RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive37

Formal Appeal of IBan
IDK if this belongs here or the Coop, but I'd rather not add more to the Coop.

As can be found in the Coop, and given many recent events, a number of others seem to be of the opinion that I didn't "deserve" the IBan. I would like to formally make a request for a probationary repeal of the IBan.

1) This is not a request for the ability to insult Oxyaena (she gets more than enough of that from others), rather, a probationary repeal. Should I engage in disruptive behavior, the IBan should return, possibly "retroactively" with whatever punishment is appropriate 2) I believe I have demonstrated the ability to keep calm without resorting to needless drama 3) As tech, I have even attempted to defend Oxyaena from trolls/spammers, rather than simply sitting idly by

It actually has been a nice break from being insulted and getting into fights over nonsense. I do not wish to return to the flamewars. I just want to be able to edit and add to the wiki without the clunkiness of the IBan and whatnot. 04:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me so far. Spud (talk) 05:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I would support this, and as somebody who pushed for the thing when it first came up I hope that means something.-Flandres (talk) 05:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We should just strike the sanction and be done. 05:47, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I support this. I've not always been of the same mind with Cory, but I've been impressed with his reaction to this latest coop and trust that he would be equally constructive in future. 05:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It’s nice not to s.....Ace//about blank 06:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I would ordinarily say that which came out of the coop should go back through the coop, but I'm not going to object. Bongolian (talk) 06:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd also support this proposal. --RWRW (talk) 10:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks everyone. It looks like literally half of the people who voted for the Iban in the first place are here.  I'm not sure how long this "vote" should be up, but I promise not to betray your trust, et cetera  14:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Formal vote
Okay let's make it a quick vote, y'all know the drill. Simple majority to strike the IBAN on a probationary basis. If Cory and Oxy turn the Saloon and other assorted talkpages into a wasteland of aimless slapfights and personal attacks again, we'll be revisiting this. 15:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * With your support it’s 8:0 in favour of striking the ban, 9:0 now I’ve cast my vote. We don’t need the bureaucracy of a “formal vote” when everyone has already made their opinions clear. Christopher (talk) 15:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, six of the people (so half of the Aye votes) who supported an I-ban have expressed support here, and three of the remainder are not currently active. I don't think we need a vote.-Flandres (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Eh, I just want it to be clean and clear, not an informal count of hands. This way we don't get a repeat of Smith/Abd later down the line where we had a lot of yes-nodding and mhmming for banning both, but since it wasn't ever counted, Smith was able to basically go "but I never actually got banned". That isn't to say Cory is of course as bad as those two by any stretch, it's just that I prefer this to be done as clear as possible so we don't get any issues with this down the line. 15:47, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Yay

 * 1) Focusing on probationary. Cory's recent behavior has given me indicative that he seems to at least have understood the circumstances of past events and why he got the IBAN. Given that the message seems to have been understood, I'm fine with lifting it for now. Personal attacks on someone's real life are unacceptable in my eyes, and it seems like Cory has managed to understand that.  15:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Makes sense. Christopher (talk) 15:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) I say go for it. Vote might not necessary. 15:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Seems fair. 15:53, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Obviously support. 16:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 6) Yes. 16:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 7) I;m sold. Spud (talk) 16:26, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 8) I don't like the idea of ibans per si. GeeJayK (talk) 16:37, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 9:0, I think we can close it. Kevs  Ping!  16:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Bongolian (talk) 17:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) If we really need a vote...well, unlike a lot of users who have regular bitter interactions with Oxy Cory isn't a complete man-child. We can trust him without the ban now.-Flandres (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) --RWRW (talk) 21:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 12:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Shabi  DOO  13:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Goat

 * I would vote yes (I opposed the interaction ban in the first place) but I don't need to, everybody else is. I'm just curious as to what CoryUsar means by clunkiness?  What does the ban actually prevent him from doing?-Hastur! (talk)  17:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If I see some poorly written portion of an article and want to fix it, I don't want to worry too much about whose work I'm undoing, or if I see someone harassing a user I should be able to tell them to knock it off. That's all.  If, e.g., Oxy and I disagree on the Anarchism article such as earlier, we should be able to discuss it on the talk page, see what others think, etc.  If it comes to being uncivil, well, yeah there's a problem.  Otherwise, well, the IBan does have a pretty big loophole for abuse; one IBan'd user could "lick" everything on an article and the other user would have little recourse.  18:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, that's a good argument. You got my vote.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 12:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I made that same suggestion in regard to IveBeenFrank. Since Oxyaena is on civility parole (Which was the thing that caused the interaction ban in the first place), I see no reason for IveBeenFrank not to interact with her. Interaction bans should be reserved for both ostensible harassers and literal harassers who can't look the other way. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 19:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I personally have the opposite opinion: Ibans should only be used in cases of petty conflicts/drama, while more serious things like harassment should result in harsher measures like a permaban. Plutocow (talk) 18:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That will never happen. I actually want people like HBC banned, but it's never going to happen. Compromises should be found in that case. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

It's 14-0, been a couple days. I think we can close this. Put notice of probationary repeal or whatever on the relevant talkpages. CorSock (talk) 16:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I imagine Sirius will insist it goes on for a minimum of 7 days. There’s no real rush, as Oxy is currently retired, but I agree this should probably just be closed now. Christopher (talk) 16:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Formal Appeal of IBan (Vol. 2)
Since Cory's appeal seems to be successful, I'd also like to appeal my ban. I believe I've upheld the terms of my restrictions, and I haven't fought or argued in an uncivil manner with anyone. Of course, I accept and promote this appeal being on a probationary basis. I'd like to edit the wiki freely, and as such wish to dispense with my Iban. IveBeenFrank (talk) 10:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't agree. To cite back from when the punishment was enacted; you had a habit of steeping to personal attacks constantly and I've not been given much indication that the reason you got IBANned really landed the same way it seems to have landed with Cory. 11:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you want me to say? I've promised not to argue, and I haven't with anyone while I was Ibanned. Do you want me to apologize? IveBeenFrank (talk) 12:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I support this. It’s probationary, what’s the harm in giving IveBeenFrank a chance? Don’t like the idea of an IBan being a “punishment”. Christopher (talk) 12:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Interaction bans should only be issued to harassers, which IveBeenFrank isn't, he simply had a quarrel with another editor (which is bound to happen in large communities). Just revoke his interaction ban. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 12:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I, for the record, didn't support this last time (but we had to roll the two users together in a vote...). I will naturally support and appeal here.-Flandres (talk) 13:31, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ibans should be used to prevent further headless-chicken-mode coopery. Bongolian (talk) 18:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, we should just drop the silly interaction ban. 19:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Formal vote
I’m sure a mod would’ve gotten around to doing this eventually. Seems like most people support revoking this ban as well.

