RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive61

Umaru16
So, this user just left the most despicable comment I've ever seen on here from anyone other than a driveby troll (yes, worse than Ushit's rape victim comment and LTEC's doxing comment):

So, the first thing you notice here is that he is basically saying that it would have been okay for the allies to kill every single person in Japan and Germany. I am not implying anything, this was literally what was said. The worst part is the "as many as Jews, Chinese, and Koreans died", as it suggests that he would have been okay with the Allies doing a Holocaust or Rape of Nanjing in Japan, but even if I give him the benefit of the doubt on that issue, he is still saying that the slaughter of over 150 million people would have been okay.

So, what should we do about this? I have two suggestions: first, topic ban Umaru16 from the subject of the atomic bombs. This person is clearly compromised on the issue, as their comments show, and plus most of their "contributions" were just repeating whataboutisms and argumentums ad populum ad nauseum, as I have demonstrated here. Secondly, I support a block of at least a few weeks. I don't support a perma on them yet, but the blocking policy clearly states that offensive comments deserve long-term blocks, and if basically advocating genocide doesn't qualify, I don't know what does. I would like the input of other users in case you think I'm overreacting, but I really don't think I am here. While there is a legitimate discussion on the use of the bombs during WWII, when you get to the point when you are endorsing the slaughter of an entire group of people you have clearly crossed a line. Plutocow (talk) 00:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I actually think that is an overreaction, and Plutocow is pretty clearly heavily invested in the dispute. However, in 2022, it's hard to get away with saying anything controversial, a lot of times people get cancelled. However, Umaru should probably also back away from the dispute.--Andrew5 (talk) 01:04, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "You can't even get away with calling for the slaughter of entire populations anymore!" Give me a fucking break, or I will add you to this ATIM case. Plutocow (talk) 01:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I also think this is an overreaction. I think the comment was out of line, a topic ban would be annoying to enforce. I say give a warning. 02:19, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The "there is nothing with killing Axis civilians" part is extremely gross yeah. However I'll wait for Umaru to elaborate or clarify as I anticipate a language barrier. Maybe they horrifically misspoke. 03:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * They already acknowledged their mistake on their talk page FWIW. Vee (talk) 04:37, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Granted, I still find it quite concerning. When I am frustrated in an argument, I don't call for the genocide of an entire group of people. Plutocow (talk) 04:46, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Also true, but I think we are overlooking important historical and societal context here on why Umaru feels the way they do. Not that that justifies what they said, but if we are to understand why they said it, at least as an elaboration (which I do think they've been trying to do, language barrier notwithstanding), it pays to keep that in mind. With this in mind, I'd support a warning, but again, I can't vote yet. Vee (talk) 04:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Just stumbled upon this, and holy shit. Yeah, this person needs to be buried in trouts. Actually, what's the next step up from a trout-whack? --Luigifan18 (talk) 06:31, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd be okay keeping the existing pi-week block in place. I'm not going to engage in apologia for a vile statement but I wouldn't support a topic ban unless this continues.-Flandres (talk) 14:59, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Umaru has left 3 sections on their talkpage, culminating in a statement that they are leaving the site until at least January. At a glance they seem to recognize that their comment was wrong, but I haven't read what they wrote thoroughly. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒  talk  17:07, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Umaru16 showed contrition on their talk page (User talk:Umaru16), so that should be sufficient for now. As noted, Umaru16 said that they're leaving until January, so the block is irrelevant since Umaru16 is still Sysop. The statement is offensive, as well as being contrary to historical realities (e.g. German resistance movements in the war, Japanese women did not have suffrage) and the norms of international law. Bongolian (talk) 17:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I feel like that's sufficient enough. To repeat Vee, they were raised in an environment where this subject is heavily negated and/or censored. I think their leave should be long enough for them to get a nuanced view of war crimes against the Japanese. It's still one of the worst comments I have seen here, but I'm going to assume ignorance rather than genuine anti-Japanese sentiment. 17:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Rangeblock
Was this rangeblock approved? Looking through the contributions, not all of them seem to be vandalism. I noticed that the IP that started the Andrew Tate draft was blocked, and I couldn’t figure out why until I saw it was part of a /43. . 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒  talk  22:21, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It looks like that block was done by someone abusing Sysop privileges, according to . Probably should undo the range block entirely at this point. Bongolian (talk) 23:34, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. I was editing on mobile, and didn't see that the block was originally made by HendrickTheGross. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒   talk  00:22, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Block was removed by Serene yesterday. Bongolian (talk) 17:49, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Not that I remember. I saw a BoN adding some funny link shortener and saw that range already had a partial block, so I hit change block and disabled site-wide editing (However I fucked up and disabled account creation, which I considered excessive for such a block, so I later hit change block again and enabled account creation). If it's hitting known good faith editor, it should be undone, no matter whether it is a BoN or a logged-in editor, which seems like it was already taken care of. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 17:59, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I assume this is resolved, then? --Andrew5 (talk) 21:04, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I removed the block, and consensus seems to be that that's good, so I would say so. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒  talk  00:03, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Ace McWicked. (a case of "i don't wanna use subpages when people tell me to!!")
This user keeps making random off topic pages for a personal project ensuring users they will be removed in a 48 hour period. Regardless the block log shows just overall strange, hopelessly banal/off-mission content, or even pornagrphic content being posted. Blocks don't do anything provided the person in question still has the power to unblock themselves. I do not think it is at all appropriate that users can use the main space of this site for their "personal projects" especially when it violates all other standards we have for this site. This isn't appropriate. People should keep personal projects on their sandboxes. Can a mod please deal with this? The user is also mouthing off in other editor's talk pages for not conforming to their "personal projects". That is some entitled and childish behaviour. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:23, 20 October 2022 (UTC).
