RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive36

Suppressing page histories
This is a semi-public notice to all techs and moderators, as well as some sysops (I opened it here in ATIM for good measure, this does not belong in the coop as I am not seeking punishment, merely notice to inform for now).

Suppressing page histories is an action that sysops, moderators and techs can take. It is used to remove potentially libelous content from the wiki, as well as sharing of personal information. It places a hoop on viewing the contents of certain revisions, either to only fellow sysops or to moderators and techs alone. These actions are logged in the deletion log for suppression to sysops, and in the suppression log for suppresion to mods and techs. For simplicities sake, I'll call suppresion revdelling from now on.

Please review the rules and regulations within regards to suppression of page histories (also known as revdelling). The following are not considered adequate reasons to revdel:


 * Removal of your IP because you posted while logged out.
 * Removal of a troll spamming the n-word in our pages.
 * Offensive comments in the saloon.

Revdelling is adequate in the case of:


 * Revisions that cause legal problems for the site in a general sense (libel and slander, but also a recent case of loli porn on someone's userpage).
 * Revisions that doxx individuals or contain references to doxxing material.

Not in any other situation is revdelling considered appropriate. Making this a thread after having to deal with another recent case of someone revdelling edits over personal reasons. If you want to test the feature, that's fine/if you fuck up on the button when deleting pages that's not a big deal either, but there's been a semi-consistent problem of this kinda crud in the past few months. Revdel is extremely powerful and we shouldn't strive to wield it like our friends on conservapedia do it to clean up our histories in that sense. 22:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That is reasonable. In principle, there could be other situations where revdelling would be warranted, e.g. incitement to violence. Bongolian (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * What on earth would revdeleting so-called "incitement to violence" actually accomplish? Do we have a problem with extremists congregating here and plotting violent acts together?  And are they searching page histories for edits that might inspire them to commit violent deeds?  This just seems like such an irrelevant thing to say.-Hastur! (talk)  07:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I would file this under "things that could cause legal problems". Things like links to the christchurch shooter video which the NZ authorities made illegal doing so. It's incitement to violence but also would incur legal problems on our end. That said, that one does carry a higher standard than "durr someone said kill all [minority here]". (Basically only if an active legal threat exists.) 14:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Regular deletion or even just reversion seems adequate in that situation. Christopher (talk) 22:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah. I don't like Conservapedia-style burning the evidence either. Spud (talk) 07:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Also I do not like the cat moderator image here. We could do so much better. Something more violent I think. Anyway - since we are chatting I thought I would raise it. AceSimple Maze 00:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * How violent do you want to go? Commons has quite a few historical gore images I could slot in. 00:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean, we are fucking moderators. Brutal, efficient and without mercy. A cat is a poor representation. You've seen my "art"...perhaps I could build something. I have enough materials at home to create something truly spectacular... AceSimple Maze 02:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Each moderator could choose their own image to represent themselves, and they could be put on random rotation. Bongolian (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Great idea, Bongo! I could choose something involving Big Brother or the Illuminati eye thing... -- Goatspeed. 06:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Excellent idea. I will begin creating something truly horrific as my avatar - I have some weird bones I found on the beach and the head of a mannequin. I also have loads of nails and lots of severely compromised blood running through my veins. AceSimple Maze 03:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd like this as my avatar, please. Of course, there's absolutely nothing nasty about it. Well, I don't think so. Spud (talk) 07:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Today I realized that the britishes refer to English muffins as just "muffins." But what do they call custard?-Hastur! (talk)  07:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Cheeekynandos. Spud (talk) 12:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Why exactly is removing an IP of a logged out user not an adequate reason for suppression? JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 12:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Because it should only be used for hiding potentially libelous stuff and doxxing. Revealing your IP address is not doxxing. It should not be used just for covering up fuck ups. Spud (talk) 12:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Using sysop-level RevDel on accidental IP reveals should be sufficient (and I'm very much in favour of allowing RevDel used in that way)
 * As for personal avatars, I think the cat suits me quite well. Or maybe a sloth or something. I think I have a reputation for being lazy and slow moving (which is not unearned). --RWRW (talk) 14:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I've been DDoS'd and partially doxxed before because of my IP address getting leaked. I don't want a repeat of it and I don't wish that for any other sysops. 18:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The cat thing is dumb because as stated previously we moderators are cruel and merciless - should be a picture of Conan or the big floating head from Zardoz. AceSimple Maze 22:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * How about YHVH from SMT (the golden floating head). 23:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, here's a nice sloth picture for RWRW. Mind you, I unironically do love me some Zardoz. Spud (talk) 06:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So... should I have not revdelled all of GR's spam posts on the SB about his girlfriend Oxy allegedly harassing minors? Does that count as libelous or not? I hope my doing that didn't set any bad precedents while I was just out because of school... -- Goatspeed. 06:50, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not really what users say about other users that's the problem as far as potentially libelous is concerned. It's unlikely that a user who's been here for a while would try to sue us because of something a user who hadn't been here as long said. That kind of nastiness should just be undone, not burned. Spud (talk) 07:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like Spud found a rarely seen 'RWRW face reveal'. --RWRW (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Can a mod tell Ace to knock it off once and for all (possibly coop to strip mod powers for overt transphbic remarks)
If we keep this thread active it’ll increase the chances of this spiralling out of control. Christopher (talk) 19:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Plutocow
has exhibited extreme partisan intolerance and a deceitful contempt for facts they merely doesn't like. Take a look at this ridiculous rollback: after I added information addressing Phyllis Schlafly's record on race-related issues to dispute the claim that she's a racist, Plutocow ignorantly says: "This is still whitewashing and irrelevant to her being a racist." If you observe the page history, even Flandres clearly knew that my entry was valid and thus didn't outright revert it.

Plutocow also initially attempted to remove my perfectly valid entry on Jimmy Carter's 1970 racist campaign, as seen here. Why? Because I cited one source he merely didn't like. He said here: "If you can only find the info on sources that are known to be not entirely factual, then maybe that info isn't as good as you think it is." I then replied: "So tell me, what part of that specific article isn't factual? Furthermore, my editing is fine, thanks." He then doubled down without even providing a specific response: "Yeah, requiring our sources to be factual is totally partisan intolerance."

Oh, and he unjustly blocked me at least once. RationalWiki editors, do you really believe that this toxic user is worth keeping around?

UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Summa Atheologica
has proven himself to be a bigot who will act as an apologist for racism. He reverted my entry on Biden's racism without explanation and edit-warred. RationalWiki editors, ask yourself: should this site coddle and keep editors who defend racism and bigotry of any sort? If any of you aren't yet convinced, take a gander at my block log:
 * 00:01, 12 March 2021 Summa Atheologica (talk | contribs) blocked UShistoryanalyzer (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 3141 seconds (about 1 hour) (autoblock disabled) (Blocked for being a threat to racist bigotry. [sic])

He also reverted my edits here without explanation. At least Flandres is nice enough most of the time to explain his reasons.

UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not siding with you, I am siding with both of them. Your edits have so many ultra right-wing fake news as sources that someone could assume you are merely trolling. The Federalist alone is universally unwelcomed, if you can't find sources from news websites like the Guardian, NPR, Wikipedia or ABC news, then I am sorry, but you might believe in fiction. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 21:57, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Honestly this is ridiculous. Anyone who can't stay a month without attempting a chicken coop on two users just because they can't civilly use the talk page deserves to be put in the coop themselves. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 21:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not siding with anyone, at least for now, but if I remember correct his sources on Suma's case were CBS, NYT and The Hill. Far from perfect but not total garbage. That being said, I didn't read the links, so I don't know if the information is correct or even if it was an original synthesis, and a coop is probably too much. GeeJayK (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Your ban was not unjust. Even if you were right in that edit, you've been told way too many times to use the talk pages rather than edit warring, and if you can't follow that, you get a short ban. I even called out Summa in that instance because I felt the way they were handling it was not ideal. When nearly every single edit you make results in an edit war, maybe you need to change your approach. Also, most of your edits seem to be whitewashing racism accusations for right wing people and overemphasing racism of any Democrats, so you don't have the right to say I have "extreme partisan intolerance". Plutocow (talk) 22:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Apart from using the National Review as a source (although that's not too bad), UShistoryguy's edits seem mostly fine. I don't see the need to revert or block. I think everybody involved would be better served by the article talk pages than the mod board. That being said, I haven't taken the time to read through them, so maybe it's something that was misinterpreted. 22:43, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, putting Biden in the racists category is beaaaans. 22:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The edit that irked me as shitty political hack material was this one. Using Lee Atwater's quotes (from his infamous "n****r"-dropping Southern Strategy interview) as a "source" to try and justify Reagan's notorious dog-whistle presidential campaign (Rationalwiki has an article on welfare queen if one fails to remember, and if we're going to dig up Jimmy Carter's less than stellar civil rights record before 1970, why not throw in Reagan calling African citizens "monkeys" when talking to Nixon in 1971?) as "not racist" is bullshit, particularly since 8 years later Lee Atwater proved that the Republican Party still was keen on using dog whistles with the Willie Horton nonsense. Some of the edits are fine though. The confrontational, arrogant attitude is a much bigger concern. This is hardly coup / mod level stuff, as you suggest, yet here we are. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Plutocow, you're the one engaging in whitewashing by point-blank reverting factual information I add. In the Phyllis Schlafly page, I did note that she opposed civil rights efforts in 1960 while also adding on that she supported some pro-civil rights Republicans. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 23:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Your sources were faulty, and unless you can find info that says Schlafly supported those Republicans because they were pro-civil rights, don't readd it. Oh, and also, you misgendered me in your complaint, please don't do it again. Plutocow (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You might want to put your preferred gender/pronouns as a user box or something. 23:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I concur with Plutocow regarding Schlafly and regarding general Dixiecratery. Any further discussion should be taken the respective talk pages. Bongolian (talk) 02:52, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd have to agree that somebody who has only been here for 38 days already calling for two users to be permanently banned is not a good sign at all. Plutocow and Summa Atheologica have no case to answer at this time. And at this time, there is no need to discuss this anywhere other than on the appropriate talk pages. Spud (talk) 03:59, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Plutocow is in the right here. — Oxyaena Harass  07:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Nutty/Plutocow edit war on Talk:Angelo John Gage
See. and are fighting over a page. I'm not banning them, but can a mod please intervene? An edit war on a talk page is embarrassing to say the least. GeeJayK (talk) 00:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC) Also they're fighting over a block GeeJayK (talk) 00:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

It seems pointless to continue an edit war for that long, you know you’ll only be reverted. Is it really that important whether a user who’s clearly not online is blocked or unblocked for a few seconds? Christopher (talk) 00:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've explained why this is a Mikey sock, Nutty refuses to listen. Plutocow (talk) 00:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You've explained that you're making an unwarranted assumption. You may or may not be right, but it's no basis for permanently banning an account. If this actually is the subject of the article, he has a right to comment. Nutty Roux (talk) 01:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not an "assumption", it's a well established pattern of behavior. If you actually look at the edits of Talk:Jack Buckby, it's clearly the same person and the timing is too convenient to be a coincidence. Plutocow (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Without checkuser or an admission, you literally just described an assumption. The block policy was literally just amended to prohibit this. Nutty Roux (talk) 01:04, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "Ban evasion: Avoiding bans imposed for other reasons. Since this wiki has no CheckUser, this requires solid evidence and not merely disruptive behavior. When in doubt, treat a suspicious user as with any other disruptive user. Usually leads to an indefinite ban for the sockpuppet account or a ban for the IP (minimum 3 days), and an extended ban for the original account." We have solid evidence, which is the similar posts between "Jack Buckby", "AngeloJohnGage", and a third account that was making the same post about Michael Coombs, and the timing between them, as the third account showed up directly after the first time Talk:Jack Buckby was locked due to repeated vandalism from the Buckby accounts, and AngeloJohnGage the second. It is well within the blocking policy to block all the sockpuppets. Plutocow (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying this guy ain't Mike. But since this is right now on ATIM I think we can wait for a mod to decide what to do until blocking him for good, unless if he gives a new unmistakable evidence that he's indeed Mikey boy. GeeJayK (talk) 01:13, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's pretty evident that the talk page spam was by Mikey and I think Nutty Roux hasn't been paying much attention and isn't in much position to say otherwise, much less edit war (wtf? I expect someone from 2009 to know this). Regardless, I'd just tag the comment as trolling and ignore, when in doubt. 01:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Pretty obviously Mikey drivel. Quite shocked at Nutty’s lapse in judgement here. 01:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, Mikey trolling. If it really were the subject and he really did think something was libelous, he would not say, "entire article is libel" because we quote the subject extensively with citations, it would imply that the subject is dumb enough to think he libeled himself. Bongolian (talk) 01:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Guess we can call it a day.