Aye

 * 1) Christopher (talk) 19:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 19:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) We don't need a vote, but here we are anyway.-Flandres (talk) 19:48, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) As I said in Cory's appeal, I don't believe in IBans, though I've made an exception for HBC. GeeJayK (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Sure. 04:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) --RWRW (talk) 06:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Nay

 * 1) Per initial comment.  09:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Goat

 * IBans are always two-way. That should also be true for removing interaction bans. Who is the other party here? Bongolian (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Kinda problematic since the other party was Oxy... 19:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Good point, Oxy actually supported the interaction ban at the time. Christopher (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Christopher allowing banned users talkpage access
I think the whole point of banning users were to prevent them from using talkpages and editing articles because how disruptive they were before the ban. Christopher lately has been allowing Mikemikev socks to send emails and edit talkpages which defeats the purpose of the ban. Can we please do something about that? 12:36, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The email thing is entirely irrelevant, there’s no way the throwaway accounts he makes have verified emails. As a non-mod I don’t have the ability to block email access.


 * “If he wants to waste his time on talk pages as opposed to vandalising mainspace I say let him, plus one of these days there’ll be a false positive. He never edits his talk pages anyway, I don’t see the point of ticking the box.” That was my reasoning, and it used to be the way things were done (with talkpage access for throwaways only being blocked if they started spamming them), but in the case of very obvious socks (Mikemikev is usually pretty obvious) I won’t argue with anyone who wants to tick the box. As I said he never edits from a banned account anyway, so it’s a non-issue. Christopher (talk) 12:45, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You are a mod now, you could’ve just asked me to stop on my talk page. I didn’t get into a block war after you blocked talkpage access for the account I unblocked it for. I don’t think this needs to be in ATiM. Christopher (talk) 12:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Christopher, stop getting into fights and revert wars with other editors. This is a bad habit I keep noticing coming from you. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 13:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It was hardly a fight, but you’re right, at the end of the day this sort of thing doesn’t matter and I should’ve just left it as is, I do have a tendency to insist things are done in exactly the “right” way which has led to conflict. However, one thing I’ve noticed is you enjoy “noticing” things a bit too much, please stop inserting yourself into every petty dispute I get into. Christopher (talk) 13:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Watch out, Christopher, very soon this page might exist.
 * And yeah, talk page access should only be revoked after abuse. —RWRW (talk) 13:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Fuck sake give it a fucking rest. You’re making no fucking friends with your near constant nitpicking. Stop. Just fucking stop. Ace303, 808, 909 11:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That thing again? Ask Circular Reasoning why he resorted to collecting links on Grammar Commie's comments to get him cooped as I did for Ace because that's a double standard. You are allowed to do something like that, but I am prohibited from doing that. Moreover, it does not discount the fact that you keep getting into every petty fights possible and it is only going to continue until people really get tired of you. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 14:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry if that doesn't sound polite, Mario, but I think you should take your own advice and stop getting into every minor squabble as well, because you know, people might get tired of you if you too. GeeJayK (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not minor if I call out a user for harassing someone relentlessly (Not naming names, but you know exactly whom I'm speaking of) because this wiki can't even deal with the local trolls and troublemakers. As for the comment I made about Christopher, I made it because he thinks that nothing he does is wrong when he gets into revert wars with random editors (Including me) and repeatedly unban obvious trolls. He desperately needs someone to stroke his ego to be reminded that he is not the de-facto leader of RW that he thinks of himself as. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 14:37, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don’t edit war and I don’t see myself as the de-facto leader of anything. I fiddled with some block settings that didn’t really need fiddling with, and then dropped the matter when I was reverted. You’re blowing this out of proportion due to the grudge you have against me which I still don’t understand, you’ve been called out repeatedly by many different people on your obsession over editors, please leave me alone. Christopher (talk) 14:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I second Christopher's request that you leave him alone. You seem to have difficulty processing social cues. Nutty Roux (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Talkpage access in general can be kept as it is the most direct line for a blocked user to appeal. It's only to be revoked in the event of abuse of the feature. I do realize that some recent coops have resulted in talkpage revoked bans, so we probably should put that in the CS or Block Policy somewhere. 16:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, there's Nutty Roux with his shitty userpage that reads:

I think your community is a toxic waste dump and that RationalWiki is a mission failure that should be shut down and forgotten." and what social cues? It is just text printed on a webpage. If you insinuate I am autistic then that'd be very rude to Christopher because he himself is, don't make ableist comments like that ever again.
 * I have no grudge against you Christopher, you are the one who seems to have a grudge against me especially when you start getting confrontational against me for no reason and you collapsed one comment I made on GC's chicken coop last month (which I reverted). You didn't fiddle with block settings when you decided to unblock a sock of mikey some weeks ago. You seem to forget easily, I don't. And yes you do get into revert wars, you do so with me and you do so with other editors, this is a pattern of yours that needs to be checked. Furthermore, you talk in an authoritative manner hinting that you do think of yourself as a leader or an authoritative figure (So much about social cues, Nutty Roux. And yet you didn't get that one eh? Seriously, what a stupid comment you made). MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 17:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you’re talking about re: collapsing a comment in the coop and unblocking a Mike sock, do you keep a record of everything I do here? I don’t edit war and if I come across as “authoritative” it’s entirely accidental. This has absolutely nothing to do with the initial topic (blocking talkpage access), you saw that someone else had mentioned me in ATiM and used it as an excuse to do whatever this is.