 * dear oh dear. You are freaking out about something that needs...48...no, less than 24 hours now before being removed in its entirety - it's fucking harmless. I have a series of meetings to attend, a pounding hangover, a vicious case of "what the fuck" to attend to now. So I look forward to seeing what happens next when I get back to my desk. Acei9 00:28, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh BTW - the reason I have created some extremely short-lived mainspace pages is that I am playing around with a wiki idea myself. I didn't think 3 days of main-space editing for a personal project would cause spleen venting. I need another 18 or so hours and it will never be repeated. Acei9 00:30, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think this sets a bad precedent if any and all editing that is barely distinguishable from other forms of behavior that in any other context would be regarded as violating community standards is excused for an editors "personal project". Only someone who is literally a child would think that is fine and wouldn't annoy the shit out of other editors.  The block log shows I am not the only one who has been recently reverted your edits. We are at no requirement to give two shits about whatever personal project you have. Unless you literally own this site, you are not entitled to use the site to "test" personal ideas in spaces that don't belong to you. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC).
 * 17 hours now buddy. Can you cope? Does it really matter? 17 hours to just test something. Acei9 00:39, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That doesn't actually address the argument I am making and is technically a red herring. Time of existence is not a real justification for this behavior. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk).
 * I'm just fucking testing something, for a short while. It doesn't hurt the site, isn't an ongoing series of behaviours from myself or anyone and soon to be removed and never to be repeated. You're fucking moaning about it? Who's a fucking child again? You walrus-faced nutbag - get fucked. Acei9 00:46, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Judging by the tone of what is being typed I don't think I am the one "freaking out" here. To say it doesn't hurt the site is arguably a false premise. Especially according to one of the block logs you are literally posting voyeur porn. - 00:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Voyeur porn? That sound exciting. May I see it? Acei9 00:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Ha ha, I saw that block log. Turns out some people can't recognize a joke block. Vee (talk) 01:14, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You are not wrong OSD. But you are taking it too personally. Look at it this way. We can debate a rule for a week making it a banning offence to do whatever Ace is currently doing. I suppose you would want such a rule anyway. I think that's the easiest way to shut Ace the fuck up. Ace, what the hell are you doing? UncleKrampus (talk) 00:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Running an extremely short lived test on something I have going on the side. It's small, inoffensive, not part of a pattern of behaviour and soon to deleted, never to be repeated. So pretty please... Acei9 00:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What is it that you're doing that can't be done in the sandbox, but can in the mainspace? LongStylus (talk) 00:57, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Is the site broken? Does this hurt anyone? Is it offensive? Has this caused any harm? Does it mislead anyone visiting RW for the first time? Is this a pattern of poor behaviour on my part? I just need a few hours. Acei9 00:59, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you going to answer my question? LongStylus (talk) 01:00, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Can I just have a few hours? Fucking hell Acei9 01:02, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not a mod, nor an eligible user, but I don't really see a problem with this. It's not harming anything, will only last for a few hours.... I am curious as to what this project Ace has in mind is about, however. (Besides, doesn't this wiki operate on consensus?) Vee (talk) 01:14, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Dearest mods
I'm just running a test on something. I have created a couple of inoffensive pages with a little bit of text and a couple of inoffensive images. It will be deleted very soon. I am doing this because I am testing out a wiki idea for a side project. May I please keep these for the next 17 hours? Love, Ace. Acei9 00:49, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe, as a board member, that I'm more qualified than the mods to answer your question. While I don't mind if it's just this time I'd like to know a couple of things before saying yes: 1 What kind of project are you working on and why can't you give us details? 2 Why can't you use your sandbox instead of the main space? GeeJayK (talk) 01:09, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I can’t give details without it being personally comprising (happy to do so privately). I just want a few hours. This is fucking harmless. Acei9 01:16, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Then why don't you contact GeeJayK. See what he says.Ariel31459 (talk) 01:23, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * (EC) Can you at least explain why you can't give details? Being cryptic is definitely not helping you case, even though I'm inclined to say yes. Just send me an e-mail with at least some details of your project. GeeJayK (talk) 01:25, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * responded. Acei9 01:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, you can do this unless a mod or another board member disagrees with me, but please, don't do this again and make sure to delete all these pages when your little project is finished. GeeJayK (talk) 01:53, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. It will be deleted in less than 24 hours, never repeated and would have gone completely unnoticed if fuckos didn't shit about it. Acei9 01:54, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Such fucking drama over fucking nothing. It's like hanging out with my brothers infant children and one of them got their fingers stuck in the drain pipe. Acei9 01:55, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Deleted the fucking thing
Thanks for your fucking help and taking a measured approach to a completely innocuous little hustle I was running. Acei9 02:04, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I said you could do this if you wanted to, I don't understand why are you so frustrated. GeeJayK (talk) 02:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Because something so tiny and harmless got me dragged into a huge fucking drama. Acei9 02:12, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You could have just made them subpages of your home page and no one would have cared. I'm not interested in making a big deal of this though. Bongolian (talk) 02:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There were reasons but it doesn't fucking matter anymore. Acei9 02:14, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Formal appeal of IBan
I would like to request an appeal of the IBan that I've had since about half a year ago. The other party in the IBan has been inactive for a while, but I think I've done a pretty good job of leaving them alone when they were there. Since I've gotten tech and he was sysoprevoked, that means he can't mess with my rights, which was the inciting incident in our feud; on the off chance that he returns and is disruptive, I'll be able to deal with him without causing a shitstorm. Of course, if he returns, I will still try to leave him alone, but I'd like to have what is basically a gag rule removed in case it proves necessary in the future. I think I've done better in terms of engaging with other people, and I feel like I've done a good job of avoiding pointless drama for the most part in the past six months. Plus, since said user was involved in two coop cases after the IBan, people are probably now more sympathetic to my position than they were six months ago. Of course, this comes with all the usual caveats that if this turns out badly, I am prepared to face the consequences, and etc. Plutocow (talk) 02:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems reasonable to me at this point. Bongolian (talk) 04:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * After looking through the recent contributions of all involved, I would be okay with removing the Iban.-Flandres (talk) 23:07, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Yay

