RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive33

RfC: Sievert 81
Sievert 81 is an editor to both RW, Conservapedia, and English Wikipedia. I would like to report possible sockpuppetry being done by this user. On Wikipedia, this user is indefinitely blocked and banned due to sockpuppetry and the addition of factual inaccuracies to articles related to prion diseases and RationalWiki, especially the claim that there are 75,000 cases of spongiform encephalopathy per year. Due to his questionable criticism of RW, I decided to see if he had an account on here, and he does, and his contributions are also adding this info about "75,000 cases". I decided to look at the history at the pages for Mad cow disease and Prions and I figured out what was going on. I found these accounts that appear to be his sockpuppets, as their contributions are very close to Sievert's on both Wikipedia and RationalWiki (please note that another thing that should not be Sievert likes to post about is how COVID-19 causes AIDS; all of these accounts have posted false information about BSE):

User:75000casesofCJD, User:GalaticExalence, and User:75000 cases.

GalaticExalence is already indefinitely blocked.

I would like to propose a ban for this user, at least from editing medical articles, preferably indefinite and site-wide, due to his long-term abuse, and his violation of RationalWiki's very mission statement.

Further evidence for sockpuppetry as this wiki has no CheckUser: Various accounts on Wikipedia that have usernames related to "75000 cases" have been blocked because the CU on there identified them as sockpuppets. The contributions of both Sievert's main account and these suspected sockpuppets are associated with his main account and confirmed sockpuppets on enwiki.

In conclusion: Sievert 81 posts false information about prion diseases on various RationalWiki articles, and does not seem to be here for any constructive reasons, therefore I'd like to ask for your opinions on implementing an indefinitely long ban for this user and his sockpuppets, in order to prevent further disruption by edit warring, sockpuppetry, and adding factual inaccuracies to these articles. Here are my options for you:

1. Indefinitely ban Sievert 81. 2. Topic ban Sievert 81 from articles about medicine. 3. Do nothing. Thank you for your consideration. Signed, JJPMaster (talk) 18:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * They restrict themselves to the talkpages which doesn't necessarily violate the mission statement. We have plenty of sysops that can handle destructive edits quickly. Rockford the Roe (talk) 19:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Cool story, bro. — Oxyaena Harass  18:49, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * JJ does look like they know about this person based on their activity on the other wiki. I wouldn't really dismiss this IIWY. Rockford the Roe (talk) 19:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * A topic ban would probably be sufficient. Twodots (talk) 20:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sievert 81 has effectively engaged in edit warring via socks, block evasion (but not ban evasion per se), but also trying to hide his edit history albeit rather feebly (and admitting to trolling in the process). I'd support permaban on all the accounts, but failing that just vandal bin his non-banned accounts. Bongolian (talk) 21:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC) did the block on GalaticExalence, so he should weigh in on this, by the way. Bongolian (talk) 21:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't know he was that annoying. Twodots (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Off-wiki stuff has always been considered irrelevant in Rational-Wiki. I could mention at least four Rational-Wikians with active sanction on WP (five if you count KD), and at least half of the RW user base has sanctions on CP.!71.208.119.213 (talk) 22:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with ; a topic-ban would be sufficient. I myself once blocked him for repeatedly inserting false information into prion/Mad Cow-related articles, even after and I told him to stop fucking doing it. When I blocked him, he promptly showed blatant unrepentance, and continued spouting nonsense about how COVID causes AIDS. This is not someone we should let anywhere near our science pages. He needs to get used to the fact that unlike CP, he and his buddies Ken, RobSmith, and LT do not have a monopoly on the narrative here. Only when if he violates the topic ban, would I support a permaban. -- Goatspeed.  00:22, 17 December 2020 (UTC)


 * And also, this coop is long overdue, IMHO. -- Goatspeed. 00:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I really would like to permaban Sievert 81 now and get this over with. Things are only going to get worse if he's allowed to carry on editing here. He isn't a constructive editor. He's a self-admitted troll. I don't think he actually believes any of the stuff he keeps posting about CJD and other diseases. In a message that he left on my talk page as a BoN, after he'd been temporarily blocked and I'd banned some of his sockpuppets, headed "Idiots... You realize I was trolling?", he says that he was only claiming that there was a connection between COVID-19 and AIDS in order to get a rise out of us, makes us look stupid and then go to Conservapedia and talk about how stupid we are. But I suppose a topic ban will have to do for a start. I'm sure that he will violate the conditions of that ban, probably as a sockpuppet that he won't even be trying to hide is him, and then we can take further action. Spud (talk) 01:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree. I meant the same thing that you suggest in my above comment. He's clearly a bad-faith editor. -- Goatspeed. 01:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)