GeeJayK (talk) 02:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Who gives a shit if it's MikeMikev or not?  We can't be letting people willy-nilly going around moving talk page content, regardless of how sure they are of their assumptions.  The removed post was quite innocuous, and the logical course of action would have been to either ignore it or rebut it.-Hastur! (talk)  05:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Considering the user in question is a fucking NeoNazi, I'm surprised you'd stoop so low as to defend him being here, but, then again, not really. — Oxyaena Harass  07:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hastur, please don't make me reiterate the fact that Mikey got permanently blocked from here from my understanding 8 years ago for vandalizing the site. Outside of that, he's a naked neonazi who can't even pretend to have decorum. If we let him exist on our site, we'd be giving a platform to his pointless dribble. Our CS has rules in place for removing talkpage comments from permanently blocked users in order to enforce those blocks. Mikemikev has a very obvious pattern (pretend to be someone else, then use that as a platform to bitch about "Marxist terrorists" or something similarly inane) that the account presented fit into perfectly here. (Then again, it... doens't quite suprise me that you of all people are taking issue with our policy to clean up pages of dribble from permanently blocked users who are block evading.) 10:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ohh the pattern recognition experts! Am I understanding correctly that Oxyaena is implying Hastur is a Nazi sympathizer for taking a position about removing talk page comments she disagrees with? Nutty Roux (talk) 12:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you stupid or just plain trolling? That person was Michael Coombs, cut out your stubborness. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 12:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Probably both. Anyhow, Nutty, I thought you didn't even care about the wiki anymore? — Oxyaena Harass  12:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought it was supposed to be MikeMikeV. Such super obvious patterns. Oxyaena, are you suggesting Hastur is a Nazi sympathizer? Nutty Roux (talk) 12:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "Mikemikev" is the first alias Michael Coombs used to harass people. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 12:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * See Michael Coombs. Either way, we can't be allowing new or stupid users to be playing sockpuppet patrol.  A good example of why this is a bad idea would be Oxyaena banning users like Nutty Roux under the assumption that they were DMorris-Hastur! (talk)  13:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh I did not know that happened to him, at least it makes sense now why he is so reluctant to listen when multiple people tell him that someone is an obvious sock. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 13:04, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you people realize that we could have just ignored that post? Instead of letting our more idiotic users feel empowered to remove talk page material?-Hastur! (talk)  13:06, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Does anyone here remember the Keystone Cops? Is someone running for Chief?Ariel31459 (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi
I'd like to be paroled from the vandal bin, please. Thanks. Unclescrooge (talk) 20:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Not yet. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * (EC) Wherefore do you think you should be paroled. I checked your recent edits and the they seem pretty vandal like to me. 20:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * [EC] What has he done that’s bin-worthy? I don’t see much “long-term trolling”, just an annoying right-wing agenda-poster. Christopher (talk) 20:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * See his talk page, he got vandal binned over this: Essay:War_on_hydroxychloroquine. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I saw that, and don’t think it’s bin-worthy. Christopher (talk) 20:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I kinda assumed this was DMorris-Hastur! (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There are a couple of mainspace edits, all of which fall under vandalism. Though admittedly he mostly seems to be a talk page troll. Still don't see why we should give him more freedom to engage in his former hobby. 20:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If we thought that, we’d permaban him. Christopher (talk) 20:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Speaking as someone who's been on actual parole (as well as reading some basic criminal law related to said incident) you could just parole him with certain conditions. 20:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not stupid nor ignorant enough to be DMorris. Unclescrooge (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, you support hydroxychloroquine...
 * I say we give Scrooge a chance. If he fucks up, we put him on the vandal bin again. GeeJayK (talk) 23:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Nah, I say we shouldn't give him more freedom to edit-war over the transclusions of disclaimer templates on his essay (which I ended up having to undo a couple of times) or engage in his former hobby. -- Goatspeed. 00:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You sure? Well, I think it's to easy to arrest him again if he violates the condition of his parole, see what GC said. Do I think he will do it? Absolutely. But I don't think any of us have those Minority Report powers here, so maybe we can consider the benefit of the doubt. For now. GeeJayK (talk) 00:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I support parole under these conditions:
 * No more inserting pointless trolling comments on the bar, talkpages, user talkpages, coop or anywhere else.
 * No edit warring with other editors; take it to the talkpage instead.
 * Do I think that this user will uphold the rules of their parole? Naw. But at least we can say we tried and I enjoy being pleasantly suprised so y'know. 09:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ^This suggestion pleases me. Ace//about blank 21:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This guy ain't DMorris or GR. We can give him a chance, even if he'll probably upset us latter. GeeJayK (talk) 20:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * When you’ve stopped wasting your half-hourly edit inserting more quickly reverted bullshit into random articles, you should accept these conditions. They’re your only hope of leaving the bin. Christopher (talk) 21:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Christopher, are you saying that the Associated Press is "bullshit" when Media Bias/Fact Check, a source you guys seem to view as reliable, says their factual reporting is "very high"? I think you should be put in the vandal bin. Unclescrooge (talk) 21:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If you want to argue about Ilhan Omar do it on the appropriate talk page. I’d advise agreeing to (and actually abiding by) the conditions first, it’s hard to argue with someone whilst in the vandal bin. Christopher (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's very clever to insult someone who said that your edits aren't bin-worthy while appling for a parole. You already have two mods on your side and a few other users, just calm down a bit and DO NOT shitpost. GeeJayK (talk) 21:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll refrain from further harsh criticisms then. Unclescrooge (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Recent doxing
Can someone with mod powers suppress Draft talk:Doxbin and an edit on the Saloon Bar that I have already deleted? Plutocow (talk) 23:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Pinging you because this still needs to be done, as well as with an entry on the user creation and user rename logs. Plutocow (talk) 00:25, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The troll had a massive meltdown recently. https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Ezra_Levant&diff=prev&oldid=2300010 I think he was talking about Oxyaena on this revision. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 00:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So that could explain why he did this in the first place, what did happen for him to go dox Oxyaena, I don't understand. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 00:32, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Stay calm and stay quiet. That’s how we make this go away. 00:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Does Draft:Doxbin really need to go? GeeJayK (talk) 00:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That was my bad, it's the talk page that needs to be suppressed. Plutocow (talk) 01:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's probably GR, a persistent little bird who likes to create stupid accounts that either childishly attack that user or make some lame attempt at doxing her by going on and on about... her home state of all things. Me and the techs have since renamed all of the bird's stinky socks. I wouldn't feed the troll; we all know that GR is a massive attention-whore. -- Goatspeed. 19:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, but I think the troll identified as TAOB. GeeJayK (talk) 19:36, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * (ec) I've also changed the username filter for now, but I don't know if we want to make my change permanent. May add in variants on the user's name, just in case.
 * Also, I'm quite sure that I'm allowed to do that in spite of the IBan, because everything is "as common sense dictates" 19:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, as there's a bit of a gray area for mentioning the user you are forbidden to name in a positive way necessary to your role as aristocratic censor for the Thought Police tech. -- Goatspeed. 19:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * [EC]If an edit comes from an IP address starting with 2AOB (which the doxbin stuff did), it’s TAOB. You were helping Oxy with the filter change not starting an argument, so I don’t think anyone will object. Christopher (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * [EC]Now that you mention it, TAOB could get the help of GR to harass Oxyaena. It is really not going to end well this madness. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Everything that needed to be said has been said, endless discussion only makes this worse. Let’s all try to forget about this. Christopher (talk) 19:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, when I said "stay calm and stay quiet", I meant "shut the fuck up." 20:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

"Oxypoot"
Y'all seriously think those troll accounts are me? WTF? — Oxyaena Harass  18:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's a sarcastic jab on a follower. 18:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * My apologies. 19:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Bro, it's not GR either. 19:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

block war
,, , and. whats going on with this bumb block war? Ace//about blank 03:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * long and not-too-interesting story. I don't believe in blocks too much (maybe I'm wrong, I dunno), so I just unblocked folks. UninspiringNickname (talk) 03:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't even care anymore. I've cut myself who the fuck nknows how many times to keep my anger in check because my head is that fucked up, and the best anyone has is to give me the script about calling a hotline. I fucking don't have it in me to care anymore. 03:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I was hoping to deal with suicidal ideation and self-harm today, thank you!-Hastur! (talk) 03:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If you're not telling the truth - that's not nice at all. If you are, that's even worse, please don't. I'm not in the US so I can't be of much use helping you find resources, but please just stop until someone can get you help. This is NOT worth it. Please UninspiringNickname (talk) 03:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hastur, this is serious. Stay out unless you avoid that twee attitude. And UninspiringNickname, I understand you want to give GC advice and I agree, but keep GC blocked for one hour as well as others that are not handling this situation well at all (HBC is a prime offender, but Hastur needs to stay off too if he can't help it), it's to deal with a mental health crisis that's affecting the rest of the community. 03:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You should just take a walk somewhere, I know from experience that that can help take your mind off things. The reason I blocked you multiple times GC is that staying on this wiki isn't helping with your mental health and you are in a state where you aren't thinking rationally. It's best to stay away from things that are clearly causing you mental harm. Plutocow (talk) 03:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Same reason I blocked for an hour. The wiki is not a healthy place to be in atm. I might take a step out too. 03:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Can we just go and sleep it off? I don't think GC or HBC are going to break the wiki in the meantime, and they will probably feel better without the blocks (I think). UninspiringNickname (talk)\
 * The blocks won't last long. The blocks in the end are an inconvenient roadblock and it gives someone who might have impulse problems second thoughts before trying to unblock. I've blocked myself for three days following intense drama regarding GodlessRaven, logged myself off, and it helped get my mind off. It's up to them in the end, but some encouragement doesn't hurt, especially when the expiration isn't long or they can unblock. 04:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So what's problem? No one has actually said what the issue is here. Got any links or something? Ace//about blank 04:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * See here for some context. Plutocow (talk) 04:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) There was a coop of you. UninspiringNickname tried to discuss with me about another discussion regarding the relationship of asexual people and the LGBT+ community. Discussion got heated between both of us, but GC came in and eventually melted down and had a crisis. There was also another discussion on Saloon Bar involving same users. He said to have self-harmed after that stress. See the collapse in UninspiringNickname's talk page. See this thread, collapse section again. Blocking was done to prevent more harm being done. 04:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright let me read these links. But everyone just chill (Oh the hypocrisyP. Ace//about blank 04:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * EVERYONE REMAIN CALM! 04:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry. I feel icky for getting even tangentially involved. This site is a toilet. Nutty Roux (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Nah, the site's just full of humans. I would question the sanity for instance of anyone who would say a site 4chan and 8chan is less of a "toilet" then RW. Reddit just went through a big massive drama recently due to a mod Reddit hired that various mobs didn't like (something about the hired person connected in UK politics to pedophiles, however apparently some of the outraged-at-pedos crowd were doxxing and harassing, didn't look too far into it). I would like to say it was better in the good ol' days, but I remember incidents like the drama-llamas in the LiveJournal days. The only reason there might have been less drama in the old days was because less people were using the Internet. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 14:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Can't everyone just calm down???
It's not like it's the end of the world... yet. Unclescrooge (talk) 04:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Things seem to have mostly calmed down already. But I'll just say, for future reference, that telling people to calm down isn't likely to make them calm down. Plutocow (talk) 04:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see what you mean. Unclescrooge (talk) 04:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I shouldn't have even asked about it. Now it's becoming a clusterfuck. Ace//about blank 04:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You did the right thing, Ace, but I think we should collapse the whole thing right now, ot at least this new topic. GeeJayK (talk) 04:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * GC has this belief that there's a Certain Way you have to make arguments, and seeing anyone deviating from that Certain Way results in him losing control, and he has little ability to regain his composure. During this time he will write vicious screeds, make threats, or engage in blockwars including removal of rights.  Not sure what to do with him, because when he hasn't lost his cool he's actually quite useful to the wiki.  04:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Will GC be ok? He said in a block log detail that he wants to die, which is concerning. Unclescrooge (talk) 04:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Dunno. Hope so.  Like I said, when he's calm, he's appreciated.  And even if I didn't want him here, well, most people deserve a decent chance at life.  Life's too short to fill it with animosity towards others.  04:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Cool man, this shit is resolved. Take a chill and end. Also, Ken... spamming RW fairly constantly over the last few months about how you have been telling us how sad we are because atheism on the internet is finished and that a guy Kaufaman said something about the decline of atheism 10 years ago whereas religion in the western world appears, by all metrics,to be in decline. You are beyond pathetic. You spent years talking, laughing about how RW was so lame and didn't even have a Wikipedia article and how Conservapedia was so much better. Well - now RW out ranks CP so all you have is "Ha Ha Ha - heres a picture of Sun Zhu and a random quote". Fucking sad. You're an idiot." Ace//about blank 08:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Great. I'm part of "everyone" But if I were any calmer I'd be asleep.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * that doesn't strike me as a bad stance at all. Currently yawning by the beach. I should get back on my bike, though, if I get caught outside past midnight the bobbies will (rightfully) be slightly irritated. UninspiringNickname (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I shouldn't need to say this, but here we are
It is completely unacceptable to employ talk of self-harm and / or suicide as leverage in any interaction with anyone, ever. This is isn't remotely controversial: it's mental health adulting 101, and is specifically addressed in this site's Legal FAQs:

''RationalWiki takes all threats of harm to self or others very seriously. Such statements will be removed from the wiki and all relevant information about the editor (including IP address) will be forwarded to appropriate authorities.'' There is a entire world of difference between "I feel bad and need help", and "Look at what you've made me do!". The former requires compassion and immediate referral to professionals better equipped to assist; the latter is textbook emotional abuse and manipulation, and should not be tolerated on these pages for a solitary fucking second.

N.B. Anyone who feels minded to prevaricate here better have something really fucking good in response to "IT MAKES ME WANT FUCKING DRIVE UP TO YOUR HOUSE AND MUTILATE MYSELF AND ASK IF THAT'S ENOUGH BLOOD SHED FOR YOUR FUCKING BULLSHIT!!! ALL WHILE KNOWING IT ISN'T BECAUSE IT NEVER FUCKING IS!!!", and should make damn well sure they can explain why it's OK to then further allude to "mutilated(ing) my arm again. Or contemplating(ing) suicide" when challenged on the above. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I agree with that. I have removed those two comments and made them invisible in edit history. Bongolian (talk) 17:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oh, and I just went and gave GC a slap on the wrist for that on his talkpage. -- Goatspeed. 18:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "Leverage". Because I have some way of getting you to be less of a toxic asshat. Sure... 18:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Good to see you made it through the night. You should get some hobbies that left you blow off steam, e.g., running.  If you are really angry, you can punish yourself extra hard by running faster and longer than you should.  18:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Off topic, but just out of curiosity, Circ (and others), would you consider endorsing me if I ran for Mod? 18:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * While you might be a pretty useful tech, I'm not sure; you'd need to be more fair-headed and curb your urges to engage with drama threads. -- Goatspeed. 19:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I think I could well be convinced, if my opinion matters at all. Ace will still get my first vote. He's a kiwi, after all. UninspiringNickname (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That's why you can vote for more than 1 person... 19:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I know! I just meant, he's got the kangoos on his side, and that's definitely noteworthy, I think. Keep it up and you will get my vote too. UninspiringNickname (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking about running too. Not sure if I'll have time by the end of the year to do so, and I owe to at least three mods because of a certain incident in January. Derailing a topic even more is probably not the way to announce it though. GeeJayK (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You might be right about the derailing, but, by the nine h*lls, I'd vote for you too. VERY calm and thoughtful. Plus, the queijo grelhado. That's brilliant, I tasted the real thing in Rio a long time ago. And we still owe you reparations, even though we're poor as heck because the Spaniards cucked us a bit with the effing Filipes UninspiringNickname (talk) 20:13, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's certainly good to start announcing candidacies now. Gives you far more time to start raising corporate PAC money/other election donations. --RWRW (talk) 20:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I haz no monies. Just a whole Serra da Estrela cheese in my fridge. Want some? You amerikanskis haz not knowledge of gud cheese. Plus, I think I'd probably vote for you too. UninspiringNickname (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm delighted to hear. Strong and Stable leadership in the Wiki's interest!
 * You can keep the cheese though. And I'm not American, I'm a lot more civilised. --RWRW (talk) 07:07, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * If "civilized" means invading foreign lands, overthrowing their governments, plundering their wealth, and oppressing their populaces, then yes, I guess y'all are more civilized than us. Wait a second..... We're equally civilized. — Oxyaena Harass  07:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I recognize that this discussion is basically over, but I found this in our legal FAQ although it appears to not be CS policy. Should probably be noted somewhere, although I want to point out for obvious reasons that we can't see your IPs. I'm not gonna be the one to clean up the current situation, but for future reference; self-harm should be removed from the site. 12:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring in SB
Ok, could you guys decide whether or not the entire topic "Weird lies & the liars who tell them" should be collapsed? It's getting annoying seeing in collapsed or not collapsed every time I check the SB. 18:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's been collapsed for nearly half an hour now, and it was just another flame war anyway. Why even bring it up here?-Flandres (talk) 19:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It seemed like an interesting topic, but the entire thing is being collapsed rather than just the off-topic shouting matches. It's going back and forth every so often, preventing it from being sacrificed to the Infernobot.  19:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm tired of people tiptoeing round the ramifications of allowing a serial fabulist to operate here unchecked. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 19:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * HBC just because the IBAN between you and Oxy failed doesn't give you the excuse to obliquely go after her. 19:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You know HBC, if she really is running around lying about herself, she is probably doing it to get attention. Why are you constantly going out of your way to give her that attention? Don't feed the troll...-Flandres (talk) 19:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

It would seem that HBC took that vote as encouragement rather than a warning. I don't buy into the idea that HBC is not a troll. Bongolian (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Being right about things in ways that present you with a moderation headache =/= trolling. I'll also note there are now three of you here who seem determined to tiptoe round the ramifications of allowing a serial fabulist to operate here unchecked. Great job. Profiles in courage. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I care not a whit what Oxy calls herself or what she says on talk pages as long as it stays within the bounds of civility. It is the pot calling the kettle black when you call yourself someone who you are not, HBC, "There can be only one." Bongolian (talk) 20:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Awesome, another mod required issue. As one I suggest archive, forget, do something else. Ace//about blank 20:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