 * 1) I think I've earned it. Plutocow (talk) 04:26, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) No objections. -- Techpriest (talk) 08:12, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) -Flandres (talk) 11:10, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) Scream!! (talk) 12:07, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 12:32, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) How many signatures can we get? Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 12:45, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 7) Here's another one. Spud (talk) 14:22, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 8) I never voted for the first one 15:22, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 9) —cosmikdebris talk stalk 15:24, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 10) Bongolian (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 11) It is a delight to affirm that they may have the pleasure of interacting with eggsy once again.UncleKrampus (talk) 18:55, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 12) Yeah. Not to egg anyone on or anything... --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 19:19, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 13) Reasonable enough, no qualms here. --Andrew5 (talk) 19:47, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 14) I don't know who you are supposed to be avoiding so I don't care. I don't even know if I am supposed to be avoiding anyone myself. Acei9 20:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 15) Kauri0.o (talk) 21:17, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 16) I don't even know what this iBan thing is about. --Luigifan18 (talk) 21:34, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Pretty much for all this shit back in April. --Andrew5 (talk) 21:46, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒   talk  23:42, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) YES! LongStylus (talk) 00:07, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Can’t remember the details of this case, but I won’t turn down the opportunity to vote against an Iban. Christopher (talk) 20:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) Vomitorium (talk) 00:22, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Goat

