User talk:Nutty Roux/Oxyaena blocks past 60 days

Try actually looking at the context of those blocks, and also try not stirring the pot for once. You're just as guilty of it as I am. I`m trying to reform, piss off with this shit. — Oxyaena Harass  17:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I give you credit where credit is due, albeit with the criticism that you still think you're so above the law that you ban for "evasion" without even saying who you think you're banning. If you think my comments are unfair, point out where you think I've gotten it wrong. Your claim that you toned down your blocking deserves scrutiny. Nutty Roux (talk) 17:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * BoNs don't get binned, I've gotten shit for that before. IP addresses don't get indefinite bans as well, and LGM banned Ken first, I merely reversed Ace's unblocking, people wanted Ken gone. — Oxyaena Harass  18:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Ban for shitposting troll was not problematic. The alternatives suggested (coop or bin) have made me raise an eyebrow. This BoN isn't worth a coop nor is binning viable for any BoN user. 18:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * And yet those are the correct alternatives unless I'm missing where in the policy even as your wrote it "shitposting trolls" who aren't spouting objectively awful stuff get banned for longer than a short time. I feel like I'm missing something here. Are some of these bans not totally indefensible? Nutty Roux (talk) 18:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No? Binning isn't viable. Coop cases are a massive drain of energy on the wiki and are reserved for contentious issues. This one has been posting bad takes on multiple talk pages, was told to stop by me on my talk page but also posted in a similar BoN's talk page (if not that one) and on other talk pages. A short term ban would've been appropriate. I will give it to you that Oxyaena did jump the gun though, as I did unblock and ask for a warning first. So while the ban itself was in order, and it was excessive, the alternative suggested would've been a warning on the user's page or a very short term ban (1 hour) but 3 days is in order once the user continues. 18:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If you're saying that the 22 day ban is not problematic in one post and saying 3 days after a warning would be appropriate and 22 days is problematic in another post, I don't know how to interact with you. Tell me how I'm misunderstanding. Also, I don't understand why you're even commenting at any great length if the redux is you actually agree 22 days was inappropriate. Nutty Roux (talk) 19:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I mistakenly assumed the ban was a short-term ban, overlooked information that said it was several weeks, and didn't check the logs, where I unbanned the user because at the time, the ban was premature. I added a redux at the end, but it probably wasn't clear that I was examining what was going in before and after the post. Apologies for any confusion. I still don't agree with the alternatives though.. 19:16, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. I understand. Do you agree that the policy as written still doesn't adequately address the outcome for this user? If not, how do you justify anything longer than a few days without a coop or some other more egregious behavior that fits with the precedent of banning people like Nazis on sight? Also, I know you know your effort looks like a pretty half hearted defense, if that's what you're doing. Nutty Roux (talk) 19:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I do think policy can't and won't be able to cover every incident, so individual discretion applies, per mob judgement. I'm not justifying this particular instance for anything longer than a few days; hypothetical incidents include a user has adding comments over a longer term span. 19:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)