OK. So if next month she decides she's Jewish, and starts claiming relatives lost to the Holocaust, or using that identity to try & further her arguments in relation to Israeli policy in the occupied territories, then you'd have no problem with that, and I could safely refer any disturbed / offended Jewish editors to your blithe comment above? Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 20:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * — Oxyaena Harass  20:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Flandres is really appealing to reason here HBC. There are quite a few pet ideas worth musing over on this wiki. Why not leave Oxyaena's for others to lambaste? They need the practice anyway. Don't forget to take your vitamins dear.UncleKrampus (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * HBC, I share your skepticism with some (and only some) of the claims that Oxy makes. But I don't feel this obsessive compulsion to troll her, stalk her around the internet and interrogate her in the saloon about it in the snarkiest and douchiest way possible. It's clear to everyone that you aren't on a crusade for the truth but to humiliate another user in some triumphant spectacle. I am certain that even during a COVID lock down there are better things to do on a Sunday. Shabi  DOO  21:24, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 21:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Personally, part of the reason I felt troll-collapsing the whole thing was necessary because several users (Oxy and HBC included) descended into name-calling. Yes, I thought Oxy's label-filled taunt at UninspiringNickname was a crap troll as well. But I don't need to see someone shitpost with a Barbra Streisand video in response, personally. UN's response to Oxy was sufficient. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a mod page and mod issues. So I’ll suspend my IBAN in the tamest possible way to say the following. When someone lies constantly then they should expect to be called out. Ace//about blank 21:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ...Which doesn't help much when they are obviously after attention/attempting to validate a persecution complex. Don't feed the troll. Aren't you old guard users always the ones ranting about "why can't people just ignore trolls nowadays?"-Flandres (talk) 21:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't fucking lie about myself. — Oxyaena Harass  21:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ace we don't have to choose between A) let someone say whatever dubious stuff like without being challenged or B) Be nasty and point at someone and laugh and ridicule them for being a stupid fucking liar OMG LOL ROFL duh!!!!! There is a whole lot in between those two things. So yeah, you can "clarify" something you think is dubious without doing so in a pointlessly toxic douchey smug superior way. It seems like some of you have an endless raging boner for trying to humiliate Oxy...far beyond anything reasonable or healthy...that the only option you see available when Oxy says something suspect is throw diarrhoea at her as publicly as possible. Shabi  DOO  22:04, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Shabi: when so minded, Oxy is easily one of the most vicious voices this wiki's ever had. She's more than happy to dish it out - at length - and yet anyone responding even vaguely in kind is somehow guilty of the most monstrous and unspeakable abuse. Seriously: do have the least idea how borked your perspective and thinking have become here? Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 22:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Except I have called out Oxy multiple times when she lashed out at people, I supported blocking her in the last coop and I recognise that she can be a disruptive user. What you've been doing in the last 48 hours is just deranged: stalking, trolling, provoking, pestering, undoing collapses, posting snarky shit, bugging me on my talk page and doing this on at least three different pages in three different spaces. A handful of users might find this entertaining, I believe most users don't want to see or read these stupid fucking antics. Shabi  DOO  22:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Self-awareness news: it's taken all this to finally get you (and Flandres) on the record about your "scepticism" re. some of her claims. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Uh...no. We've actually been critical of Oxy for a long time, you just wont believe it because it does not fit your preset narrative about site politics.-Flandres (talk) 22:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't have any more time for your edit warring over collapse templates and your crusade for being over-the-top nasty to Oxy. I'm done with this topic and don't feel like feeding your trollhood anymore. Bye. Shabi  DOO  23:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Jesus, Shabi. Just own it, man.
 * Flandres: Don't be silly. You've never previously come close to acknowledging her lying. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 23:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I could point out I was skeptical of the whole suicide thing, I just said we shouldn't do much about it because that is a mark against her as a human being, not any concern of the wiki. Of course, why bother-you wouldn't believe me no matter what I say. I have also mocked oxy on a lot more through the years (well, a little over a year) over other things...but that does not stop you from labeling me an "oxy enabler." It's just another example of how your obsession with oxy blinds you to reality. More pitiful than loathsome though, hmhmhmhmhm...-Flandres (talk) 23:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Pro-tip: all those times where you butted in and undermined people trying to apply some social pressure on her to shape the fuck up, that was enabling. Stop doing that, and you have my word I'll never call you an Oxy enabler again. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 23:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That response has so little relevance to anything that has really happened on-site I can't even engage with it except to mock it. Since that is not what this page is for, I leave you with this-


 * Ever since you started regularly editing the site again, you have been so obsessed with Oxy she pretty much defines your contributions. She leads you and owns you like a dog on a leash. Have fun living like that, hmhmhmhmhmhm...-Flandres (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Your kinks are showing, man. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I removed the collapse before I saw the HBC rant it was meant to hide. There’s a reason I didn’t try to reverse the person who put it back. I don’t like that kind of creepy nastiness either. 23:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a variety of latent nastiness that seems to be inveterate in this wiki. Some people think it's good to be nasty to certain people. Vitamin B complex is very good for anxiety. Have another meatball.UncleKrampus (talk) 00:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I do not see any point in discussing this any further in ATM. You can leave the collapse templates in place in the Saloon Bar, forget about this and move on. Or, much as it pains me to say this, you can start yet another Coop case .Which i guess is bound to happen sooner or later. Spud (talk) 00:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Is this OK?
Are vicious ad-hominem attacks permissible on RationalWiki? Because I've been on the receiving end of other spiteful grief today (being unceremoniously promoted before I made a single sysop edit because someone didn't like the user who demoted me) but this truly is beyond the pale. Splainer (talk) 00:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. I've send the person a warning. Bongolian (talk) 00:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. But the "moron" wasn't what I found crossed the line. It was the wish that I burn in hell because I've steadfastly objected to reverting to an ancient version of an article that's poorly-sourced and contains cruel 4chan-ish mockery. I don't believe in hell, but the hostility in that kind of wish is totally uncalled-for. Splainer (talk) 00:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Bad reversions are not against the rules per se, but editwarring with refusal to talk things out civilly on the talk page could at some point cross the line into incivility. Bongolian (talk) 00:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, Hume is regarded as an atheist. There is no actual reference to hell. Folks can be mean. Certainly they can tell insipid stories.Ariel31459 (talk) 01:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Leucippus isn't the one behind the bad reversion. They're apparently just a troll looking to stir the pot. Christopher is the one who initially reverted a long-standing version of the HAES article in favor of an older and highly-problematic version. He didn't post on the talk page seeking consensus for this decision, but did invite anyone who objected "revert him and take it to the talk page." I belatedly reverted his reversion and was in the process of composing a talk page post when GeeJayK made a hasty revert to the problematic version (by his own admission, without reading either version). And from there it kind of spiralled into minor edit war. Christopher, to his credit, restored the newer version of the article and been engaging in discussion on the talk page. But it's been difficult trying to constructively engage with someone who has stated they "don't see any fatphobia" in a version of the article featuring a mean-spirited and unnecessary crack that fat people just need to stop "guzzling entire cans of Pringles." I've let a lot of mean-spirited crap pass because I haven't been a perfect example of grace under pressure, but telling me I deserve to burn in hell because I think it's wrong to let RW be used as an outlet for bigotry and bad science is where I draw the line. The non-existence of hell in no way excuses such hostility. Splainer (talk) 01:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * For the millionth time. I reverted your edit because I thought you were switching edits without discussing it with the community. Once again you're accusing me of doing something for reasons that I didn't. I said twice that I didn't think you were acting in bad faith, I even said that your demotion was correct and that it would be a shame if you decide to LANCB. Guess I was wrong again. GeeJayK (talk) 01:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You left out the part where you threatened to block me for undoing the restoration of a problematic version of the article you later admitted hadn't read. I characterized that move as "hasty," which I'd hoped would convey misjudgment without imparting bad faith. I do appreciate your supportive comment, but you can't threaten to block someone who's been editing for two years and expect them not to be a bit wary afterward. Splainer (talk) 02:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I threatened to block you because you were edit warring. You left out the part that I asked you to take it to the talk page two or three times before telling you that I'd block you if you didn't. Worked out, since you've finally did the right thing and posted on the talk page. GeeJayK (talk) 02:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I was in the process of composing a talk page post when you reverted to the problematic version. I'm not a fast writer and I'd hoped my two requests for you to actually read what you were restoring would buy me some time (and perhaps that you'd see the inherent problems with the version for yourself). But, well, rapid edits happened. I don't find your emphasis on the importance of discussion unreasonable in itself. I just find you're being rather selective in who you think needs to be told this. Splainer (talk) 02:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, you should probably keep this on the talk page for the HAES article.-Flandres (talk) 02:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, definitely. Splitting this disagreement across two different pages isn't doing anyone any good. Spud (talk) 03:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