 * 1) "Great kid! Don't get cocky" UncleKrampus (talk) 19:00, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think this can be closed. 20 editors involved and all agree to lift the I-ban.--Andrew5 mobile (talk) 12:06, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Moderator election
When will it start? 13:29, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I brought it up in the Saloon a few weeks ago and got no answer. Nominations and endorsement can start Tuesday no problem, however, because voting requires sysadmin intervention, I don't expect that to start at all in November. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 14:09, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've prepared all the pages for the upcoming election. Using last year as a template, I set the schedule to open nominations on the first of November. Regards, —cosmikdebris talk stalk 17:05, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Copies
A BoN raised on the Josh Hawley talkpage that some sections of the article are copied from Wikipedia. This is true; the sections on environment, guns, antisemitism, and theocracy match Wikipedia's content, and the material appeared on Wikipedia at least a few months before it appeared here. The copied content has been present from the page creation, and the user apparently responsible has created a number of pages. I checked one other, Gary Birdsong, and it has the same problem. I don't know what our policy is on this, or what Wikipedia's policy is on this, so I figured I'd bring it here. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒  talk  01:22, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Our licenses are compatible, so we shouldn't run into any legal issues. However, we have a policy against plagiarism, and it is likely that the copied content violates that. Given that this is an issue that spans (at least) several pages, we're gonna have to come up with a solution. Plutocow (talk) 01:32, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * EDIT CONFLICT −	:While not liked, there is nothing legally wrong with copy-pasting from Wiki although it is frowned on and should be amended to match our snark levels ASAP. Scream!! (talk) 01:36, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * , in the past users have been disciplined for plagiarism, though I'm not sure that a Sysop has. The problems are that plagiarism needlessly causes work for others to deplagiarize, calls into question any edits that the user has made, and debases the quality of RW. Bongolian (talk) 02:16, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, does this apply to references? Wikipedia is a veritable treasure trove of citations that are not easily found elsewhere. Vee (talk) 14:42, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It does not apply to references. One can use WP references as a good starting point for writing an RW page as long as one uses one's own words to write the text. Bongolian (talk) 17:43, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia references should always be limited, as per RationalWiki:Articles for demotion/Cold War. We can have a few, but we shouldn't have too many, and definitely not anything close to 25% of the article's references, hence why it nearly failed. --Andrew5 (talk) 18:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