 * Leave me alone. Christopher (talk) 17:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What even is this accusation? "do you keep a record of everything I do here" having a good memory doesn't amount to keeping records on you or anyone else for that matters. That's nothing more than a baseless accusation. You want another example of the shit you did to me? When I tried to collapse a discussion that was turning sour, you reverted that immediately and told me "Ah uh don't comment lol" when you'd often collapse or remove comments that you didn't like yourself. See there's a paradigm, a double standard going on and that's the issue. In fact, when I kept tabs on Ace on my own userpage for the upcoming mod elections you told me that was wrong, but another moderator did the same with Grammar Commie and then that's somehow good and cool, tell me again, who's the problematic user here? The one who keeps enabling bullying by not banning trolls and actively monitoring other edits for whenever they find something that they don't like just to start a revert war or the editor who is just voicing their concerns? I know what you did, it's too late to undo. You collapsed my comment because you didn't like it, is that right? MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 17:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I've collased it because this whole thing is unproductive. Thanks for asking. GeeJayK (talk) 17:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with GeeJayK here. This whole conversation has gone way off the original topic by now. What Nutty's user page content has to do with Christopher's blocking behavior is anybody's guess. I join the other commenters here in requesting that you stop your shit stirring and leave Christopher alone MarioSuperstar. 17:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * [EC]No, I don’t want any more examples of “shit I’ve done to you”, this is why I asked if you keep tabs on me as you do with Ace. I notice you haven’t actually included a link to the discussion you collapsed, which wasn’t “turning sour” and which later told you you shouldn’t have collapsed.
 * You seem to be missing the important part of my responses to you: this is irrelevant, you’re being weird, leave me alone. Christopher (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I have been enduring this guy for several weeks because he decided that I was problematic and somehow I supposedly held an imaginary grudge against him, and now that I finally make myself clear, it is once again a "me" problem, I am a fucking scapegoat and that's a fucking indignation. I will request for an interaction ban with Christopher if he doesn't stop his shit with me from now on, I won't reply here any further per your request and I am fairly certain I have made myself clear enough by now, so that'd be pointless either way.
 * Nutty Roux inserted himself into this conversation just to insult me when he clearly does not want to contribute positively to the wiki anymore, I do not know why you keep him around, but you keep harassers like (the one who must not be named) on this wiki, so any guess is a good guess to me. Cyao! MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 18:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Only just saw the ableism comment. Don’t get offended on my behalf. This is the second time you’ve brought up autism in the middle of an argument with me completely unprompted, it’s weird. Christopher (talk) 18:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This thread will now end here. I've had enough of this flaming on talk pages and doing this is very counterproductive and will only feed KF. Remember, we have a very popular thread there and I really don't want to make this "entertainment" for shitheads. If this goes on, I will issue temporary demoppings. 18:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Shit motivation. Rockford, going "but what about KF" is dumb. KF is gonna be KF. We run our site our way, not on the whims of not pissing off whiny manchildren. Also you don't get to sysoprevoke people without community vote, we have procedures on this. Anyway this entire thread has devolved into an incoherent mess. Leaving the collapse up because of that, but don't block people next time and this didn't need a mod hat. 20:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This thread will now end here. I've had enough of this flaming on talk pages and doing this is very counterproductive and will only feed KF. Remember, we have a very popular thread there and I really don't want to make this "entertainment" for shitheads. If this goes on, I will issue temporary demoppings. 18:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Shit motivation. Rockford, going "but what about KF" is dumb. KF is gonna be KF. We run our site our way, not on the whims of not pissing off whiny manchildren. Also you don't get to sysoprevoke people without community vote, we have procedures on this. Anyway this entire thread has devolved into an incoherent mess. Leaving the collapse up because of that, but don't block people next time and this didn't need a mod hat. 20:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Practical downsides to the disputed action
List them off for me. 18:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The biggest downside is this ATiM thread; I don’t accept the accusation I was enabling trolls or anything, but I shouldn’t have messed with an existing block. I think the talkpage blocking issue has mostly blown over, it shouldn’t have been an ATiM thread in the first place. Christopher (talk) 18:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you can read this and learn what are the downsides as the upside. I got nothing to add. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 19:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * So far I'm leaning toward Christopher's position here. If the troll doesn't use the user talkpage, there's no harm in leaving them unlocked. Why stating that is a problem is beyond me. 19:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The goal is to inconvenience a troll. If someone doesn't disable talk page access you can either leave it or change it. It doesn't matter to me until the troll actually uses talk page access, which then you delete the talk page or otherwise revert and then reblock. It's not a big deal. And if someone does change block settings and whatnot, it's not a big deal either. I personally don't permaban users because reregging trolls rarely wait for a three day block and just make another account. But if someone does a permaban, then it's not a big deal. Seeing someone set a block to three days is also not an issue. It generally works as well as an indef ban, so there's no need to set that to indef either. 19:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The goal is to inconvenience a troll without excessively inconveniencing oneself. Unless there is good reason to protect every troll talk page (e.g. a rash of troll screeds), there's no point in protecting them all. As it is, the pages are soon forgotten. Bongolian (talk) 19:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Honestly the only thing is that a potentially genuine user who got cauhgt in the crossfire might not be able to appeal their ban as easily. That said this was an obvious troll, so my level of caring is pretty low. 20:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

MarioSuperstar77
Why is it every fucking day you reference me in some form or another. I actively check up and, yep, Ace McWicked comes up. Stop being such an officious, rules crazy, nightmare. Fascist bully boy. Boomshanka. Ace303, 808, 909 22:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * To be fair, I was the first person to mention you by bringing up that weird template he made. Christopher (talk) 22:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Your obsession with this damn template is why you suck as a tech. It is gone, fucking forget it, it's been already weeks. Furthermore, that still does not explain why can Circular Reasoning keep tabs on other editors, but not me. Start off by explaining that instead of being such a prick. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 22:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I was never a tech. Ace303, 808, 909 22:32, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I wasn't talking to you, I was talking to the knucklehead above who thinks I keep tabs on him, have a grudge on him and a bunch of unrelated topics. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 22:36, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You arrived on site and immediately made grudges with people. 4 months on RW and you've already carved out a bunch of enemies. What's wrong with you? Ace303, 808, 909 22:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If you're speaking of HBC, when you harass people, you don't deserve to be hailed over it. Moreover, since I was vocally critical of you and HBC, by that extent, Hastur, Ariel31459 and Nutty Roux did not like that, so they decided to pick on me. Well, the opinion of edgelords doesn't matter either way. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 22:45, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If so many people don't like you maybe that is a reflection on you rather than them... some food for thought. Ace303, 808, 909 22:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Including you (I can only imagine), those would be the 5 people that don't like me. I don't even really know the opinion that Christopher has on me since he keeps getting confrontational with me, but tries to be cool every other day (although that comes off as fake to me). 5 or 6 people that is not a lot because there are a dozen more editors on here, you can't be expected to go along with everyone. Reminder that 3 of these people don't like me simply because they are fanatics, they like you immensely, so even if my personality was different, a lot edgier, that stuff, I am sure they would not like me simply for criticizing you. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Add me to that list as well, and god knows I'm not a fanatic. You're extremely tiresome and keep starting pointless fires and grudges. No offense, but I don't see you lasting that long before you run most of the sites patience with you dry. I would suggest you act a bit more amicable and less like a dudly do-gooder before it blows up in your face. 22:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * [EC]When you’re not being like this, I’ve tried to treat you like I’d treat any other editor. I’ve said before I didn’t realise how much you hated me, probably some missed social cues on my end, not sure why I’d pretend to like you. If you want my opinion of you: you can’t let anything go, obsessing over completely inconsequential things to a degree that makes you seem unhinged. Christopher (talk) 23:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You know if me and agree then it's time to look at oneself... Ace303, 808, 909 23:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You are the one hating on me, not the other way around and you are regularly targeting me out of everyone else for no reason, you behave exactly as Nutty Roux and Hastur, you're a damn bully. You frequently get into revert wars with me and other editors, like that time you decided that there was nothing wrong on the Xenogender article, so you would revert anything I tried to add or change on the article, thank fuck Sirius was around to rights the wrongs. You frequently change bans on obvious sock/troll accounts, you went as far as to unban a mikey sock that I banned myself. You got a fucking problem with me, out of everyone else here, that's for sure and with certainty, don't lie to me. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 23:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Re: Sirius, put me in there too. I'm seriously regretting being the one who auto-patrolled MS77 so early to his editing career. His early edits were on mainspace and of good quality, but all this later talk page fuckery is making me draw comparisons between him and GR. Get your shit together Mario, you're quickly becoming more trouble than your worth.
 * And stop collapsing stuff just because you're losing. 23:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Uh, Plutocow collapsed this section, I did absolutely nothing. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 23:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, sorry about that bit. 23:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