, I sincerely apologise for my comments on the talk page. What initially was meant as a tongue and cheek joke, turned into something nasty. Now that I've actually bothered reading the article, I can see that you've presented a good case for its continued existence. The Hume reference was never meant to imply that you burn in hell! it meant to imply, somewhat less acerbically, that your work on the article be incinerated for it "contained nothing but sophistry and illusion"‽ Anyhow, my knee-jerk reaction to the article was that it was simply presenting more evidence, of the decaying intellectual standards of the wiki, or at least of a certain cohort of users. Leucippus Talk 17:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I appreciate your apology. Your quote, presented out of context, did read as a wish to "commit" a person to "the flame," not to discard an idea as one might cast a letter or book in a fire. Your other post on the talk page certainly wasn't constructive. Anyway, it looks like there was a repeated troll at work who's now been dealt with. Hopefully the discussion can be more constructive going forward. Splainer (talk) 05:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

UShistoryanalyzer
I think we need to have a more permanent solution to this problem user. They have been banned multiple times for engaging in constant edit wars (see their block log), and they have a near refusal to use the talk page, and even when they do they ignore the discussion and just edit war anyway. After the last time they were banned, which was for edit warring in John Birch Society and Southern Strategy, I warned them that if they continued their edit war I would put them in the vandal bin, and guess what happened. This user refuses to listen to any warnings, so it's clear we're at a breaking point. From here I can see two solutions:

Vandal bin: Limit their edits so that they can edit once every thirty minutes. This will reduce their ability to get into multipage edit wars (which has happened multiple times) and give them a chance to improve their edits.

Topic ban from U.S. history and politics: Since most of their edits are there to push the Dixiecrat fallacy and tend to use poor sourcing and logical fallacies when closely analyzed, this is also a potential solution. The downsides are that this is the only section they edit, and given that they already have ignored just about every single warning, they would be unlikely to follow a topic ban.

Anyway, I'll give the rest to you since I am sick of this person. Plutocow (talk) 03:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It may be unpopular, but I support a 3-week block for this JBS dude. Bongolian (talk) 04:11, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I would sooner support a topic ban. He is your average right-wing keyboard warrior-he pushes a false narrative based on mostly dubious sources and never backs down when you debate him because like any internet conservative he never knows when he's been proven wrong no matter how hard you try. He can do this in the saloon. He can do this on talk pages. But when he does this in main space he just wastes everybody's time by starting edit wars over a false narrative he will never sincerely concede.-Flandres (talk) 04:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Look asshole, you are the same ridiculous hypocrite who refused to respond to my post on Talk:States' Rights Democratic Party regarding racist Sen. Ellender after I pinged you; then after you quickly reverted my edit for the article regarding without replying and some other edits later, you told me that I should consider engaging on talk pages before "edit-warring". Also, take a look here: after I add a perfectly fine detail which is 100% factual, you point-blank revert as if you are deranged, perhaps because you are? Even GeeJayK knew that you went too far!
 * Also, if you're so sick of me, have you considered leaving this wiki? The truth does hurt, and I intend to keep adding it without regard to your feelings. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 04:17, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * First of all, your ad hominem attacks (such as "asshole") aren't helping your case. I've explained multiple times why you are making a false equivalence regarding your refusal to use a talkpage vs. me reverting you. Maybe I shouldn't have been so quick to revert your last edit, but when you have a history of using bad sources and fallacies and you just were sanctioned for making the same bad edit that you were called out on multiple times by multiple people, you should not be surprised when your edits receive more scrutiny. Keep in mind the only reason why we are discussing sanctions is because of your poor attitude. If you were civil and actually willing to discuss your edits without edit warring and using ad hominem attacks, we wouldn't have a problem with you, but here we are.
 * Anyway, if we do go with a topic ban, we need to decide how to enforce it, since this person never listens to anything. Plutocow (talk) 04:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's easy-you just block the person for an hour and revert their edit that violated the ban. If they violate a topic ban, you have the right to do that. No further action is needed. This is not as complicated as you are making it sound, and it is far better than the vandal bin.-Flandres (talk) 04:29, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know, I feel an hour long ban isn't enough of a deterrent, and this just allows them to continue their edit wars just at a smaller scale, especially if they can edit multiple pages quickly. Plutocow (talk) 04:32, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If he is really that much of a problem, repeatedly violating a topic ban, then you just move to higher sanctions, perhaps via a coop. There is no need for more punishment.-Flandres (talk) 04:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Whatever happened to tossing people into the vandal bin? 05:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * - dude I was supportive of taking you out the vandal bin but if you wanna be a dick about it then my good nature will wane. Ace//about blank 05:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I fully support a topic ban as the best solution to this problem. Spud (talk) 05:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If you guys actually decide to topic ban him may I give a suggestion? Let him work on drafts. If they're good enough to the main space, the ban can be lifted. I think this can be used in topic bans overall, not only in this case. What do you think? GeeJayK (talk) 06:06, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Not a good idea. Any more drafts he creates will just be full of the same poorly sourced crap and will never get moved to mainspace. Spud (talk) 06:15, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I’ve tried repeatedly to be patient and accommodating towards that user. Clearly didn’t accomplish anything. I support a topic ban or indefinite bin. 06:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I support neither option. I support rolling bans - 30 mins, followed by an hour, followed by 24 hours... etc etc... Ace//about blank 06:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * They've already been banned several times, didn't change their behavior. Plutocow (talk) 06:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Then lets make it official. Instead of random blocking lets enshrine it, That's my favoured outcome. Ace//about blank 08:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Vandal binning seems useful too. 09:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If it's just one article he keeps edit warring over, protecting said article for couple of days whenever he rears his head over there would in my opinion be more sensible than vandal binning. General jackassery could then be dealt with escalating blocks. 09:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not just one page, nearly every page he edits turns into an edit war. Escalating blocks were tried and turned out to be ineffective. Plutocow (talk) 15:14, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Throw him in the brig. — Oxyaena Harass  11:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Then let him work in one of two of those that he created. Preventing someone from working in something they love is too cruel for me. GeeJayK (talk) 13:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The point of drafts is that they eventually get moved to mainspace and become proper RationalWiki articles. They are not supposed to be one user's private kingdom where they can express any crackpot ideas they want. if he's just going to be adding to drafts that will never get moved to mainspace because they're full of poorly sourced crap, that won't be doing the wiki any good. And RationalWiki does not exist just to let everyone write whatever they like about whatever it is they love. He can always start a blog. Then he can say anything he likes about anything he likes. Spud (talk) 13:39, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, my point was actually use the drafts as a way to measure if he improved or not. If the community believes he's acting in good faith based by his drafts then the block can be lifted. Indeed, if they're still bad they won't even be on the main space. But if you guys say no than that's ok, as far as I know topic bans don't prevent, at least a priori, the user to create essays, which can be used in similar ways (of course if the essay space is being abused it's a whole new history). GeeJayK (talk) 13:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, since I got involved over at JBS, I guess I ought to say something. I started a section on the talk page to create space for the discussion of his sources, and ended up being more engaged in the discussion than he was. I do not think that limiting him to draftspace would resolve the issue: when it came time to determine what could be moved from his drafts to the relevant articles, the same problem would ultimately emerge. What he needs to learn is how to stop edit warring and engage in talk page discussion, and working on a private draft isn't going to help with that. At a certain point, good faith has to be joined by competence at engaging with other users. Serene (talk) 14:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Should we hold a vote on this matter? Vandal binning and topic banning have both received some level of support but applying both might be excessive, so maybe ranked-choice voting could be used here. Plutocow (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think a vote is in order. Spud (talk) 05:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