BJA2112 began editing in September 2017. BJA2112's primary edits are either category additions or quotations, so are not relevant to the issue of plagiarism. The instances of plagiarism seem to be restricted to a subset of the pages that he created, specifically: J.B. Stoner, Wayne Allyn Root, Kevin Stitt, and David Clarke. Some of these have been heavily edited by others, and may no longer reflect plagiarism; I checked based on the initial edits by BJA2112. Bongolian (talk) 20:37, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Andrew5: they're clearly referring to using Wikipedia's sources in the reference pages, not using links to Wikipedia in our reference pages. Again, stop inserting yourself in these matters, it's really annoying. 14:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I was replying to Bongolian's 17:43 comment, perhaps read the context before accusing me of inserting myself in these matters. --Andrew5 (talk) 00:03, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Your comment doesn't really address my concerns though. Wikipedia contains sources that are not easily found elsewhere. I think an ad hoc qualification for the demotion of one specific article does not count as policy. It depends on a case by case basis. Vee (talk) 00:05, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't. Andrew5 fundamentally miscomprehended the comment: Andrew5 was talking about substituting references for "See Wikipedia article on x", while Bongolian was talking about using references on Wikipedia as a resource for writing articles. As in, you read the reference by following the link on Wikipedia, you write what you read from the source, in your own words, into the article, and then you use that reference. 01:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. A reference is a reference. It would be quite reasonable for one of our articles to have the same or similar references as a similar WP article. (A problem would be using WP itself as the primary reference.)Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:33, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we took issue with "See Wikipedia article on X" as references, it's just that it's tangential to the fact that you CAN use Wikipedia to gather information and even use the citations it cites for our page (you could even add a "cited in Wikipedia article, link to revision" if you really want to be meticulous), but if you want to like guide readers to the summary from the Wikipedia page, I think wpl (in-text linking) is preferable. 22:37, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Luigifan18
Is it really necessary to block Machina for effectively three weeks for a minor reversion? They were already blocked for π days. Vee (talk) 23:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Notified user, please do this in the future, . --Andrew5 (talk) 00:05, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you. Vee (talk) 00:06, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * They got blocked twice in seven days for the exact same thing. I don't think 3.6 days will make it sink in. --Luigifan18 (talk) 00:08, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Machina has been doing this shit for many months now. 00:10, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Look at the block logs. Given that Machina's been whacked several times for this egregious behavior even after being warned not to do it, I see no problem with Luigifan18's action in this case. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 00:25, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Concurring with cosmik. Machina can safely be escalated. -- Techpriest (talk) 01:19, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * How many times has Machina spammed his nonsense in the SB?  Escalation is acceptable.  01:26, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Nah this is okay. 01:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with Luigifan wholeheartedly.-Flandres (talk) 03:03, 3 November 2022 (UTC),
 * Luigifan has been a bit overzealous with sysop tools lately, but this is not one of those times. In fact, considering how long Machina has annoyed people with his beyond unacceptable behavior and that there have been multiple ATIM threads on this very issue, it may be time to vote on banning him from the Saloon (for at least a few months, if not longer). Plutocow (talk) 03:20, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw a few of those discussions, which is why when I saw that Machina had been banned from the Saloon Bar twice in seven days for doing the same freaking thing, my immediate reaction was "Not this shit again". (Well, that's not wholly accurate. My reaction was actually more along the lines of "Really? Really?!?") --Luigifan18 (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Eh, I recognize when I'm beat. No hard feelings, right? Vee (talk) 16:08, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it. I feel sorry for Machina also. He probably needs to be medicated, judging from his last comments in the saloon (relating to obsession with certain ideas). I mean, the guy is sick. Don't be a dick about it.UncleKrampus (talk) 17:36, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

The continued feeding of Ken
I've been noticing on the Saloon Bar that a lot of threads have been visited by Ken, and several people have been typing detailed responses to him while I block the socks but his comments remain in tact. Ken would then make another sock, and it's pretty much a rinse and repeat rigmarole effectively allowing him to evade his ban. I'm honestly getting tired of this, and there's only 2 real solutions.


 * A.) Unban GiuocoPiano


 * B.) Stop replying to his comments

It really should not be the current situation because what's the point of his ban if it's not enforced? I really don't want to unban him, but that might have to be the outcome if nothing happens. 17:03, 3 November 2022 (UTC)


 * C.) Restrict contributing in the bar to auto-confirmed participants for a while. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 17:17, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Is there a way to throw his IP or something under a filter so that he gets the same ban threatment as those "Black hat SEO Spammer" accounts? As in auto detectban or whatever it's called? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 17:26, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That would require checkuser, which this wiki has disabled. Vee (talk) 17:28, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

