, thanks for reminding me that I left you your talkpage, I forgot to disable that. 22:06, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This is an embarrassing and callous reply--2friedeggs (talk) 22:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * --Andrew5 mobile (talk) 22:55, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * In what way? He literally said that in response to being asked if he just says shit he thinks will win arguments. He's dishonest, get over it. 23:23, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll believe it when I see it either way not cool. I already know you two don't get along.--2friedeggs (talk) 23:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Technically
It was mister teo fried eggs who started it at the mod noticeboard at 1:22 yester. So at 1:22 night the votes can be put in no? 2600:387:9:9:0:0:0:26 (talk) 00:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No, moving it to the coop resets the timer.--Andrew5 mobile (talk) 00:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Dyksliver/Dyskloser
Yes, that is Arthur from Uncyclopedia and that long ass user name on Wikipedia. He is a piece of shit along with Oxyaena and this site put up with their bullshit for a long time while the two love birds blocked anyone who challenged them as a "sock of (insert name of troll de jure here)". Fuck both of them. He was most recently known as Judge Dredd here on RationalWiki. 71.208.x.x (talk) 02:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Saloon Bar edits
I know you really want to have the last word (and maybe act super flippant about it in the process when I tell you off), but let situations resolve themselves. You don't need to insert yourself into every single case that was already long-resolved. Weren't you already told off multiple times for this? 19:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean, I was, but it was 7 months ago. C'mon, people forget.--Andrew5 (talk) 20:26, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Mod Nominations
You're supposed to sign 'em. Scream!! (talk) 00:50, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Whoops. --Andrew5 (talk) 01:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

LGM
To clarify, I am not accusing LGM of doxxing or being the Grawp vandal. I am, however, suspicious of how she did a complete 180 on her vote citing I've been tipped to some suspicious activity on this account. To me, that sounds like a whitewashed way of saying I've received information from a doxxer about this account and I'm inclined to believe the doxxer and accordingly change my vote. Add to the equation that this comment/vote change came in the midst of a troll making posts supposedly doxxing RationalWikian's real names (one of whom was me), and I'm thinking she was taken advantage of alright, but not by me. I'm also not liking that she is not responding to inquiry about this. However, this could be just a misunderstanding. Lets give her a while to respond, if she ghosts over the next couple days it is time for a coop case. King Bowser K. Rool (talk) 15:20, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Like, stop
This comment. You're not helping at all. You're only obfuscating general understanding RationalWiki procedure. This, again, isn't the first time you've posted this kind of ignorant unsolicited opinion concerning policy/penalty decisions. Just, stop your years-long nails-down-a-chalkboard behavior and your obvious inability and unwillingness to stay out of moderation disputes despite being told multiple times for year; you have barely any idea what's going on here. 00:08, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I actually have a pretty good understanding of what's happening. Wisconcom is taking an off-wiki dispute on-wiki, permablocked a user without discussion, lied about it, tried to whitewash communism (which I don't exactly see is a problem, but whatever), and now is being sysoprevoked. In addition, his persistent confrontational attitude is about to get him permabanned. --Andrew5 🎄 (talk) 01:55, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No you fucking didn't. I linked to a diff where you brought up an absolute falsehood about the nature of the chicken coop, which, again, is another comment you made where you were outright wrong about a procedure or two at RationalWiki. You posted bullshit like this multiple times to be told you're wrong multiple times. Your latest response being something completely irrelevant to the fact you spouted bullshit (and you've been spouting occasional bullshit for YEARS now) is telling, as well as your own arrogant bullheaded doubling down, and it reinforces my beliefs you are utterly unable to improve and be conductive to RationalWiki. I'm just going to extend your block on RationalWiki and RationalWiki talk for a bit because I believe several other people are ALSO fucking fed up with your years-long act now. 08:50, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Two of your three oppose votes for moderator (with me being one of them) came from the fact that you frequently made a scene out of everything I did, even if no policy was being violated. I have a ton of diffs to back up my point, too - . This is getting into witchunt territory, hence my (unsuccessful) attempt to get you ousted last month. --Andrew5 🎄 (talk) 13:18, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * All of the criticism in those diffs is completely warranted, you should listen to it instead of doubling down. Christopher (talk) 14:25, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Scream!! (talk) 14:38, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm doubling down because half of these accusations aren't even true. I feel like LGM is targeting me, as I said so at the mod campaigning. User_talk:Andrew5/Archive1 Am I not even allowed to believe in punitive segregation now? Many of the Saloon Bar drama from February (which, clearly, LGM is still basing in his decision) was me stating my unpopular but valid political opinion. Would it be an issue if I said I was happy that the Democrats lost their national trifecta in 2022? Anyway, I'm logging off, I have better things to do anyway. --Andrew5 🎄 (talk) 14:34, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "his", huh? Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 14:49, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Ohhhhhh, sorry about that, I meant her. Now I sound like a transphobe at the worst possible time too. --Andrew5 🎄 (talk) 14:50, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