It's been a week, can this be closed? Plutocow (talk) 17:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems to be the case, but I still don't understand exactly what's going on here. Topic ban from drafts and main and not from essay space? And how about talk pages? GeeJayK (talk) 17:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Talk pages are not covered under topic bans, as the one for Oxy on left wing politics showed. Drafts and main space are the main spheres.-Flandres (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * [EC]It was never made very clear, I assume it would follow the standard formula for topic bans on active sanctions? The scope of the topic is also unclear. Christopher (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, so I'm wrong on the talk page thing (it seems the thing for Oxy appears to have expired at some point I was not present for.) Just follow the thing chris linked.-Flandres (talk) 18:07, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We should probably have further discussion on what a topic ban should be as it's debatable whether talk page access should be restricted, however at minimum this should include a ban from mainspace and draft articles related to US history and politics. They basically admitted that they were trying to push "the myth of the party switch", so take from that what you will. Plutocow (talk) 18:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think there should be some wriggle room to allow for topic bans to be slightly different on a case-by-case basis. But on the whole, I really think that talk pages should be included in a topic ban. I can just see most users who get banned from editing articles but are allowed to write what they like on the talk pages turning into even more insufferable trolls. Spud (talk) 04:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Anyway, should we close this due to more than a week passing since this was opened? Plutocow (talk) 04:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Considering how close both results were maybe a ban for the talking pages is going to be useful for him. Indeed, he'll be able to vote soon, and if wants to appeal to this in a month, let's say, ceteris paribus he only needs his own vote. Nonetheless, he also needs only one vote to go to the vandal bin, so if someone changes their mind on this subject he might end up on the brig too. GeeJayK (talk) 04:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As the results are so close I think we should give it a day or two. Christopher (talk) 08:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Spud (talk) 14:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Aye

 * 1) And that includes drafts and essays. Spud (talk) 12:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I’d support a ban that extends to mainspace articles and drafts, but essays shouldn’t have any restrictions. Christopher (talk) 12:29, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts I’m undecided, although it looks like this’ll pass however I vote. Still definitely opposed to a ban on essays/talk pages. Christopher (talk) 17:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * OK then. Just mainspace articles and drafts. I won't push for a ban on essays. After all, it's not as if he's pushing woo that could be potentially dangerous to people. Spud (talk) 00:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm inclined to just limit it to Drafts and main space pages...but I don't care if others have a broader opinion unless I see blatant abuse. He pretty much always is just pushing pseudo-history on this topic anyway.-Flandres (talk) 12:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As the one who first proposed a topic ban, let me say what I meant-he could not edit mainspace pages on these topics. Posting anywhere else was okay, and even drafts was negotiable.-Flandres (talk) 17:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) What Christopher said (no essay ban) Shabi  DOO  13:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena  <font color="Red">Harass  15:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) IveBeenFrank (talk) 17:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) He has done everything to deserve it. 17:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) My patience is gone. 19:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 6) - Any action for now shouldn't be a ban when there are other options. Ace//about blank 20:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Is that a vote for no then? You put it in the aye section. Christopher (talk) 22:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Aye for a topic ban, not for a permablock. Ace//about blank 22:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Nay

 * 1) Seems to require a case-by-case approach. 17:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) It seems overbroad or unclear. Banning from essayspace or not? Banning from talk pages or not? To do so without good cause is contrary to RW ethos. Some of UShistoryanalyzer's drafts on individual deceased politicians are not bad I think. Bongolian (talk) 17:38, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) See my reasons below. GeeJayK (talk) 17:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Apparently the guy's interest is US History. I'm not convinced he shouldn't contribute.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) From what I can understand, some of his edits cause conflicts, other edits of his don't. Topic banning is not warranted because the user is not a blanket problem in this subject; please try to identify a closer set of criteria. I would be willing to vote yes on a topic ban on edits related to racism and civil rights in US history, since at a glance this appears to be their blind spot. Also, essay bans were never a part of topic bans, those are a part of IBANs (in that you shouldn't comment on an essay written by a single user you're IBANned with).  18:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 6) Seems fascist. Unclescrooge (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Since you called me a fascist because I don't think hydroxychloroquine works against Covid-19 I don't think you know what this word means....GeeJayK (talk) 22:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Aw hell, somebody getting topic banned on a C-list wiki project for being a cunt? Fucking Mussolini politics, man. 00:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Fits here. IveBeenFrank (talk) 10:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


 * 1) Ill defined, seems like it’s a way of effectively banning him from the site which I definitely wouldn’t support. Christopher (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)</li>
 * You'll have to edit Frank's quote so your vote will be visible. GeeJayK (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that’ll do, don’t know how to get rid of that “1.” Christopher (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Goat

 * I'm generally not fond of topic bans. What is exactly the breadth of this topic ban? US politics and history? Shouldn't it be very defined? They get difficult to enforce later down the line. Do you think UShistoryanalyzer (who I don't like either, had similar frustrations interacting with them) will be productive in other topics? Doubt so. There's an attitude problem here not a topic problem. Something else needs to be used to discourage. Knock with a three day or a week block for edit warring or low quality edits. Every time. Talk space edits? Well if there's a consensus against them, let them have the last word and say the changes won't happen unless they can get a consensus. 14:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd say the thinking is more if he can't edit pages about the only things that interest him, he'll bugger off. Spud (talk) 14:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I honestly think UShistoryanalyzer has been treated unfairly sometimes. Of course, he should've been more active on the talk pages, but many reversions, as far as I see, came without warning too, and a some of his edits seemed ok to me. GeeJayK (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I also disagree with banning him from essayspace, at least a priori. If he starts to spam it the ban will be fair, but as I said before, he had never made, as far as I know a single edit on the essay space and we don't have those Minority Report powers here to know if he will. It's probably also the best way to parole him in the future. GeeJayK (talk) 17:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Ineligible

 * 1) Long overdue. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You will be eligible on penalty votes on April 25th.-Flandres (talk) 17:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Nay. To me this is fundamentally a problem of failing to engage in discussion, which is not topic-specific. I see no reason to think anything would be fundamentally different if USHistoryAnalyzer were editing on other topics. Serene (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, there's also the fact that their edits are poorly sourced and tend to use fallacies. Plutocow (talk) 18:21, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but I still think failure to engage is the major problem. The last edit I saw him make was to court-packing, which sourced a NYT opinion column written by a Princeton professor of political history, which is not obviously a bad source. It also isn't obviously irrelevant, especially given that the idea was recently revived and has again proved controversial, and that the article already notes that FDR's effort is remembered badly. And since the reversions have no edit summary, it isn't immediately obvious why the edit was undone. To me, this is still fundamentally a problem of communication. Looking at his block log, he appears to have been blocked previously for edit warring, block warring, and name calling, and been told to discuss things on talk pages. He has seemingly not been blocked for using poor sources and fallacious reasoning per se. And again, if he uses poor sources and fallacious reasoning, there is no reason to believe that he will use good sources and good reasoning on other topics.  If this isn't worth banning him over, it isn't worth topic-banning him over. If the idea is that he won't be interested in editing anything else, and so will just leave, then really what is wanted is to ban him, and in that case I think it should be done openly and directly, if it is to be done at all. Serene (talk) 18:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

This fucking shit again
Flandres, I'm not accustomed to having my professional competence as an attorney attacked by a stranger based on what is, at best, his ignorance of prior discussions about the purpose of this page going back a decade, or, at worst, his dishonest mischaracterization of my question solely to create an opportunity to shit on me like he's making a habit of. I'll assume the best case scenario, although you feel free to pop up out of the blue to call me a "whiny man child", so perhaps that's not warranted. I don't particularly like the usual personal attacks I get for expressing opinions you and your pals don't like, but they're a lot better than seeing you pretend you're entitled to comment on what I do for a living. Knock it off please. Nutty Roux (talk) 17:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Ace//about blank 10:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Why is this page getting used for user proposed penalties? This isn't a moderation issue and only people who look at recent changes will even know this is occurring. Nutty Roux (talk) 12:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * We've had penalty votes on here before. Oxy has been sysoprevoked here...-Flandres (talk) 12:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Literally unresponsive but thanks. I asked why this occurs on this page. Nutty Roux (talk) 13:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I just pointed out we have a (actually quite long) precedent for using this page for penalty votes. Your rules-lawyering is quite simply out of place (Also, I hope you are not an actual lawyer based on this display here, hmhmhm).-Flandres (talk) 13:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Jesus you're dim. Nutty Roux (talk) 13:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay everybody, now that I have established Nutty is only here to whine (like always) let's just ignore his attempt at an objection and keep the vote going.-Flandres (talk) 13:15, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure if he's de facto lawyer, but Nutty apparently has studied law, and has been the resident expert on American law at least on this wiki. To the point where | he threatens to unilaterally parmaban generally useful people for disagreeing with him on the subject matter. All I'm saying is, don't push him. He wants to ban everyone anyway, so you might not want to give him any excuses. 17:29, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You formatted your link wrong. There’s no reason to tiptoe around Nutty, if he decided to unilaterally ban someone (and I don’t think he would) they’d quickly be unbanned. Christopher (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Aye

