RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive60

GrammarCommie & 2friedeggs
He's desysopping people again. Don't care what happens to him, I just want someone to reverse it.--2friedeggs (talk) 01:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * GrammarCommie
 * You have a role, since you won't leave him alone even after his self-block, as the BON noted in your talk. TranslationForAll (talk)
 * Look am I going to get my sysop back or not? I literally do not care what happens to him at this point and I agree with him on the iban. No one ever told me to leave him alone and something tells me you are turning a blind eye to his rhetoric in the first place.--2friedeggs (talk) 01:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not defending him, I just want to minimize disturbance that comes from a battleground like this. HendrickTheGross (talk) 01:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That's fine but uh, could I get my mop back?--2friedeggs (talk) 01:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not giving a mop to lying narcissist who jams their nose into other people's business purely to abuse them. Especially given I gave you and your friend what you wanted when I left the site, not that either of you hypocritical liars even bothered being half as active as I was. So no, and as soon as I'm done here, whichever way it turns out, I'm going back to being blocked and trying to forget people like you exist. 01:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think you know what that word means, what I do see though is you being aggressive towards someone on the spectrum. I never cared whether or not you left, I just wanted to see a change in behavior, which is obviously not going to happen, so I decided I would just try to coexist when you came back. I knew you would come back. You sure call people a lot of things that could describe you. If you decide to leave again because of me fine. If you are seeing hypocritical liars everywhere, I would recommend doing some introspection. There is no organized thing against you.--2friedeggs (talk) 01:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I only called you and Neiltsy hypocritical liars. I only accused you two of ganging up on me, because you literally did. It's on your talkpage. He doesn't hide his IPs. Yeah... I can see the talkpage histories. Including where you went to discord to "avoid my ire", with a man, who continues to feud with me, over a fucking drama article. Jesus Christ you're terminally unaware. You aren't a skeptic, you're a fucking rube. 02:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * And lest it be forgotten, you jammed your nose in a conversation the neither mentioned nor involved you. You shot first. And then you had the fucking gall, THE GALL, to block my talkpage access over your shitty harassment? So you could do what? Feel self righteous? You should never get your mop back, you childish little scumbag.  02:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Holy crap this is the most amazing thing you've ever said to both Mario and me so far lol Is that who the BoNs are? Not very surprised in hindsight. Either way, keep talking.--2friedeggs (talk) 02:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I get that I'm just a Lolcow for you to goad and then act innocent over. 02:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, Mario told you to stop your hypocritical harassment, you tell him to never contact you again in response, you've had many ATIMs against you in the past and it's clear you've angered more than one person active on this site outright, so maybe... Just maybe, your antics are just coming back to you.


 * You're not a lolcow lol what a weird label to give yourself. I do wonder however, who exactly you think you are that you can shamelessly skirt the rules and act the way you do.--2friedeggs (talk) 02:51, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

2friedeggs has engaged in abusive behavior against me, including locking my talkpage after I had left and was in conversation with another editor, which they were neither invited to nor welcome to. As such, I have removed privileges from their main account and both of their sock accounts. I demand immediate mod action and an interaction ban between myself and them. 01:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 2friedeggs
 * I'm fine with the iban and thought about it myself. Unfortunately desysopping people out of nowhere is something you were repeatedly warned against.--2friedeggs (talk) 01:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't abuse your privileges then. 01:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * How did I do that and even if you proved I did you shouldve came here first--2friedeggs (talk) 01:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I was retired you fucking shit. 01:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * And you say I was harassing you. Shameless.--2friedeggs (talk) 01:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