How many socks does he actually have in total (banned uncluded)? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 17:26, 3 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Good question. C.) is the only reasonable "solution" to this factitious problem. Since we can't stop "Ken" from creating new identities, what is the most important tactic we can employ against his intrusions? We can't rule out answering comments because they are from new accounts. If a new account is not spamming the main space, isn't life too short to worry about comments in the saloon? If they are sensible, who cares? If they are insidious, they get removed. Good luck to Ken. Gotta appreciate a guy who wastes his entire life online. You hear me Ken? UncleKrampus (talk) 17:30, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There are BON editors that provide thoughtful commentary on the Bar. This isn't fair to them, but then again, trolling isn't meant to be fair. Lock the bar down, keep it open, Ken still wins either way. Vee (talk) 17:34, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Let clarify, Ken getting into the bar with socks is not my issue, my issue is the lengthy responses given to him, preventing me from enforcing his ban. 17:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Who cares. The pathetic idiot wastes his time making socks and posting shit, and we laugh and ban his ass. If some BoNs don't know any better, so what? 17:51, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Except that it's not BoNs that are responding to him, it's several established users feeding him. He wants us to give him attention, and we need to stop giving it to him. 18:12, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Mikey is another one. He's currently obsessed with Cosmikdebris, calling some people rapists and... bald people? There's probably something I'm not getting with the latter one... Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Just keep whac-a-moling and maybe collapse some of the really dumb comments. Unbanning would be stupid and locking the Bar would be unfair to BoNs who want to participate. (Also, the bald thing is about Mikey's feud with Oliver Smith). 17:49, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * (EC) The reason why I suggested to unban him is not entirely serious. The point I'm trying to make here is that responding to him the way done in the bar is like as if he's unbanned. 17:59, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That's rich coming from a self confessed pedophile. The guy has absolutely no shame. Vee (talk) 17:55, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Just do C. We've done this song and dance before. Yes yes, I'm sure there's some old guard who will decry the fact that we're limiting open speech or whatever. Just autoconfirm lock the bar, Kenny literally cannot keep his rageboner for the site in his pants for long enough to behave like a normal user. -- Techpriest (talk) 21:13, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * But how long are you guys gonna lock the Bar for? 21:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If it's Ken, we'd have to block non-autoconfirmed members forever. 21:58, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Did a 21 day page protection to autoconfirmed. -- Techpriest (talk) 22:03, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 21 days???!!! 22:07, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This in and of itself feeds Ken. If not more so than the random commentary he makes on the SB (or wherever). He's stroking himself right now over the fact he thinks he is causing disharmony here and that no one can stop his masterful prowess. Leave him be - he's pathetic. And he knows it. He has nothing in his life and the sum total of his "achievements" seem to be dancing with a woman at some gathering once. I slept with more women in the last 2 weeks than Ken has had dances with long-haired creationist sweethearts (which isn't hard - i.e. any number greater than one). He's a fucking hopeless no one who perhaps came third in spelling bee. He shouldn't ever have a mod case regarding him. Acei9 22:10, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I dunno. Does creationism allow dancing with the other gender? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 22:24, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If they are long-haired, sweethearts and also creationist then yes. Though the short-haired, tattooed atheist and the long-haired Buddhist I visited upon this week would definitely be out of bounds. Acei9 22:30, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could try to sweep all Ken comments off Saloon Bar including responses. 22:32, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Archiving all the topics he responded in? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 22:36, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about the replies. If someone wants to reply then let them - in the end it'll just get archived away anyway. Just block, revert, carry on with life. This mod case is nothing. Acei9 22:37, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Meh I'm not too worried either. 22:39, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Per CS, the talk page comments of ban evaders are to be removed, so that's something we should be doing anyway. Plutocow (talk) 22:40, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we're just deciding to remove the replies too. I suggest maybe do that too. Or leave it be. It doesn't matter either way. It's Ken. 22:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