[EC]The xenogender thing was ages ago and really not a big deal (I just objected to the massive template you stuck at the top of the article, don’t know much about the subject itself), and I still have no idea what you’re talking about with regards to the Mikemikev sock. Like I said, you obsess over inconsequential things to a degree that makes you seem unhinged. As Ace has said, I’m far from the only person who has a problem with you. You’re the common denominator here. Christopher (talk) 23:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That may be true, but there are more people who think you are problematic. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 23:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Christopher has told me off multiple times. He always has a point. And I don't take it so fucking personally. 23:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You're running out of friends, Mario77...Who's fault will it be next? Ace303, 808, 909 23:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m sure people have their issues with me, I’ve had some disagreements with people (more since I’ve been back), but only Mario has really held a grudge against me (along with so many other people). He says other people find me “problematic”, that may be, but if they won’t say it themselves I don’t really care. I think Mario is deflecting from the overwhelming number of people who say he has a problem. Christopher (talk) 23:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You are the one to hold a grudge against me since you keep bullying me. I try to avoid you most of the time while I am on the wiki. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 23:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That’s blatantly untrue and I’m sure on some level you know it is. Am I the only one who has a grudge against you? What about Sirius or Knight Commander? This whole mess started because you chose to involve yourself in a thread about me. Christopher (talk) 23:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What thread? The thread that started this nonsense was started by Rockford and that's where I put my piece. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 23:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * And, to quote Christopher "you chose to involve yourself". And to add my own observations, "turn it way off its initial topic and all about your personal grudges". Kindly quit while you still have some face left to save. 00:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * (EC)Like this time, when someone mentions Christopher here (in regards to his blocks) and you jump in to take it way off topic in your first comment. If you look at how much Christopher edits, you'll notice that the amount of attention he pays to you is minuscule. Is that the problem maybe? 23:37, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If your husband punches you in the face every Sunday, what do you say about that? Although once per week, you could make the argument that he pays very little attention to you. My issue is that Christopher goes against me often enough to actually bother me. If he minded his business on the wiki I would have not raised any alarm about him. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 23:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This thread, the one started by Rockford. The idea you try to avoid me is patently false, you chose to inject your irrelevant comment and this is what it led to. I see you’re ignoring the fact that other people have a problem with you again. Christopher (talk) 23:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * (EC)I think comparing Christopher to a husband is a bit generous towards yourself there. He makes these metaphorical "punches" towards other editors too. Though much less than you do. And his "punches" are way less punchy. More like finger prods. 23:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I called you out when I had the chance, Christopher, but I do generally avoid you. When was the last time I actually talked to you? MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 23:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * (EC) Christopher is always reverting stuff, and 99% of the time he's right at least to an extent. He's by a wide margin the most active user right now and even though he hardly ever adds substance on the articles, he's very good on the form. I don't think it's about you Mario. GeeJayK (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * [EC]I see you’re ignoring the fact that other people have a problem with you again. Christopher (talk) 23:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I also have a problem with this user’s annoying grudges, and no, I’m hardly a “fanatical Ace defender” or whatever. In fact, I presented evidence against him in an earlier coop during his first term as mod. 00:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If your husband punches you in the face every Sunday, what do you say about that? Holy shit. Really? Ace303, 808, 909 01:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

You guys are funny
Everyone here complains about the drama, but when someone does something to try to limit or prevent drama, like collapsing a thread, people just undo the collapse and continue to engage. It's almost as if people actually enjoy the drama. Plutocow (talk) 23:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I enjoy the caberet. Ace303, 808, 909 23:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Letting things go unsaid doesn’t help anyone in the long run. Christopher (talk) 23:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * (ec)Better than letting things go worse and resulting in people hating each other more, resulting in a higher likelihood of these incidents occurring and just continuing the cycle. Plutocow (talk) 23:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * (EC)Yeah I did that, because due to edit conflict (with you) I thought MR77 did it when he was so highly involved. It was past 2am and I'm in my cups. My bad and I apologize and all. 23:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What is happening above is what exerting effective social pressure looks like. Collapsing it to hide or curtail an entirely deserved pasting is enabling behaviour. Don't do that. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 23:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Re: whether the collapse should stay, personally I think removing it would be destroying a small piece of evidence showing Marino’s behaviour. My solution is the best of both worlds. Christopher (talk) 23:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * For anyone from the future wondering: I nowiki’d the collapse. Don’t have the energy to fight with Mario over this as well, and it was a bit petty, so I’ll drop it. Christopher (talk) 23:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * MarioSuperstar77, don't make me put on a mod hat about your use of the collapse template and the comments you're leaving in them. You've been politely warned about this before, don't make me do it with more weight behind it. 00:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * MarioSuperstar is starting to get out of hand here. While I agree with many of their POVs, conflict and Superstar seem to have become synonymous the last few days. Shabi  DOO  00:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * MarioSuperstar should be blocked for a week and Summa Atheologica should be blocked for a year. Seriously, if Ace McWicked can put a random picture on the top of this page, why can't I????????????????????????? Why am I still vandal binned?!?!?!!?????? Unclescrooge (talk) 00:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Honestly, Ace McWicked shouldn't put a random picture on the top of this page, either. I'm personally too amused and a little bit non-plussed about the various shitshows to care too much about blocking people getting too silly with this sort of thing. But I'm not a mod, either, and I'm not sure all of them share my point of view. So we'll see. :p PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 02:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