My takeaway? 2friedeggs, learn to stop inserting yourself in these situations. When I'm trying to to tell off GrammarCommie, don't join and dogpile, that's going to make him lash out and make the situation worse. Do not block GrammarCommie either, that'll make you risk your user rights. You know you're going to escalate given your prior interactions with him. GrammarCommie, do not mess with user-rights, same thing with you risking your user rights, and stop flaming people, that makes it more difficult for your points to be made. 02:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I was retired. I ceded the ground and left. Their behavior was uncalled for, and blaming it on me when they fired first is absurd. Thank you for telling me you were just trying to get me to stop interacting with the site though, it clears the air and helps me realize that there really isn't anyone here that's interested in engaging honestly with me. 02:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This is fair enough to me. Do I have to wait this out before I get my mop back?--2friedeggs (talk) 02:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * An interaction ban might be in order between GC and 2friedeggs, which would be the second one for 2friedeggs. LANCBs are not to be relied upon. Bongolian (talk) 04:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Possible doxing
BoN made an edit of the Goldman Sachs page containing possibly personally identifying information. I hid the revision, but I remember reading somewhere on the wiki that I should let you guys know so that you can hide it from sysops as well. The edit is on the following link: https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Goldman_Sachs&curid=169664&diff=2479290&oldid=2456411 Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 23:37, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for the alert! Bongolian (talk) 00:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * this one too, I thought I had linked to this one in the previous message: https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Goldman_Sachs&curid=169664&oldid=2479290
 * OK, done. Bongolian (talk) 15:25, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Can I have my admin rights back please?
Long story short, I cocked up and unblocked User:Kiko4564 who got a well deserved block of pi weeks for "unfunny vandalism", which he has continued with despite being vandal binned. In response, I decided to strip myself of admin rights and LANCB. Given that I resigned in those circumstances, are you happy to give me my admin rights back please? Thank you. --Harry Potter (talk) 09:57, 24 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Harry Potter is an admitted sock of Kiko4564 (note attempted whitewashing of this admission). This user has an annoying habit of vandalizing the wiki, promising to leave, and then coming back and apologizing and asking for sysop privileges again and again. I request that both of these accounts be placed in sysoprevoke for wasting everyone's time with endless cycles of vandalism, inserting unfunny dick jokes into articles, and when called out, repeatedly apologizing and asking to be given another chance to insert unfunny dick jokes into articles again. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 13:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Not a mod, but I agree with cosmikdebris, I think it is pretty obvious from Kiko's talkpage he doesn't have intentions of doing anything else than trolling and wandalism. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 13:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support sysoprevoke per above.--Andrew5 (talk) 13:13, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, he is a pest. I'd also support a longer block for both accounts since he's basically block-evading. GeeJayK (talk) 13:27, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Fully support sysoprevoke for both accounts. Spud (talk) 13:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I support sysoprevoke for both accounts as well. Kiko isn't here to be constructive-if you didn't think that with his whole apology/relapse cycle or that he admits to committing vandalism regularly lying by omission to get adminrights might convince you-Flandres (talk) 15:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I support sysoprevoke on top of potential further sanctions due to the severity of the case. Plutocow (talk) 15:38, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, sysoprevoke and long block. Bongolian (talk) 15:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * How does RationalWiki acts in these cases? Do we hold a vote or is it up to the mods? Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 16:04, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Harry Potter mentions that he "cocked up and unblocked Kiko4564", which prompted me to take a look at Kiko's block log:
 * If Harry Potter really is a sockpuppet of Kiko, I would like to bring attention to this block by :
 * 18:14, 25 May 2021 Bongolian talk contribs block blocked Kiko4564 talk contribs with an expiration time of π×infinity! (account creation disabled) (User request (email to me)) (unblock | change block).
 * I obviously cannot verify this request really happened, but I will assume it happened. This block was undone by Harry Potter more than a year later:
 * 22:18, 15 August 2022 Harry Potter talk contribs block unblocked Kiko4564 talk contribs (user request; see talk page).
 * The request is at this edit. But anyway:
 * Let's see his contributions since he rejoined the wiki. Almost all of those outside of his own userpage are dick jokes, like said, with the exception of these ones:,  and , plus another one that's just a revert of his own edit in the Park51 page. So, this tells me the following:
 * They had a history of trouble before the block by Bongolian, as evidenced by the talk page and the block log
 * They created a sockpuppet that they used to obtain sysop rights and unblock themself
 * After the unblock, instead of doing anything good at all, they just decided to keep trolling with unfunny dick jokes.
 * Therefore, I support both sysoprevoke for both of their accounts and a extension to their current block, and I'm also open to just permablock their accounts as well, given this. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 19:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Generally, sysoprevoke only requires a single moderator unless there's some controversy (RationalWiki:Sysoprevoke). Long blocks usually require a vote for established users (non-vandals). Bongolian (talk) 19:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * In my opinion then, Kiko and Harry Potter should already be blocked, given that they have never shown intentions of doing anything else other than trolling and wasting people's time. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 20:26, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Given how we had a vote for ADOC and Scrooge, which were the same, a vote will likely be necessary for a perma. --Andrew5 (talk) 20:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If I were to try to start a vote, how should I go about it? . Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 20:57, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * First, wait 24 hours since the discussion started (09:57, 25 August 2022 (UTC), then open up a vote in the following format. (You can add other options in a similar format, replacing the time in the three lines.
 * First, wait 24 hours since the discussion started (09:57, 25 August 2022 (UTC), then open up a vote in the following format. (You can add other options in a similar format, replacing the time in the three lines.