LGM is cis. Andrew, listen what others have to say to you. Many users have stated that you care too much about the bureucratic procedures of the Wiki. They are not supposed to be funny, they are just necessary. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 15:09, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

It goes more than that, Andrew5. Diff 5 you shared is helpful, as it's one more example to show you have inadequate understanding of RationalWiki. Saying "That LiberalTears sock abusing the coop is why we're not using coop anymore" is rank bullshit and when people read your bullshit, it'll be confusing for everyone else down the line, especially newer users. Again, back then, your own reading comprehension and lack of listening to others is utterly abysmal while you continue to double-down further in your accusations that I'm doing a "witch-hunt" (I'm not the only person who resents you and your continued presence here) though all I am doing is trying to set the record straight, trying to get you to stop acting like a "bureaucratic pissant" (not my insult, it was Techpriest's) I don't really want to fucking explain this on that "A statement" subthread you shared, but you're wrong again, sparky. No one is arguing that you're not allowed an opinion on support of "enhanced interrogation"... I mean, solitary confinement (jesus christ). You held a belief that you were entitled to and several people, me included, held your disgusting feet to the fire for advocating what we believed were supporting human rights abuses, which we were also entitled to.

You have been a problem to this site for several years now being at the center of more than a few pieces of drama. I lost count of all the users who absolutely hate your guts for the reasons I hate yours and said some really angry, frustrated shit to you (and I apologized one time because I got too heated venting my frustrations on Discord but now I'm saying straight up to your face now). My difference is that I'm now getting more aggressive approaching you. And while I'm not going to escalate this block I think 2 weeks off your favorite exclusive namespaces is going to do wonders for people who are downright sick of you. Sure maybe archival isn't going to be as stupidly fast and immediate without your "help", but I'm going to say it dead serious: no one is necessarily liking you better for your maintenance. All you come off when you do this is acting like a pretentious dipshit trying to fit in when the real issues isn't your lack of archival edits, but buried-deep fundamental behavioral flaws, flaws people have been trying to give you advice for years in vain to you to even attempt to correct, that risk you eventually getting booted off the site lest you risk pissing off more people. I am aware my advice is going to do jack shit for an obstinate plug like you (who in response to my thread, now are trying to "leave for Florida for 6 days" so making out like a pathetic sentient piece of shit rolling off the sidewalk) but maybe others will learn what NOT to do to be a contributive editor. 18:18, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Wish I'd thought to say that LGM. Unfortunately I promised myself that I wouldn't interact with him as he made me SO angry that I would be undiplomatic. Scream!! (talk) 19:23, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Your validation is highly appreciated, and for your own long-term sanity I think it matters more you break your habits and back me up, because you want to work toward having to never interact with him again. 20:12, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No proof whatsoever but I'd suggest that he recent flurry of pro-A5 anti-LGM new names might have some connection with our alleged Florida bound friend. Scream!! (talk) 20:23, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's just that perpetually giggling dumpster-dwelling hair clog from Conservapedia who wasted hours of his horrible life on "GossipGate" "essays" on how I vented about Andrew5 on Discord. 20:30, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Aaaah! Hadn't considered that! Scream!! (talk) 20:32, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn’t feel like Florida. Temperatures are in the upper 40s. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 03:26, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Blocked off RationalWiki and RationalWiki talk namespaces for 2 weeks 9 hours
I asked you to stay off and you wouldn't listen and it's clear you have learned zero from your previous lesson and continued to edit these two namespaces behaving exactly like before (doing archive maintenance, dropping comments like in spite of me telling you those two, while not technically rule-breaking or straight-up bullshitting, will NOT help your stand on the wiki at all). I am dead serious about my warnings and blocks. 15:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As if I care about this shithole dump anymore. Thanks for confirming your a toxic asshole. --Andrew5 (talk) 16:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Decided to be a little more merciful and reduce it to 9 hours. For the earlier 2 weeks off that you slithered off for your convenient break, it was way more relieving without you around. Fuck off. 16:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Happy to oblige. --Andrew5 (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Andrew, you will note that the overwhelming majority of users do not participate remotely in the level of trouble making that you do. They listen to others (especially the moderators) and they get along with others. If you are continuously having problems with users, it is almost certainly because of your attitude, behaviour and inability to change. I have seen you do this on MULTIPLE wikis. Your obnoxiousness is not cute, funny, entertaining nor worth the grief that you cause others. How many sites do you have to be permabanned from before you show actual real change? I promise you, no one is going to come to your rescue or listen to your excuses once you get banned from here (which is an inevitability if you don't change). Shabi  DOO  18:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * He LANCB'ed. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 22:14, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reminding me; I still have to scramble my password on both this account and my mobile account (my mobile account I don't have access to). And put the template on my userpage. I'll get to that right now. --Andrew5 (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * With a response like that you should put him back up to 2 weeks. 18:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The fact that you could’ve done so, but didn’t, just confirms that I wasted 15 months of my life. Maybe if not for that I would’ve gotten a 5 on my AP exam, and not a 4. Well I’m disabling emails so i can focus on actual life. Andrew5 (talk) 18:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)