It's clear that Ace is encouraging ban evasion by Ken's socks because he keeps engaging with them. Rhetorical question: If Ace wants to talk to Ken that badly, why doesn't he do it on Conservapedia? Bongolian (talk) 04:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Huh? For the most part I ignore him. If he wants to leave messages and is blocked I’m not going to argue. Block away. Ace303, 808, 909 06:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

We need to talk about the Ken paranoia we are having
On his "essay" he wrote:

In that context, he thinks that we are basically having nightmares about him, but it should really speak to us all outside of it. Of course, I'm guilty of it as well, but we do seriously need to think about what new accounts post. I really don't want to make anyone innocent get confused or have Ken and KiwiFarms members jerk off to the recent changes page because of some knee-jerk accidents. Please just be careful about who gets blocked. 06:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * It's possible he's just trolling, his first claim is that we're being too paranoid, but then his second claim seems to try to feed into said paranoia. We probably shouldn't think too hard about what Ken and Kiwifarms members say, since they are clearly not acting in good faith. Plutocow (talk) 06:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If we've been banning non-Ken socks I believe they are still troll socks based on their offensive names. Maybe many of them are TAOB socks, some are definitely Mikey socks. But I don't think we had many Type I erros over the last few weeks. GeeJayK (talk) 06:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The ones with the offensive names aren’t Ken, that should be very obvious, but they’re obviously not welcome here anyway. There have been a few false positives that I’ve seen, we’re definitely too paranoid. Christopher (talk) 08:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * In the meantime, RationalWiki would be better off banning all the conspicuous troll accounts. That would be a good start since there are a bunch of trolls using RW rn. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 09:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * True there's one called "Mario Super something" if memory serves. Scream!! (talk) 10:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah. I don't think we've really lost any great contributors. What's the worst that could have happened? We've stopped a few more right-wingers and Bible-thumping creationists from trolling us in the Saloon Bar before they had a chance, However, don't block anyone for being a Ken sock until they make it clear that's what they are beyond a shadow of a doubt. If that means that the little shit has a few socks on here for a while, then so be it.

And Ken, I am another RationalWiki user who never has any trouble sleeping. I never wake up in a cold sweat worrying about anything, least of all about you being able to "edit" here. You are not the only user here who believes in God or who is in any way politically on the right. I do not expect every user on RW to think or feel exactly as I do and I don't think any of the more sensible users do either. You are not even the only right-wing troll here. We had them during the many years between when you were here as User:Newton and when you came back as User:GiuocoPiano and we'll still have them after you finally give this shit up. Now, if by "edit" you actually mean make good faith edits to mainspace articles, edits that don't push your homophobic, sexist, creationist, religiously bigoted points of view, then the joke is well and truly on you. Why do you feel the need to make edits like that on the boring, irrelevant, dying wiki of your atheist and agnostic enemies? Why can't you make the same edits on Conservapedia? But if by "edit", you just mean "troll", well so fucking what? Like I said, you're not the only right wing troll here. You are, however, engaging in the very behaviour that, citing that old and very out of date article from the  Los Angeles Times, you accused RationalWiki users of engaging in. If RationalWiki ever encouraged or condoned trolling and vandalism of Conservapedia, that's not the case anymore. Yet, you, at your age, are dedicating so much of your time and energy to being a RationalWiki vandal, like so many stupid teenage wankers before you. Grow the fuck up! Spud (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ken can't fucking finish a line without identifying himself as Ken. We don't preblock accounts until they identify themselves through an edit and Ken just can't stop helping himself from writing dumb talkpage essays. If it's a troll posing as him, then the aftermath is still the same because Ken has a very obvious mark in how he edits (utter non-sequiturs before declaring himself as the victor for... some reason and then ending with some catchy line like Ole Ole). 15:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't take anything what Ken says seriously at all. I'd still lighten the blocks up just to minimize any possible mistakes though. Indef bans I usually reserve for coop votes, offensive usernames, impersonations, or disruptive usernames. 16:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Meh. There's something very -ish about a Conservapedia bigwig ranting about a Wiki performing paranoid style blocks. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 19:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What if Ken is not really Ken at all, maybe he's...

https://youtu.be/aHZGqBVBCRw?t=33 Ariel31459 (talk) 19:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Wesley lacks machismo; he wears a face mask like a libtard. If he lived today he probably wouldn't inject himself with bleach like a true patriot. 23:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The real Dread Pyrate Roberts was caught keystering buttcoins. Bongolian (talk) 02:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason we are giving Ken more material to masturbate over? Having my talkpage spammed is one thing but raising it on the mod board just plays into his 13 year delusion that we are some how scared of him. Ace303, 808, 909 08:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ace are you saying you don't absolutely quiver in your boots whenever he starts an unsolicited "debate" with you? Shabi  DOO  12:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Please restore my page creations
It's obvious that Plutocow made sure all my page creations were in the draftspace so they could easily nuke them upon me getting topic-banned. I spent a good deal of time getting good sources to back up all my info, so it'd be real nice if they can be restored because I actually put in a lot of effort to publishing useful facts for anyone on the internet who's intrigued to learn about. If some other editors here deem them to be "promoting the Dixiecrat fallacy" or have any other gripes, no one's stopping them from adding on to those pages (like Flandres has for several of them). Given the fact that Plutocow has point-blank reverted some of my edits without even bothering to see that they're 100% true (like over here), his mass deletion of some of my work should certainly be scrutinized.