 * --Andrew5 (talk) 20:59, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 21:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Kiko is saying an unban is requested to make his case here on his talkpage. I don't want to overturn any mod (and I'm not by any means active enough to do a thorough deep dive into this request), so if anyone here can say if that's warranted or not, go ahead. cc: . Personally I'm not especially inclined to give Kiko the weaseling of setting the ban reason to user request. He's a WikiCop who will use the literal meaning of that to weasel his way around. -- Techpriest (talk) 19:19, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I also got such an email request. I'm disinclined to undo Cosmikdebris' ban given the "even I think that I deserve it" below from Harry Potter. There's really nothing left to argue after that. Bongolian (talk) 19:36, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I got an email as well, from which I have two takeaways. First, they seem to think that this is Wikipedia and we play by their rules so he should be unbanned until he case is resolved. Second, they want to repeat the same behavior they've engaged in several times before, that is, "I abused, I'm leaving, I want to come back" (wash rinse repeat ad nauseum). I stand by my block and my request for sysoprevoke earlier in this thread. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 20:04, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised since I'm not even a sysop that I got an email from him, but it read, I just thought that it would be cogent to make you aware of the following message that I have left on my talk page, which I assume you haven't seen On second thoughts, don't worry about my request for a permaban. I'll just leave my vote as a vote, please disregard the comments that I made. --Harry Potter (talk) 14:19, 25 August 2022 (UTC). Thought I'd throw it out there.--Andrew5 (talk) 20:15, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Yea

 * 1) This involved a ton of deception. --Andrew5 (talk) 12:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Plutocow (talk) 16:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Yea

 * 1) Plutocow (talk) 16:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Yea

 * 1) Go right ahead, even I think that I deserve it. Feel free to make this unappealable with talk page and email access revoked, but I would like the block reason to be that it was a "user request" since I asked for it please. --Harry Potter (talk) 13:34, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If that's the case though, we need to make sure HP can't be unblocked because he asks for it. Probably a similar process to Oxyaena will need to be set up, but idk. --Andrew5 (talk) 14:03, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 'user request' leaves the door open to a return. so i would not advise such a reason AMassiveGay (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If the user is blocked by the community then they are blocked by the community. The fact that they might or might not have been in agreement with the ban is irrelevant. The suggestion that "user request" be added to the block reason smacks of another attempt to game the system at some later date.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:50, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) They want to be banned, and I see no reason to deny their request. Plutocow (talk) 16:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Evanesco. Bongolian (talk) 17:29, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) -Flandres (talk) 18:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) I guess this is Oxy 2.0? --Andrew5 (talk) 18:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * How does a relatively newbie compare to oxy? SomeBurnerAccount (talk) 18:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Both directly asked to be banned. 00:02, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Based on user request. 23:57, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) An admitted sock of an already permabanned user. What is there to discuss? Spud (talk) 06:40, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Sock of a WikiCop. Boot, apply to butt. -- Techpriest (talk) 19:19, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) Admitted sockpuppet of an admitted bad faith user--Hastur! (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 21:48, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) LongStylus (talk) 23:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Nay
Too harsh at the moment. --Andrew5 (talk) 12:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Goat

 * Can we close this? Unanimous to permaban, with even HP agreeing, and it's been a week. -Andrew5 (talk) 12:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Abuse of the "fascists" category
At least one BoN has been methodically adding the fascists category to dozens of articles on people here at RW. It appears that the person[s] believe that everyone to the right of George W. Bush is a fascist. I note from our own article that fascism is defined as:

(emphasis mine) Many of the recent additions to the fascists category seem to be plain out wrong based on this definition. I suggest that editors and sysops examine the category entries and determine where this label is being abused. Many of the recent additions to this category are certainly Nazis, extremists and right wing political hacks, but most have not openly engaged in "extreme levels of political violence aimed at purifying and expanding the state". —cosmikdebris talk stalk 22:29, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I've noticed it as well, I even thought about making a post here too. I also reverted some of the edits. Apparently this person thinks that everyone on the racist/homophobe category is also a fascist. It's clearly an abuse of the category, even though some of the entries are correct, but at this point, BoN is turning the fascist/para-fascist categories into political new insanity categories. GeeJayK (talk) 22:38, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not only one, I saw at least 1 IPv4 and 1 IPv6 adding (I don't know if the v6 was abusing, the v4 definitely was adding it everywhere) the fascist category to pages. Either that person discovered how to disable IPv6 at will or, more likely, it's more than one person doing that. At least that's what I think, that there are 2 addresses doing that, unless my memory's failing Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 22:45, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If someone wants to go find these and re-review their edits you can take a look at the history of pages in both the fascists and Category:Para-fascists categories. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 22:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's IP 108.20.177.207. Contributions here, someone probably needs to go through those contribs and figure out if the category applies or not. I've given out a 3 month block as an escalation of their past attempts to do this, see here for more details. If any mod wants to escalate further or not, go ahead. -- Techpriest (talk) 21:09, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Since October? Wow. --Andrew5 (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Luigifan18
I'm sorry, but I don't think this person is ready for sysop tools yet. Here is a short list of their misbehavior: I think we should give them sysoprevoke until they demonstrate the maturity and competence to handle such a role. Plutocow (talk) 01:56, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Abuse of supression rights
 * Repeatedly unbanning Ken socks and spambots, even after being shown evidence of who they are multiple times and by multiple users
 * Plays Wikicop harder than Andrew5
 * Other abuses like editing other people's talkpage comments and userpages, and never listening to the messages on their talkpage


 * I do listen to comments on my talk page, and I wouldn’t unban anyone who clearly deserves to be banned. I'm trying to take my role as a sysop here seriously, and that includes being sure of what sort of person I'm dealing with before passing harsh judgment. --Luigifan18 (talk) 02:43, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * In fact, I was considering asking for tech rights so that I'd be able to see the edit filter, just so I could have all the necessary information about a given user's edit history to know whether or not I should show leniency. I don't want to unblock any spambots! --Luigifan18 (talk) 02:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Sadly, I have to agree with Plutocow. In the meantime, I would advise Luigifan18 to assume good judgement on behalf of more experienced sysops who have banned new users rather can assume good faith on behalf of already banned users. If those users aren't allowed to edit their own talk pages, there's a good reason for that. Spud (talk) 03:22, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I generally do assume good judgment on behalf of the more experienced sysops, but I still like to double-check the contributions of a blocked user. Most of the time, I find that said contributions are nothing but vitriol and spam and leave the blocks in place. It's some of the users who got blocked due to their contributions on the Saloon Bar (namely ButterCashiers, Truflip98, and Viewsridge) that I’m not entirely sure about walling out. I sure as heck don't agree with Putin apologists, and I fully support Ukraine's independence, but I'm not completely sure that expressing the belief that Bad Vlad has every right to treat Ukraine as his personal chew toy should be a bannable offense in and of itself. As such, I was hoping to give them a chance to speak with the mods to make a case for possibly being unbanned. --Luigifan18 (talk) 04:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You do realize that the saloon bar spam and bullshit is largely the result of a single person, don't you? —cosmikdebris talk stalk 04:11, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I was not aware of that. Thanks for letting me know. --Luigifan18 (talk) 04:23, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * (…Wait, what about User:Machina, then?) --Luigifan18 (talk) 04:24, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Machina doesn't register multiple sock accounts and spew nonsense ad nauseum. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 04:27, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. --Luigifan18 (talk) 04:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Editing other people's user pages and talk page comments is not good. Even without sysop, Luigifan18 could still repeat that behavior. Revoking autopatrol is not off the table if that gets out of hand. LongStylus (talk) 08:19, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait, am I being dragged into this? I saw my name.--Andrew5 (talk) 12:29, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

no. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 12:46, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * These are all fair points, but I don't like the idea of of sanctioning a motivated user. I think now that mods have called Luigi out, they might have learned. If that's not the case, I'll vote for sysoprevoke on the next time we have this conversation. GeeJayK (talk) 14:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