 * This user is not auto-patrolled, has never been a sysop, and has no history of ever being a demoted user here. I conclude, then, that this coop doesn't even need a formal vote. I believe that they should be banned now and banned on sight in the future when they attempt to come in here again with a sock puppet and try and get a rise out of us. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 02:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree: ban on site. One good thing though, Sievert 81 did correctly point out that there were some problems with the CJD page, as it happened though they were not the fixes that he proposed. Don't lose a chance to undo wrong corrections and make the page better. Bongolian (talk) 02:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I learned a few months ago that this was wrong place to settle things for editors with no user rights beyond autopatrolled. Either move this to RationalWiki:All things in moderation or be done with it. Apparently blocking for up to π weeks is not too controversial. Up to π months might not face too much resistance (might have to justify yourself). Permaban must be approved by the mob. Coop is the wrong place for it though as I have learned. ATIM is where this should go if anyone wants a block longer than 3 months. If anyone gives a block longer than 3 months to Sievert though, without mob approval, they can be cooped. Anyway, I'm smashed right now. Please handle this responsibly until I get sober. Bye! 02:45, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * And unless they are considered a sock of a banned editor, they can't be banned for good without mob aproval. That's my understanding of it anyhow. So hold your horses Bongolian and Cosmikdebris. 02:50, 17 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Alrighty then. Cut-pasting now. -- Goatspeed. 02:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Fine, I blocked them for 90 days. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 02:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I've just moved this to the mod noticeboard. -- Goatspeed. 02:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I've just gone and banned all known socks of Sievert to prevent him from abusing multiple accounts. -- Goatspeed. 03:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Imma going to bed now. I'll probably wake in about 7 hours. I'll give my opinion, for whatever it's worth, by 11 hours from now. Toodels and all! 03:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, I checked their edit history. There's certainly some problem behavior there, but I don't think it's enough to warrant a ban. Not even the 90 days block considering he hadn't edited in the last 8 days anyway. I suggest vandal binning him and would vote for the "medicine" related topic ban with short to medium blocks for violating it. And obviously ban any socks as "bin evasion".
 * If someone can point me to some extremely bad behavior that goes beyond easily reverted wandalism or talk page trolling, I might reconsider. 11:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Vandal bin, topic ban on anything related to medical articles. If he keeps up the violating, escalate the blocks. If he still does this in like, 6 months, aka he's persistent enough to make himself a constant issue, then we can consider permaing him. If he proceeds to sock to avoid the vandal bin, quickly escalate to perma. If no-one objects, we can make it a vote. 12:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * OK. Let's vote. Spud (talk) 13:02, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We doing this? It's been well over the newly agreed 24 hours debate threshold set for coop cases by now. And though this isn't a coop case anymore, I think the same should apply for ATIM. Shall we vote ladies and gentlemen and all you others? 23:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think a topic ban from all science-related articles is going too far and would be open to abuse. After all, you could argue that an article about history is a social science-related article. I do, however, fully support a topic ban on all medicine-related articles. Spud (talk) 04:08, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Alright. I've just changed the potential topic-ban paramaters.
 * Good. I'll vote for that. Spud (talk) 04:43, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Aye

 * 1) If he violates this topic-ban, speedily permaban on sight. -- Goatspeed. 03:50, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Fully support this idea. Spud (talk) 04:43, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Ditto. Twodots (talk) 05:05, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) Flandres (talk) 05:12, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 09:30, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 10:19, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) nobsHell to the Thief! 19:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) --RWRW (talk) 22:28, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Start here. I don't want to jump straight to the maximum without a compelling reason. 03:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) Seems justified. 16:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Nay

 * 1) Too hard to enforce given Sievert's penchant for socks. Bongolian (talk) 08:05, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Too hard? With all due respects, if he abuses multiple accounts, we can easily revert them and ban them for "topic ban evasion", and then permaban his main account for the same reason, as per my above vote. Methinks they should create a new serious ban reason for "topic ban evasion". -- Goatspeed. 18:26, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Bongolian, Why are you supporting a neo-nazi? nobsHell to the Thief! 19:02, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Nay

 * 1) User on his own hasn't done anything blockworthy yet as far as I can tell. I want a warning for now, not a punishment.  09:33, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Silly. 22:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Nay

 * 1) User on his own hasn't done anything blockworthy yet as far as I can tell. I want a warning for now, not a punishment.  09:33, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Too short to be meaningful. 22:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Aye

 * 1) Already in effect. I can't be bothered wasting my time on yet another Conservapedian troll. Bongolian (talk) 08:07, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Nay

 * 1) User on his own hasn't done anything blockworthy yet as far as I can tell. I want a warning for now, not a punishment.  09:33, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Goat

 * This is Sievert's current punishment for trying to push his nonsensical bullshit about prions onto our biology articles. (It's also worth noting that he has tried to evade this block at least twice; the alts of his mentioned above were taken out by moi as a pre-emptive strike.) -- Goatspeed. 18:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a bit long for the crimes I've seen, but I don't really mind all that much. 22:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Aye

 * 1) Benefit of the doubt is wasted on self-admitted Conservapedian trolls. Bongolian (talk) 08:08, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Nothing useful will come out of allowing this troll to pollute the wiki in any way. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 19:27, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) If he gets banned nothing of value will be lost. There is no set of events where he becomes of worthwhile member of the community.-Flandres (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) — Oxyaena  Harass  19:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 5) Looks like my mind's been changed for me by the compelling cases made by others who want Sievert permabanned. -- Goatspeed. 00:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 6) Ban this woo-pushing right-wing ass. 16:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Nay

 * 1) Only if Sievert disobeys the topic ban, then I'd say he's permanently not welcome here.  09:33, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) What Sirius said. 22:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Haven't seen enough to make me want to permaban right now. Topic ban already seems appropriate. 03:14, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) Refer to Sirius's vote. A permaban is too quick to the trigger. Electros [ gold  swords  ] 00:05, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Goat

 * I would support perma only when if Sievert disobeys the topic-ban. -- Goatspeed. 03:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ditto again. Twodots (talk) 05:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Case closed
It's been 10 days and voting has stalled for 2 days. I am closing this case. Sievert 81 narrowly avoids a permaban and is now topic banned from editing articles related to biology and medicine. Any existing bans applied to Sievert I think should be allowed to expire on their own. Future edits from Sievert on biology and medicine articles may now result in blocks up to 3 months, irregardless of substance. Should Sievert repeatedly persist in breaking his topic ban, feel free to open another case arguing for his permabanning as well as tossing him into the vandal bin (shouldn't require another vote in my eyes, vandal bin is fairly harmless). Sievert is able to appeal the topic ban at any time. I'll leave the case on ATIM for a day or so, so that the involved parties may be able to read this. . I'll also notify Sievert on their talkpage. 22:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sievert notified. 22:50, 27 December 2020 (UTC)