Thanks. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 03:19, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Many newly created articles are moved to draftspace because they are considered not ready for mainspace. You were not being singled out for special treatment in that regard. There was, however, a reason why you were topic banned. Which means that none of the pages you created will have been the kind of thing we want on RationalWiki. Spud (talk) 11:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * So you link to a Ken sock as "your edits". Funny that. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 12:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * He was clearly referring to this. UShistoryanalyzer isn’t Ken, unless you’ve got more evidence you’re just being paranoid. Christopher (talk) 13:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, as somebody who is cursed to deal with his stupidity I don't think Analyzer is Ken. As for the main topic, as somebody who edited his drafts to make them less idiotic, I don't give a damn about all of them being deleted. They were tiny articles on obscure politicians anybody could remake at some later date in a better form-you know, the sort of stuff we delete ALL THE FREAKING TIME. A new draft can be made by somebody who is not a whiny right-wing keyboard warrior at any point with little effort.-Flandres (talk) 13:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * (EC) I don't think the drafts should be banned a priori at least, especially some of them don't seem as problematic as it was discussed in the other topic, and since most of the figures are missional, people can work on them, even if UShistoryanalyzer remains topic banned. I like the idea Christopher gave here. GeeJayK (talk) 13:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, somebody can just make a new draft. This is not that difficult.-Flandres (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * My proposal was just a way to let the community vote on the matter, but now the matter’s been raised here I don’t think it’s necessary. I don’t have a particularly strong opinion either way, but I’ve restored the pages in question for now so it’s easier for everyone to understand what’s being discussed. Christopher (talk) 13:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * So..why is it so imperative that we preserve these poor, poor, drafts on obscure politicians? Will the wiki be destroyed if we delete them?-Flandres (talk) 13:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think there's a bit of a slippery slope here. I can ask you if the wiki will be destroyed if they are restored too, and the answer is no. I just think the procedures should be followed whenever is possible. As I'll hundreds of private matters in the comming few weeks I won't browse RW untill May, so I'm not sure I'll even be able to vote. GeeJayK (talk) 13:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no "procedure" for deleting drafts. You don't have AfDs for drafts. You just delete them on sight. You can observe this behavior "in the wild" all the freaking time. You and Chris are the only people making a big deal about Plutocow deleting them. Take the hint.-Flandres (talk) 13:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * [EC]I’m not saying they should stay up indefinitely, just until the matter is resolved. As I said I don’t have much of an opinion either way, I’m not American, but I lean towards deleting them; with UShistoryanalyzer topic banned, it’s unlikely anyone will ever edit them. Christopher (talk) 13:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We’ve had AfDs for drafts in the past. I’m not making a big deal out of it, and you’re being needlessly hostile. Christopher (talk) 13:46, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, sorry. I would still like to point out those are a small minority among the sea of drafts that have been deleted unilaterally, and I say this as a person who edited the drafts being discussed. We delete stubs on obscure politicians frequently, and I don't see why these are so superior/deserving of special treatment.-Flandres (talk) 13:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * (EC) I think both of you are correct to a certain point, but as far as I know drafts that are deleted are usually made by drive-by users. My drafts on John Rawls and Roberts Nozick are even smaller, but they weren't deleted (and if someone does that, I'd probably restore them since I still intend to work on these drafts in the future, even if I haven't touched then in months). Nonetheless, UShistoryanalyzer is topic banned right now, so you can also say that at least for now his situation is closer to a drive-by user. GeeJayK (talk) 13:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, if his topic ban is lifted, we can restore them, or at least give him the font if he wants to work on them. One last point, Flandres, I don't really understand your tone. I do believe you have a point, you don't need to think that I do, but I don't get why your being so rude with me and Chris. GeeJayK (talk) 13:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think a key point here is that you would restore them since you still intend to work on them. USHistoryAnalyzer is topic banned and the drafts are not, as I understand it, fit for mainspace. If there is nobody else who intends to work on them, there is no real reason to keep them around. As you say, if the topic ban is lifted, they can be restored. Serene (talk) 14:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * (EC)It's because we don't have arguments like this over other drafts that get deleted GeeJayK. This only became a problem when you suddenly made it one. I am sorry if I get a little testy during an exchange that is a waste of time. Why are you going to bat for these articles this much anyway?-Flandres (talk) 14:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Restore, Afd as needed, move on with life. 14:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Meh. The problem with USHistoryAnalyzer's drafts is: A) They weren't very notable; B) They were infected with this particular users's "flavor". Compare the other Wiki on and the draft, for instance. Of course this guy was a racist, but in the Jim Crow era, nearly all Southern politicians were. Other than the racism already covered in articles along the lines of Jim Crow, what is mission related about this guy?
 * If someone was going to make a go at actually editing historical missionable political shit, there's plenty of *very* notable authoritarian dictators around the world that are not on this Wiki due to US bias. For instance, we don't have articles on half the dictators in our currently poor School of the Americas article (with some of the links being stubs). Someone like, say, Hugo Banzer is a far more worthy topic to cover here then obscure Dixiecrats.
 * So restore, delete, whatever, it's not going to be moved to mainspace anytime though, for sure. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 14:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The draft articles in question were poorly written and only very tenuously missional. I don't have any problem with going through an AfD for them, but that seems like a waste of time. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 14:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, sorry for losing my temper a bit, but I feel this point stands-these articles just aren't worth the attention we are giving them. That is why I opposed an AfD, but if some people really need that I am willing to let that happen.-Flandres (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Just had an idea. Make a list with all the drafts. If UShistoryanalyzer manages to revert his topic ban, we can restore them on demand, or at least give him the font code of the drafts (that can be done without the restoration though). Topic bans (in fact most bans on RW) are easy to revert and perhaps the best way to save these drafts, if he cares about them so much. If he, or others disagree, well, then the only way will probably be Afd, which I won't be able to vote since I'll be forced take a vacation from RW over private matters. GeeJayK (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need to pursue this further. We don't need a vote on every page created, especially stubs or draft space pages. Bongolian (talk) 17:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, they should have stayed deleted. I don't know why we are entertaining this guy, we should only topic unban them if they have provided clear evidence that they have changed, which so far, they have provided absolutely none. Plutocow (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I supported an AfD before as a way of settling the dispute, but unless someone other than expresses real opposition to their deletion (if I’m understanding  correctly he doesn’t think the pages necessarily deserve to stay, just that there should be a vote) I think this discussion is enough of a vote. I say wait a bit in case anyone does object and so that UShistoryanalyzer can save copies if he wants, then delete. Christopher (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm not sure anymore. I read some of the drafts and they seem to be of heterogeneous quality. This one, for instance, despite having problems, like having History Channel as a source is better than some articles of mainspace (though of course that also says a lot about how bad some of the articles on the main space are, and it's not an excuse to put it there). Others, like this one, apparently have good sources, but I'm not sure if they are missional, at least not in 2012. Finally, there are others like this one that don't seem very useful. Maybe we'll have to take the long path here. GeeJayK (talk) 18:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem is that most of the people in question, in the grand scheme of things, are not that notable. We just have articles on some of the more infamous Dixecrats, like Thurmond or Wallace. "One of a zillion racist politicians in the Jim Crow south" is not enough to get you a Rationalwiki article in and of itself-they need to go the extra mile, they need to have some greater influence which makes them stand out. The only person who fits that is Russell, maybe.-Flandres (talk) 18:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't know which of these figures are relevant, I can't give my opinion on that. GeeJayK (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait, wait, wait. This whole time you have been arguing on behalf of Analyzer and...how much background knowledge did you have about all this "Dixecrat" stuff? I don't mean this in a rude way, sorry if it sounds like that.-Flandres (talk) 18:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As Christopher said, I was arguing on behalf of the procedures. Regarding your question. I do know a bit, probably more than the average non-American, I've read a few books on American history (one of them, A History of the American Peoples, by, cover terribly the 60's and kinda supports this theory), but probably less than you guys. GeeJayK (talk) 19:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * People with an axe to grind make terrible editors. That appears to be the case with UShistoryanalyzer who is only focused on Dixiecrats and closely related topics. If UShistoryanalyzer is unable or unwilling make constructive edits in unbanned topic areas, perhaps UShistoryanalyzer should go somewhere else. Bongolian (talk) 19:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't you think expanding RW's focus on the history of racism, the South, and the civil rights movement in the U.S. only improves us as a wiki? UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring my page creations. I really appreciate it. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 20:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You’re welcome, but as I said it’s probably temporary. Consensus still seems to be that they should be deleted. If you want them to continue to exist on the site in some form I could move them to your userspace, but your chances of ever getting one into mainspace are very slim. Christopher (talk) 20:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Now here's the thing: some of my page creations do have a sizeable amount of info: the Leslie Arends draft has over 4,000 bytes of content and the Allen Ellender draft has over 6,000 bytes of content. Compare that to this mainspace stub with less than 2,500 bytes of content. It had seemed to me that Plutocow especially made sure all my page creations were moved to the draftspace so it would be more justified for them to initially mass-delete on the presumed basis that it's "not yet ready for the mainspace". This is furthermore despite the fact that no other admins decided to move my page creations for Arends and Broyhill to the draftspace until Plutocow suddenly had noticed. I don't view all this as having been merely coincidental. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Quantity ≠ quality. Bongolian (talk) 21:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Now hold on, I was doing a couple other things for the past few hours, so you shouldn't have just deleted those drafts right now. Besides, don't you think that focusing on the history of racism and civil rights is missional to RW? UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 02:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Fine, I will restore them on that basis...but remember that community consensus leans toward deleting them. I can wait a bit if it helps the discussion-Flandres (talk) 02:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Those drafts tell us nothing about the history of civil rights besides whether or not an individual person was a segregationist. Plutocow (talk) 02:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * (EC) I don't understand why the consensus here would be leaning towards nuking them. While it's arguable that some of my page creations may be more or less significant than others (Russell seems like a more notable figure in the Senate than Connally), they still seem relevant to RW's mission in refuting pseudoscience and exploring authoritarianism. More info on U.S. history only helps us as a wiki to inform and educate the public. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 02:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The only problem is, you are promoting U.S. pseudohistory, oh and also you're topic banned. If anyone really wanted to write articles on these people they'd be better off starting from scratch. Plutocow (talk) 02:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * (EC)Notability is a thing. We have had this discussion for politicians, youtubers, celebrities...we don't create RW articles for every random GOP douche in congress who thinks Global Warming is a Chinese conspiracy, and we don't need an article on every racist politicians in a time when the south was dominated by overt racists. We just pick the most prominent ones (Wallace and Thurmond for instance) and leave it there.-Flandres (talk) 02:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * (EC) Plutocow, all you ever seem to do is make these claims (like saying that I "promote the Dixiecrat fallacy") without providing specific evidence to counter my points. Furthermore, since when does getting topic-banned justify mass-deleting one's work that's missional to this wiki? Seems like you're now trying to justify an abuse of sysop powers that was on your part. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 02:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We often delete drafts that have no chance of making it to mainspace even if they are missional. Bongolian deleted a few yesterday on some crackpot preachers I believe...-Flandres (talk) 02:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