(EC)(EC)I almost always agree with TP's decisions as a mod. I'll disagree with this one for three reasons: "B-but hey, Gee, you're not giving any solution". That's because the solution is simple: don't feed the trolls! GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 22:47, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) We're punishing other users (not only BoNs, but also newcomers). The problem is Ken, and preveting people from posting because of him is unfair.
 * 2) Blocking pages like Emil O. W. Kirkegaard and Bo Winegard didn't prevent Mike from trolling our little site. Ken will just find other pages to shitpost. Maybe your own talk page.
 * 3) And most important. Ken doesn't want to post on RationalWiki. He wants attention. That's what you're giving to him when you disrupt the site so much because of a single banned user. By blocking the bar, you might be infact encouraging him to post here even more.
 * For what it counts, the point is moreso to bore Ken into moving on. He thrives on response. A locked bar means he can't post which means no response. He'll not get responses anywhere outside of the bar, we can just revert him there. The problem is that the Bar enjoys feeding his rants from time to time which cause him to be encouraged in posting them. That's my motivation. Feel free to disagree. -- Techpriest (talk) 22:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, again, blocking pages didn't make Mike go away. I don't think it would be different with Ken. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 22:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This does Ken's work for him. Trolls want to disrupt the wiki, and enacting such a prolonged locking of the Bar achieves just that. 22:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Just wondering, do you think removing comments is punishing people? It's unfortunate to have something thoughtful you post removed but it doesn't prevent others from posting. Ken is also stopped from spreading his ideas around the place; collapse can work by hiding lengthy exchanges while keeping them readable, but it can't and shouldn't be used for, like, every other topic and it can appear disruptive if you're seeing a lot of those. 22:59, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I like collapsing stuff, but maybe we could put only Ken's comment in it and label the collapse with some witty way of calling him a dumbass. Really have fun with it. There's so many ways of insulting Ken. 23:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * To be fair, Ken stopped spamming people's talkpages when we agreed to remove his comments and stop responding to him (per this mod archive). Maybe a similar strategy for the Saloon Bar could work. Plutocow (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * An option would be to impose sanctions on users who respond to Ken in the Bar. A first offence should be a warning on their talk page. A second offence would be a pi days partial block from the Bar. LongStylus (talk) 23:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No. Literally just collapse his shit and make fun of him. That's it. 23:26, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Just zap it away entirely if you don't think locking the page will work. The only way to get him to fuck off is not engaging with him. Epic dunks on the insane homophobic christian conservative whose life is so boring that he trolls this site for fun doesn't fix it. Your dunks are also feeding the troll. Either zap him or prevent him from commenting to begin with. -- Techpriest (talk) 23:35, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Isn't this ATIM threat, indeed, feeding Ken? --American daylight saving time ending November 6, Andrew5 (talk) 01:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but we still need to figure out how we're going to make it unambiguously clear to him that he is not welcome here (or anywhere except for the interior of a volcano). --Luigifan18 (talk) 01:07, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't this be on Discord then? I understand the hesistence because it has been used in gossip scandals (against me), but it's better then making a public discussion. --American daylight saving time ending November 6, Andrew5 (talk) 01:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Luigifan18: he knows he's not welcome. that's why he's doing this. as for discord, you're the first one who brought it up. don't think so either. 01:14, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * As has been noted many times before, Discord is not the place for making RW policy. There's nothing wrong with discussing what to do about Ken over there, but it does not become policy from those discussions. &mdash; Unsigned, by: Bongolian / talk / contribs
 * Re: Bongo: Is this actually making a policy?
 * Re: LGM: When running for moderator, perhaps making these repeated comments about chasing me down isn't the smartest idea, it reflects unfavorably on you when you need a lot of support to get elected. --American daylight saving time ending November 6, Andrew5 (talk) 02:03, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I was referring to Ken. 02:30, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

So, I got 2 notifications (I wasn't here yesterday) from a BoN calling me a pedo (pretty much). Have I pissed off Ken or is this Mikey? Doesn't really sound like Kenny (Don't think he types in ALL-CAPS aswell)? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 00:51, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Probably neither, might be just that ED troll we get here. 02:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The IPs were used by that walrus moron from a while back, but it's probably unrelated; anyone can use Tor. Plutocow (talk) 02:59, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I could have sworn that someone suggested checking IP addresses to see if it's Ken and setting up a filter that specifically prevents him from editing, and that was shot down because it would require check user. Maybe that was somewhere else. Anyways, if Ken is able to set up new accounts despite being blocked (which does have the option to disable the IP address that the blocked account was using), then he's clearly using a VPN or some other device that allows him to change his IP address at will (or just constantly going from one Internet router to another). Thus, there is no way to filter out "Ken's IP address" because it's never the same IP address. He gets blocked, then changes his IP address and makes a new account. All we can do is recognize his patterns and keep blocking him and telling him that the only way he can give his life meaning at this point is to end it. --Luigifan18 (talk) 04:58, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Here's a novel idea...
Stop feeding him on official RW pages like this which only get's him more excited, mothball this discussion, continue to revert and block him, everyone carries on. Acei9 02:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


