RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive64

This person is known for creating poor-quality essays consisting of mostly over-the-top unabashed liberal bashing with conservative-like prudishness, to the point I suspect trolling. Here is the essayspace contributions.

For instance, his recent essay has decried video games and want them banned. Another he also used a slur for transgendered people while also using derogatory language toward autisticpeople. These actions alone should be considered enough for banning: this user has violated our policy on RationalWiki:Community Standards: "In particular, attacks incorporating racist, threatening, sexist and homophobic language and insults are not tolerated." While not specifically racist, sexist, or homophobic, it is on the same branch of derogatory language we shouldn't have to tolerate.

This user's actions aren't restricted to essay space. He has made low-quality derogatory comments in mainspace talk, such as attacking transgendered people off-tangent that resulted in the section being collapsed (and he even responded after it was collapsed with predictable trollish ranting, and his prior record, his ban and vandal log indicates he was responsible for some vandalism too. Another example is making again, a trollish comment in a trustee board election. Again, from the language of the transgender rant, this user has made multiple insane claim with fluoride, autism, and anti-vaccination, which sounds like something a troll would do, but either way, it's inappropriate. He also made another low-quality comment in the talk page for Ameriwiki and made a garden-variety "liberal bias" comment in the Donald Trump talk page.

There is a common defense that this user hasn't broken any rule. Aside from the Community Standards outlined above, this user has been known for quite a while for writing poor quality essays. These essays typically consist of low-quality repetitive content: hand-wringing and common use of all-caps while also being hateful screeds toward minorities, particularly transgendered people. While there are hardly any set standards on what we do what's a bad essay and what we do once we determine what bad essays are, but Elvis is King is straddling on his privilege to write these essays. These essays quickly get nailed with Drive-by, with even a special template being considered for him. Heck, "drive-by" implies this is a one-off user who decided to spam one essay. Elvis is King is still here and giving us multiple essays that inevitably get the same tags. The user has received multiple comments, some by me, to improve on the essays multiple times, but has ignored our requests and clearly doesn't care by continuing to flood our essayspace with drive-by essays. At this point, this is abuse of privileges despite not being explicitly outlined in policy. The thing is, our policy shouldn't have to explicitly outline every single thing you can or can't do. Common sense should be that if multiple users have problem with your contributions, you should address the criticism. By continuing to write these essays, Elvis is king has failed to address and modify his behavior. And consider the question, by leaving Elvis is King to continue to write these essays, how are we benefiting RationalWiki? We shouldn't have to bend backward to accommodate this counter-productive disruptive user in the guise of "free speech". We shouldn't let this user label others as "autistic" or "trannies" just because it's "free speech". We already have standards on what you can or can't do, free speech isn't absolute in RationalWiki to begin with.

This person has also not responded well to criticism. Back in 2015, he also responded to criticism with page blanking that has resulted with edit warring with Nerd, WatcherIntheDark, Noir LeSable, Paravant, a BoN, and Owlman. And more page blanking. He has also responding to mocking comments with collapsing such comments. Other responses to criticism and mocking is predictable (which is why people are mocking him in the first place): hand-wringing about liberals. Yes, some anonymous users have left unconstructive trollish comments, but he labels actual comments as "childish vandalism" and has told him to knock it off. JorisEnter has told him to "fuck off" for similar behavior for removing comments.

We also gave this user far too many chances. Apparently, this user has vandalized before. Vandal log indicates the user has already been given a last chance in February 22, 2016. Block Log also indicates that this user is unwanted in this wiki. Finally, multiple users including I have "renamed" essays, another indicator that we're running out of patience for this user. In one essay talk, I've complained back in October 26, 2017 the essay quality, with ikanreed giving me the green light to delete the essays, who is also probably sick of this person. Binning this user has had little effect in stopping this user from creating multiple essays. In fact, the 30 minute stop may encourage this user to take the time to write more bad essays, though just speculation. This user has also been kept around for "entertainment" reasons, but I think this user has worn out his welcome long ago. Either way, it's not helping. The current action we're taking, accommodating this user, I think is now far too nice to this user proportional to his actions, and I propose multiple solutions of dealing with this user. I think enough is enough.

If Elvis is king continues with posting screeds or engages in any disruptive actions such as but not limited to derogatory language, disruptive writing (all-caps), trollish language ("God-hating bacon Taylor swift liberal lovers should die" language), we can do one or more of the following:


 * Permaban (the extreme option but a viable option is an option)
 * Impose long bans of at least one or two weeks to several months.
 * Delete any more essays this person writes unless person has demonstrated willingness to improve.
 * Possibly delete all essays. We still have a record of the content of the essays anyway, so no worries if we have to ever retrieve them.
 * Restrict page-creation privileges. If this is possible.