If we have an article on every racist politician in US history, they'll take up half the wiki, and the content will be largely the same across all articles. What's to say that can't be covered in a more general article? Serene (talk) 03:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * (EC) Flandres, there's a sizeable amount of content in most of the page creations I started and anyone's welcome to add on to them like you have. It definitely should be a priority for RW to expand its focus on U.S. history, don't you think? Since even our new page creations are likely to show up on the top of search engine results, it'd be a real shame if you guys just decide to nuke these drafts... UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 03:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Serene, even some of the larger articles like States' Rights Democratic Party don't cover all the info I have included in some of my page creations. The details I add in are very useful, informative, and missional. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 03:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll assume for your sake that this is true, but again, why create articles on all these politicians rather than add information to the existing articles? Also, out of curiosity, why create all these drafts rather than focus on getting one article to be mainspace ready? Serene (talk) 03:18, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I like to do meaningful research into a number of politicians from the 30s to 60s era, so often I would start a stub to likely come back for expanding some time later. While I'm currently topic-banned, Flandres has seemed to be interested in adding on to some of them. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 03:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't want to put words in Flandres' mouth, but within this thread, he seems to be pretty sympathetic to deleting the drafts. Also, he deleted the drafts, and restored them only at your request. This seems relevant in evaluating Flandres' stance on the drafts. Serene (talk) 03:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Since you were the one who suggested waiting...should we delete?-Flandres (talk) 18:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No. They're missional, and given that you and some other users have added onto some of them, I just don't see why they should be deleted when literally anyone else is welcome to expand as needed. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Honestly they are worthless anti-missional proll dreck that ought to be purged. 19:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's see, you've only created a whopping four pages, and now you're advocating for nuking my work and falsely claiming my articles are "anti-missional". 'Nuff said. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Out of those pages, how many were intellectually dishonest topic ban violations that had to be deleted? 14:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