 * —cosmikdebris talk stalk 02:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I totally get what you're saying Ace, but I feel like that it's necessary to feed him this time since this can also apply to other trolls that do similar tactics to get attention 06:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Feed the troll, uh like human sacrifice? Bongolian (talk) 06:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't this be seen as Goat sacrifice? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 14:00, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I would just like to say it is not always immediately obvious when encountering ken. one might suspect, but it might be a few posts to be sure and by then you've already been suckered into replying. dont deed the troll, sure. but we can afford to give the benefit of the doubt to new and suspect users. at least until it is unambiguously a troll that you are dealing with. and that might mean responding to posts that are only obviously trolls in hindsight. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:36, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Perhaps RW is the website that launched a thousand Kens. One might go mad resisting them. Have a care.UncleKrampus (talk) 13:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with AMassiveGay here. Ken had an account called "Vice regent" recently. This user did not even use common Ken tropes (Hating Dems, Hating Atheism, Praising Christianity, Obsessed with his Husbando Ace, ect...), until KarmaPolice found out who he really was. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 14:00, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't forget Ken's other trope. Defending uber-Reaganite economic policies. Vee (talk) 14:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Luigifan18 again
Luigifan18 blocked User:BOARshevik for an hour, alleging that they are an impersonation of User:Boar. They did undo the block, but only after being called out on their talkpage. Now, this doesn't seem too big as an isolated incident, but consider that this is far from the first time they have demonstrated poor judgement as a sysop: they blocked User:Derek shepherd for three weeks accusing them of being a Mikey sockpuppet, they accused User:WinstonBoxer of being an impersonation of User:Wisconcom (they were a spambot, but still), blocked users who hadn't even hit the edit filter for the crime of... not having any edits, repeatedly abused suppression rights, and more, and that's not even getting into the abuses that led to the user getting sysoprevoked for three weeks. While it's more of a case of repeated small incidents than one big incident, I think it's been repeatedly demonstrated that this user just lacks good judgement and just isn't ready to be a sysop. Plutocow (talk) 04:59, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Come don't disappoint me, Luigifan. 06:49, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Where's the link between "WinstonBoxer" & "Wisconcom"? If it was in the style of trolls impersonating as "cosmikdebris" (which has recently happened which said troll using the name "coomsikdebris"), then yes. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 08:59, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The names sound vaguely similar, but not nearly similar enough to even suspect “impersonation”. Christopher (talk) 11:11, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I will remember that this has been reported. I will take it into account if there are any future calls for sanctions against Luigifa18. Which I still hope won't be necessary. Spud (talk) 11:37, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I just wish that he'd stop sticking 'Oxford commas' in all over the place Scream!! (talk) 11:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Does he? I'll take them out again if he puts them in any sentences I've written. Spud (talk) 12:09, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Does he? I'll take them out again if he puts them in any sentences I've written. Spud (talk) 12:09, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson talk page
Can one of y'all do something over at the Thomas Jefferson talk page? Some idiot removed the troll collapse and is engaging in whitewashing and rape denial. I'd do more, but, you know, not my job. Vee (talk) 18:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Plutocow took care of it for now. Vee, you've got a mop (Sysop), ergo 'not my job' does not wash. Bongolian (talk) 18:56, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Because they reacted to the situation by repeatedly vandalizing the wiki with many proxy IPs, I banned them. You can tell me if this is out of line, but it's clear this person isn't here in good faith. Plutocow (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression their vandalism was a response to you banning them. They won't be missed, but I think you could have handled it better. For instance, this sort of communication in block messages only encourages a response.
 * If you view blocking as a "punishment for bad behaviour" (with revoked talkpage access if the "crime" is particularly severe), instead of as a tool that makes it slightly harder for someone to edit, this is what you get. Christopher (talk) 21:07, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I initially just blocked them from the talkpage they were edit warring in by adding troll collapses to comments opposing them. Then they left an uncivil message on my talkpage, causing User:Cosmikdebris to block them sitewide for three days (this is when they first lost talkpage access). That's when they threw a hissy fit and started ban evading and vandalizing mainspace pages, resulting in escalating blocks to three weeks, three months, and eventually a perma. Plutocow (talk) 21:17, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Were the IPs banned? That is more important. --Andrew5 (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That makes sense, I shouldn't have jumped to conclusions.
 * I'll save my opinions on trollcollapse for another day. Christopher (talk) 22:03, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh God, he has a VPN engine and is generating infinite IP addresses. I think this dweeb is gonna be the next Ken or Mikemikemev. --Luigifan18 (talk) 02:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hate to request this, but can we temporarily block IP editing? This is getting ridonkulous by this point, not even Tor spammers are this bad. Plutocow (talk) 03:17, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I second that request! This is getting absolutely crazy! Holding the loser back is getting to be a full-time job! --Luigifan18 (talk) 03:19, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright, I have created an edit filter to stop IP editing; I will be keeping an eye on the filter log waiting for things to calm down. Plutocow (talk) 03:30, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have just uploaded an image that I feel neatly summarizes how we all feel about Kasunex right now. --Luigifan18 (talk) 03:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)