Additional comments are appreciated.

21:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * They're almost an icon for either accidentally or purposefully poorly thought out conservative essays though. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 'to the point I suspect trolling' no shit, sherlock. what gave it away? AMassiveGay (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * On the other hand they did call the Pope a pedophile, which could be construed a libelous remark. Comrade GC (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What gave it away? My own lack of self-confidence and my burnt potatoes from writing this post. 21:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * i cant help but feel that when you all say 'dont feed the troll' maybe not not the troll? AMassiveGay (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We usually ban trolls, though. It annoys me this one is left alone. Though on the other hand "Most importantly, trolls take away from productive work." That's what exactly happened here, sooo... 21:45, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * For blatant trolls, banning them is the best response to not feeding them, which is why a ban towards this user is proposed. 21:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, and bans have been attempted, though this user ended up getting unbanned. There doesn't seem to be a community consensus on how to deal with this user. 21:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Just ignore him. Christopher (talk) 21:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * How have we dealt with trolls in the past? 21:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And also, the "ignoring" thing doesn't work because multiple people told him to stop and he'll likely attract more attention in the future, if he doesn't keep his word for "retiring". 21:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This person's farts all over the essay space are sometimes humorous for their almost stereotypical nature. It's almost like we have a text version of a kooky fringe website or low budget crazy radio preacher here. However, their complete and utter disdain for and inability to engage in communication with others here is an unacceptable violation of community standards and should not be tolerated or ignored. Whether or not they are simply a troll/parody or are genuinely stating their insipid beliefs, some community action should be considered. Is this user's contributions the kind of thing that we want to implicitly encourage here by simply ignoring them? Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, wouldn't "ignoring" mean we tolerate him? 22:08, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That was my point, for sure. I'm not entirely sure I would vote for a long term ban but I'm certain that simply ignoring the issue is not the solution. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, it looks like he replaced his user page with the "retired" template... --Taylor Swift lover (talk) 21:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I saw it. But not sure how this pans out. Don't know if this is serious or not. 21:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

At this point, I think I'd miss him if he were banned. He's a great example of Poe's Law, and his essays are really funny. He's not really doing any harm right now, so I don't think he should be banned. 22:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it's fun to mock sometimes, but it starts wearing on you. Other example of a fun troll was probably User:LogicMaster777. 22:08, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh Logicmaster was great, I loved playing with him. Anyway, "ignore him and he'll go away" is fine for the average drive-by idiot, but for someone more dedicated like, say, Mikimikev, or this twonk, it won't work - he's been here six years, more than half the wiki's existence. Stronger medicine is needed. For instance, our long-standing rule against deleting ssays ought to be reconsidered - it dates back to RW's earliest days when we were more about comparing ourselves to Conservapedia, where anything could be deleted at any time. Those days are gone. Wilder Bicycle 22:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Has it really been that long? Yikes! I've been here since 2010! --Taylor Swift lover (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's scary when you look back and see how far you've come. One the other hand being an old hand is useful for offering perspective on the wiki's ways and status. It's evolved quite a bit. Wilder Bicycle 22:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Please feel free to ban me permanently, as I am truly done telling the cold hard facts here. Please feel free to delete all of my essays as well, if you wish. Chicken Boy/Girl, good luck with your gender issues because Elvis has left the building! --Elvis is King (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem, Elvis. Also, I've already gotten my "issues" straightened out. ;p --Taylor Swift lover (talk) 22:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer a warm, soft fact myself 22:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If (s)he is missed, it will not be by me. Nerd (talk) 22:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Nor by me . Comrade GC (talk) 23:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Although, to be totally fair, a lot of EiK's crap seems to come from a feud we had back in Ameriwiki years ago. When he found out I (was) libertarian, he went libertarian bashing. When I wrote a detailed article about Taylor Swift, he hated Taylor Swift. When he found out I'm trans, he went on a crusade against trans people. Although the bacon hating thing actually comes from a spat he had with former Ameriwiki site owner SamCoulter. It was some argument over Old Testament laws or something. --Taylor Swift lover (talk) 23:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, I am proud to announce: Essay:Elvis is King: A Complete Anthology! --Taylor Swift lover (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Great idea, thanks. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * perfect 00:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)