[EC]I didn’t get that ping (has to be added in the same edit you add your signature), but I was online. Here’s a vote count:
 * Delete:
 * Spud (not explicitly, but it’s pretty obvious)
 * Plutocow
 * Flandres
 * Serene
 * Pangalacticgargleblaster (ambivalent, but clearly thinks the drafts are poor quality)
 * Bongolian (again not explicit but obvious)
 * Me (although I don’t have a strong opinion either way, I’ve tried to avoid this conflict as I’m not American)
 * Summa Apologetica
 * Keep:
 * UShistoryanalyzer
 * GeeJayK (maybe)
 * I’d wait until this argument has died down, but they’re definitely getting deleted by someone soon. Christopher (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Why are some users here so obsessed with wiping out a bunch of content??? I thought this site's main priority is supposed to be finding another zillion reasons to prove that Trump's a racist fascist?????? Unclescrooge (talk) 21:08, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I will now explicitly say that I think the pages should have stayed deleted. I will also say that this very discussion is allowing UShistoryanalyzer to skirt dangerously close to breeching his topic ban and not doing him any favours if he wants the topic ban ever to be lifted. Spud (talk) 06:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

PLEASE REMOVE ME FROM THE VANDAL BIN!!!!
Thanks. Unclescrooge (talk) 20:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Stop begging. You also applied bold wrong. 20:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You appealed your binning, were let out under certain conditions, and broke those conditions within a day or two. You’ve since broken them again. I personally think you’re harmless and shouldn’t have been binned in the first place, but you really should’ve tried a bit harder. Christopher (talk) 21:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Make good contributions for a month or so before asking. I've seen some of your edits, you added some decent content before, you know it's not that hard. GeeJayK (talk) 21:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Unclescrooge
Long-term trolling by Unclescrooge, even after being told to stop and having multiple (!) short-term blocks. According to the Blocking policy, this is a long-term block offense. Kevs  Ping!  17:09, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * He’s being slightly annoying in response to people being a bit too quick to block him. He’s already vandal binned, I really don’t think we need a coop over this. Christopher (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This should be in the Mod noticeboard if we bother with it at all. 17:11, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Then somebody should move it to the ATIM. Kevs  Ping!  17:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I also think permaban is excessive, but he should get a longer block. Kevs  Ping!  17:13, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * He’s made five edits in the last four days. Three complaining about RW being too harsh on him with ridiculous comparisons to fascism and 1984, one calling you a fascist after you started this coop (again absolutely ridiculous, but he’s right that a coop is unnecessary). His other edit was reverting a troll, which given that it prevented him from editing for half an hour I have to give him some credit for. Doesn’t warrant ATiM or the coop, it’s really nothing to worry about. Christopher (talk) 17:21, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

== Kevs ==

He's being a fascist, which this site doesn't tolerate. Unclescrooge (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You’re making it really hard for me to defend you. Christopher (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Christopher, he doesn't deserve your defense at this point. 17:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I still think he hasn’t really done anything wrong, just been consistently a bit annoying, and has been treated a bit too harshly. Him continuing to be annoying does make me less willing to dispute any further harsh treatment. Christopher (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm just waiting for him to get it out of his system. Beyond that I'm merely obligated to point out his misuse of the term "fascism". 17:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Just forbid him to use the word fascist and any variation, banning him is too much. And please, no more coops unless it's really necessary. GeeJayK (talk) 17:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, since there is a case about him here, I think he should be removed from the vandal bin at least for now, if he promised he won't post elsewhere. GeeJayK (talk) 17:45, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the civility parole would be suitable: The user is expected to behave civil in discussions. Moderators have free range to block him for being incivil, without having to go through the Chicken Coop or ATIM. First block is 12 hours and doubles after each successive block. Kevs  Ping!  17:45, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think that universally sanctioning someone from using a particular word is advisable. However, inappropriately calling a fellow-editor a fascist is arguably uncivil. Bongolian (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m really not a fan of the civility parole thing. I think we should leave him in the bin for now and let him out if he stops acting like this for a bit, if he continues to call people fascists then he’s only hurting himself. We can deal with a few slightly annoying edits, none within a half hour of each other, now and again. Christopher (talk) 18:13, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. The issue is basically childish acting out in a mildly insulting way. The best response is a more mature response (which includes not provoking him with little jabs like what led to this acting out). After a time of giving him a chance, you could let him out if it adds up to him being better, leave it as is if it's the same, or do a long-term block if it's worse. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 18:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We seem to have him handled pretty well right now. Just keep him in the bin, block him for a short time when he is being extra annoying, and let the community at large ignore him.-Flandres (talk) 18:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don’t think a block is even necessary, certainly not the 3.6 day no talk page blocks he’s sometimes given. He’s blocking himself for half an hour whenever he edits, that’s “punishment” enough. The vandal bin is doing its job. Christopher (talk) 18:36, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not "necessary"(hahahaha), but it is very convenient. Honestly though, we really should judge his actions on a case-by-case basis. We don't need some grand "policy" beyond the bin when dealing with a nobody like this. Just let the editors on the spot decide what to do-that seems to be working so far.-Flandres (talk) 18:47, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I've changed my mind, I agree with Flanders and Christopher. GeeJayK (talk) 20:14, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Just keep him in the bin. This is what it's intended for. 23:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree. Bongolian (talk) 00:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. The bin is the best place for him. Spud (talk) 01:01, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

RationalWiki's policy on deleting content of banned users
What is RationalWiki's policy on deleting content of banned users? I have seen some sysops and mods suggest to remove all article creations of banners users with the exception if pages have been substantially rewritten by different users. Is it possible mods can decide and vote on a policy of deleting (or keeping) articles banned users have made? Some clarification is at least needed. Oenophyta (talk) 22:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There's no overarching policy and its taken on a case by case basis if I recall correctly. 22:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah, because the sysops sometimes say we're at war with Eurasia and at other times say we've always been at war with Eastasia. They often bonk their heads against the wall like so:
 * Wall.gif
 * Unclescrooge (talk) 22:29, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * For the most part, who created an article is seen as irrelevant. Deleting an article about something or someone highly relevant to our mission just because it was created by a banned user would be a stupid thing to do. I'm going to vote delete for some of the articles Smith created and keep for others. I'm sorry, Oliver. You let all those Neo-Nazi shitheads believe you were writing articles about them. No doubt making use of the fact that you had hundreds of different user names to take credit for articles you didn't write when it suited you and claim not to have written articles you did write when it suited you. You'll have to live with the consequences now and there's not much we can do about it. Spud (talk) 01:32, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That is correct. Deleting pages solely based on who created them is basically the genetic fallacy. Bongolian (talk) 01:38, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Case by case basis. We generally only remove transparently bad-faith drafts. We don't go on an Orwellian cleanup spree, that'd be a waste of time. 18:19, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thoughts on this article by LT? GeeJayK (talk) 18:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I moved it to draft space, and I question its missionality. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 18:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)