 * 1) — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena  <font color="Red">Harass  15:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 16:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Not so severe a punishment... IveBeenFrank (talk) 17:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Imprison him, and let him feel the horrors that seep in. 17:21, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) An edit warrer, and this is the best way to curb an edit war.  21:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Have also decided in favor of this sanction as well. 21:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Nay

 * 1) Topic ban is enough. Kevs   Ping!  15:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Too much. GeeJayK (talk) 16:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Pointless as the user in question isn't active enough for such a measure to have any real effect. 17:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) [EC]Excessive. I’d support binning only if he ignored his topic ban. Christopher (talk) 17:38, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Ace//about blank 20:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 6) Unclescrooge (talk) 22:33, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Goat
Minimum Time is over. I think we can end it,. Kevs  Ping!  06:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Ineligible

 * 1) Long overdue. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You will be eligible to vote on penalty votes on April 25th.-Flandres (talk) 17:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Aye. It would make it more difficult to edit war. Serene (talk) 18:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Downplaying harassment/stalking
When serious cases of harassment are going on this wiki, it is downplayed as merely trolling. It completely misses the fundamental problem running amok on social media and when I explained what was the difference between a harasser and a troll I was told that I was "giving it too much attention", this hurts and this issue is why harassment online is not treated correctly. I am not only on here, if the harasser decides to stalk me outside of RationalWiki, they can. Rather than downplaying these types of users, something should be done so they stop, like mediation. I know some cases are beyond redemption (Well, there was this woman on Twitter who kept on harassing Youtubers on the belief they were Pedophiles by using alt accounts), but the case I mentioned is not. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 17:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Don’t think this should be in the bar, move to ATiM? Christopher (talk) 17:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Go ahead MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 17:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's fairly obvious HBC has been stalking me off-wiki as well. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  18:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you have difflinks MS77, assuming this happened on-wiki? If someone is stalking you off-site, we unfortunately are limited in what we can do to help you with this (well, outside of banning the original user; stalkers and harassers have zero place on RW as far as I'm concerned). The same goes for you Oxy; if HBC is stalking you off-site evidence of this in the form of diff-links and connecting tissue that HBC is the person stalking you would be much appreciated. I consider this to be grounds for a speedy block with a post-discussion vote. 18:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * MS77’s stalking comment was a hypothetical, don’t think there’s any indication it’s happening at the moment. This discussion started at BAR, when a BoN insulted Oxy (on its own not harassment, but I gather there may be a pattern). Christopher (talk) 18:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If there is stalking, we need to end it pronto. Regardless of my opinions on Oxy (or anyone else for that matter), no matter how much someone annoys you online if they aren't actually doing anything illegal they should never be subject to actual threats. SockPup (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Evidence is actually on the bar itself — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  19:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Cheers, kid. This saves me the job of having to do anything further to draw attention to your weird lies for the next few days. Maybe you could make a few cracks about Team Asspat for me as well. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Not so fast. You went off-site to find an account of Oxy talking about something on Google Groups. I don't care what you say or think, your conduct has gone BLATANTLY against CS. It is LITERALLY written out: "tl;dr: don't google people's names and post stuff you find" as well as "Personal information about other RationalWiki users that is not volunteered by that user should not be posted on this site". I cannot even begin to express how over the line this is. Here is the diff of you inserting this content on the page. I'm sure some people will try to go "but Oxy lies". No. Full stop. No. This is against the CS, blatantly clear and simple. I am throwing your ass in the coop. YOU DON'T DO THIS SHIT. 21:18, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Temporary autoconfirm permission for page creation?
Or just be patient and delete? 14:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Just be patient and delete, I think. Spud (talk) 14:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, this just happened
Oxy just reverted my edits. You guys want to do something please? 04:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, Oxyaena's undoing of your edits was a violation of your interaction ban. I have restored your version and made the page editable by moderators only for the next two hours. Much as it greatly pains me to say it,, you are legitimately in a position to start another Coop case against Oxyana if you want to. Spud (talk) 05:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If.
 * But, eh, crisis averted, getting some sleep. Life's too short to spend it making yourself miserable over meaningless squabbles.  05:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It was one slip-up. Just move on. 06:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Please - not another coop. Ace//about blank 07:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , don't worry. There isn't going to be one. Not this time., you've made the right choice by sparing us a bit of extra drama. Spud (talk) 08:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I know I'm late, but don't make the same blunder I made by unnecessarily cooping GC when I should've just stopped at the modlock of his talkpage; as per the result of the coop case that issued the IBAN, we mods already have free rein to unilaterally discipline this person without any need for another coop, unless she's a real nuisance. Don't give the unmentionable user the opportunity to become the next Mona. -- Goatspeed. 08:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Legend has it, that on some quiet nights, you can still hear the faint cries of "As world renowned journalist Glenn Greenwald wrote"...
 * In all serious though, do you think my edits were worthy for the Anarchism page? I don't get the impression that the Anarchism page should be nothing more than a summary of Anarchist writings; we are here to debunk woo, crankery and moonbattery, not promote it.  14:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

In case more interaction bans happen
If it isn't already outlined shouldn't out block policy outline interactions bans? Show the specifics of it, make it deal with every possible interaction that's considered in violation of the ban. For instance, it's obvious users cannot bring tbe other party up. But it's not quite clear that reverting edits is also a violation. Also provide users that have a ban alternate means to address page content disputes. Finally, while documenting who has an interactuon ban through a talk page message is a good first step, these bans will be more difficult to keep track of down the line. Maybe an active mod can cook up an essay page of current interaction bans and list an archive of coop votes and all things in moderation votes. I'm overall doubtful of the overall effectiness of interaction bans but at least make it easier for mods to deal with. 13:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Sirius/Active sanctions already exists. The last bullet point makes it very clear you’re not allowed to revert edits, although as seen above Oxy has already ignored that once. Christopher (talk) 13:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Bit out of the way to find it. Block policy (and community standards if applicable) should be updated for those interaction/topic bans imo. 14:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, and suggested it be moved to projectspace a while ago. said she’d do it on the 25th of March, but never got round to it. It’s definitely worth mentioning in the blocking policy, although a few lines about non-standard sanctions being implemented where there’s a need without much detail would probably suffice. Christopher (talk) 14:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * A week later now, I made it into a full blown project page. Give me a bit to add a shortcut and a link or two on ATIM/Coop pages. 14:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, there will be more interaction bans. And they will probably also involve Oxyaena-Hastur! (talk)  14:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I've cross-wicked it to ATIM/Coop. I concur that we should probably outline it somewhere in the blocking policy, although the sanctions list is designed to be as flexible as possible (the current three types of sanctions should be enough for now, but we might have other cases in the future: we can't predict every possible problem on the site), which means it's not an excellent fit for complete inclusion in the CS. A reference to it however should be listed somewhere. 14:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you Sirius. You did great. Pleasant surprise from me that there's such a thing, or my memory is failing me. 14:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I made it shortly after we had to topic ban Hairless Cat from inserting woo on our new age & skepticism pages, so it's relatively new. Originally it was mostly just an internal list, but Chris pointed out that the wider community has use for it. 14:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm.....
......too old. To preoccupied. Too uncaring. Too disappointed with the current group. You're so officious. I'm a cunt. Being at the same level as you is actually diminishing to me. Being an RW mod actually lessens my standing in life. Keep that in mind.
 * ...I'm quit. Ace//about blank 08:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh well. Since is the first alt, some other mod should probably demote him as a replacement.  09:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. 09:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That is a shame. Thanks for your service, . And welcome aboard, . --RWRW (talk) 10:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I will echo RWRW's words. But, of course, you understand ,, that now there are no exceptions to your interaction ban.
 * And since you'll be reading this to gloat, Ken, fuck you! Spud (talk) 12:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I just hope you don't LACB because of this. GeeJayK (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)