i would like to remind people that ken was not banned purely for the disruptive and tediously inane spam, and his socks only really get blocked when he reverts to form spamming dogshit talking points over and over because he cant help himself and it gets too disruptive and blatant to tolerant his presence any longer. we are able to block his socks so readily when they arise because they are socks of a banned user. they were banned as a user partly because of his inane spam which handily gives him away so often, and partly because we do not tolerate the presence of such a noted (to this site) and unrepentant bigot. this gives an glimpse of his work. not all of it, but everything starting 'homosexuality and ...' is his, almost soley and theres a lot of them. conservapedia and rationalwiki are linked in away that this isnt 'off site' in any real sense, and his prejudice goes beyond just the gays. they are the nusiance that they are now because some bright spark thought it would be a good idea to invite the prick over and the resultant disruption and no small amount of acrimony generated ended in their banning.

there is a block option of 'sock of a banned user'. use it and it should prevent any misunderstanding for the uninitiated about why we block the twat.

if they were not so fucking obvious and just not so fucking dumb, they could probably fly under the radar and no one would care. but that would require a tiny bit of humanity, and they are just so so fucking broken. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:58, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I'm sorry to have to hammer it home. But we are talking about this arsehole. He wasn't banned for posting vaguely right-wing stuff in the Saloon Bar. He only really started doing that after he was banned. He was banned for dedicating the best part of a decade of his life to encouraging and perpetuating homophobia and thereby trying to normalize hate. His writing style is familiar to many long-term users here. So again,, when a more experienced sysop blocks a new user who's only posted in the Saloon Bar for ban evasion and doesn't let them edit their own talk page, it's because it was that fucking twat, Ken. So, please, just trust their judgement and stay out of it. Spud (talk) 02:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * All right, I'm just trying to make sure that the banhammer isn't being used too wantonly, particularly not on users acting in good faith. I can certainly agree that Ken deserves it for having opinions that go beyond "unpopular" into straight-up toxic. --Luigifan18 (talk) 04:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll just further add that Ken isn't just advocating hatred of gay people but he is a general hateful user who has an obsession with RationalWiki users. He is also a sexist trashfire of a human being with him writing screeds condescending me just for my gender ("oh a LADY governing RationalWiki"; "ZOMG a gossiping lady woman") and how emasculating it is for RationalWiki editors to have a female moderator. He has one time tried to share a photo of me with a Mario plushie, though the photo was taken years ago when I JUST graduated from high school; he's like a middle aged man. He compared me to a worm who loves corpses here just because I don't experience sexual attraction (I'm part of the ace spectrum; just to show you, bigots STILL attack people who aren't attracted to the right people AS WELL as being attracted to the wrong people). I did write quite a few colorful comments regarding him and his diseased mold-infested excuse for a brain but it's not out of the blue. Whenever he gives his account away please always remember this guy is a motorcycle traffic fatality of a human being whose continued presence is making this world a slightly worse place and if hell existed, I wish him a peaceful spot to rot in. 05:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "they are the nusiance that they are now because some bright spark thought it would be a good idea to invite the prick over and the resultant disruption and no small amount of acrimony generated ended in their banning."
 * My sister was the first person to try to feed one of his earlier accounts to the sharks, I remember that, and that "spark" gave her a hard time for trying to neuter an obvious fucking troll. 05:23, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Moderators, the time for voting is now finished, pretty clear win for the pi weeks option     . Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 17:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes

 * 1) I was considering following GeeJayK's advice and letting this user off with a warning, but then they continued to unban spambots and tried to further litigate those Ken socks, so this person clearly isn't listening and something needs to be done. Plutocow (talk) 02:06, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't recall having unbanned any spambots or litigated any Ken socks between 14:20 25 September and 02:06 26 September 2022. --Luigifan18 (talk) 01:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Twice, once on my talk page and once on my user page, they've edited inappropriately on my territory. Scream!! (talk) 12:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Literally only fixing grammar and adding links. I would never make edits to another user's "territory" that actually changed the content. --Luigifan18 (talk) 13:12, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * editing peoples comments on talk pages is a big no no. 'literally only fixing grammar' is the wrong answer. the correct answer is 'sorry, i wont do that again.' AMassiveGay (talk) 14:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry, I won't do that again. --Luigifan18 (talk) 15:50, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If you see a grammatical mistake on somebody else's user page, leave a polite message about it on their talk page. Then leave them to fix it. But don't ever change anybody else's talk page comments in any way. Spud (talk) 02:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Bongolian (talk) 20:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * (Um, for what reason? ) --Luigifan18 (talk) 01:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Primarily Plutocow's rationale: not listening to warnings. Bongolian (talk) 01:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not without sympathy, but I think a sysoprevoke is best for now.-Flandres (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This is somebody whose heart's in the right place but who does need this slap on the wrist. Spud (talk) 02:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I support a temporary sysoprevoke (no more than 2 weeks). Should sysoprevoke pass, I advise Luigi to calm down a bit, and if they want to continue doing sysop duties once sysoprevoke expires, to take a look at how more senior sysops do stuff. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 19:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ditto . I support a temporary sysoprevoke of about 2 weeks. I don't want Luigifan18's sysop to be revoked for too long, as that can hinder their opportunity to gain more experience and be a better sysop. LongStylus (talk) 00:39, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey, I'm trying my best. It's just hard to make a good judgment call sometimes, especially with incomplete information. (But seriously, it would help if I could see what's going on in the edit filter.) --Luigifan18 (talk) 01:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I can empathize with that. When I was a new sysop, I made a few mistakes myself, like blocking IPs for too long and revdel-ing edits that didn't need to be revdel-ed. The most important thing is to listen when other people raise concerns about your actions. LongStylus (talk) 02:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Luigifan18 isn't sysop material nor even suited to this wiki. He's more suited to a site like Encyclopædia Dramatica. Brisson (talk) 11:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ineligible; user lacks the required time or edit count. Plutocow (talk) 16:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

No

 * 1) Since when was I trying to "further litigate those Ken socks"? I haven't done anything of the sort all day. And I only "unbanned" one spambot so I could re-block them for a longer period of time. In any event, my main interest has always been in making sure that fair judgment is being passed. --Luigifan18 (talk) 03:05, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you need more time getting accustomed to RationalWiki culture and I don't think you're ready for sysop tools yet but I think sysoprevoke is pretty harsh. 05:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This is my first time being in a sysop-esque role on anything. I'm still getting used to the responsibility. (I do wish that I had more information so that I could do the job properly…) --Luigifan18 (talk) 14:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The RationalWiki:Sysop guide is what you're looking for. However, I think the most important thing that a RatWiki sysop can do is be chill, and remembering that deleting revisions is not for quality control, but rather either deleting harassment, deleting edits like the ones I recently nuked on the homosexuality page or deleting doxxes (in the last case, alert a moderator or tech afterwards so it can be suppressed). And also, at the end of the day, performing sysop duties in this wiki is a voluntary task, there's no need to do them if you don't want to, in fact most people that have sysop here probably never did a sysop action. If you're feeling stressed with patrolling, blocking and stuff, it can be helpful to not do them, or even log out for a few days to calm down. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 19:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey, I do want to be a good sysop here. I've grown quite fond of this wiki during my time here, and I don't want to let the wandal hordes have their way with it. --Luigifan18 (talk) 01:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we know and we do like the attitude. But I think it's better if you just spent more time observing what sysops do and whatnot and perhaps exercising more caution next time you get the tools. In the meantime, do the things you did to be demoted to sysop in the first place: make good edit to articles and be accustomed to debate tactics too. 02:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I feel that I should point out that I've been using the sysop tools a lot more responsibly since this thread and vote started. I've even caught a few spambots red-handed and swiftly dealt with them (check the block and delete logs). I honestly don't think sysoprevoke is necessary at all. --Luigifan18 (talk) 18:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Too much, I don't think indefinite sysoprevoke is warranted. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 15:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Indefinite sysoprevoke is too harsh. --Andrew5 (talk) 20:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) An indefinite revoke is too harsh in this case. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 20:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) Pi weeks is better. LongStylus (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) Overkill. 13:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Goat

 * The most recent MediaWiki update added a nifty feature where you can give out user roles with an expiration time. Thus, if someone believes that fully sysoprevoking Luigifan18 is excessive, but sysoprevoking them for e.g. 3 weeks would be justified, we can vote on that as well. Plutocow (talk) 02:06, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Personally more in favor of this as it means sysoprevoke can hopefully serve it's purpose as a corrective punishment better (like it should be). -- Techpriest (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm going to add this option then. GeeJayK (talk) 14:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * For the record, I modified the formatting after you added the pi weeks option . Since no length was specified for the original vote, I changed that option to "indefinite". Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 20:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes

 * 1) As me and others have said, this user is well-meant, and their blunders might be a result of inexperience. Lurk a bit for these three weeks, see how other sysops do their job and then we'll give you another chance. GeeJayK (talk) 14:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That sounds pretty reasonable. All I've been trying to do is keep this place true to its mission, but I have been overzealous in places due to my inexperience. --Luigifan18 (talk) 15:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) I support a temporary sysoprevoke. Should sysoprevoke pass, I advise Luigi to calm down a bit, and if they want to continue doing sysop duties once sysoprevoke expires, to take a look at how more senior sysops do stuff. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 15:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Sure something temporary. His heart is obviously in the right place.  If things turn out badly we can always come back to it.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Didn't know this option would be available. I think it fits my views better.-Flandres (talk) 19:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) Changed my vote to this. See my former "Indefinite, Yes" vote. LongStylus (talk) 19:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) Seems best. --Andrew5 (talk) 20:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) Seems like the best course of action given the circumstances. Assuming all of this is just errors done in good faith, a temporary sysoprevoke would keep Luigifan from making other egregious mistakes for the time being while still giving them another chance. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 20:19, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 7) Seems reasonable. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒  talk  21:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 8) I have no objection to pi weeks. Bongolian (talk) 02:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 9) This is somebody whose heart's in the right place but who does need this slap on the wrist. Spud (talk) 02:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC) I did say this should be a slap on the wrist, after all. Spud (talk) 03:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * (…3 weeks is a "slap on the wrist"?) --Luigifan18 (talk) 03:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. This is a very mild punishment. You're not being blocked. If that's your attitude, I can't see things getting much better for you here in the future. Spud (talk) 12:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it's just that I've still been busy deleting and blocking blatantly obvious spam, which I can't do if I get sysoprevoked. Check the block and deletion logs. (I also protected one page (specifically Refuting anti-LGBT+ arguments) because I cited it on a subreddit with a hostile attitude towards RationalWiki (specifically /r/antitheistcheesecake after seeing the umpteenth homophobic post there; this isn't even the first time I posted a link to said article over there) and I anticipated some people there being upset enough to try to vandalize the article.) --Luigifan18 (talk) 13:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Aaaaaand I'm banned from /r/antitheistcheesecake for saying that religions have room for improvement. What the hell. --Luigifan18 (talk) 20:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You aren't barred from editing, you just don't have access to all the tools for a bit. 3 weeks is mild, especially considering the rules on voting are generally 1-2 weeks with some exceptions.  19:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Per the goat comment. -- Techpriest (talk) 10:36, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Don't do it again! Scream!! (talk) 11:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 3)  17:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) I suppose this shall work for now. Still, I expect you to improve your behavior during those three weeks. Plutocow (talk) 17:36, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) Should give ample time to lurk moar. 13:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) I guess I can support this. 19:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

No

 * 1) I feel that I should point out that I've been using the sysop tools a lot more responsibly since this thread and vote started. I've even caught a few spambots red-handed and swiftly dealt with them (check the block and delete logs). I honestly don't think sysoprevoke is necessary at all. --Luigifan18 (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Well of course YOU feel as if it's unnecessary, this is your sysop rights on the line, but if it was only an issue of what you saw as necessary this discussion wouldn't even be had. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 20:51, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * …What, I'm not allowed to defend myself? --Luigifan18 (talk) 21:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Your interests really might be better served if you were to stop debating the issue. You are not going to make your situation in any way "better" by suggesting that the process is either over-harsh or unnecessary. You are, of course welcome to continue to make whatever points you like - even though the results might be counter-productive.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No one said you weren't allowed to defend youself, but you're also not defending yourself properly by simply saying your punishment is too harsh. Sometimes the best thing to say is nothing at all. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 18:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No, what I'm saying is that I don't think punishment is necessary because I've already taken the warning to heart and started correcting my reckless behavior. Luigifan18 (talk) 20:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Goat

 * 1) Sysoprevoke is supposed to be permanent. I think one of us mods should just promote for a bit, but I could be wrong.  04:55, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The description here (RationalWiki:Sysoprevoke) does not indicate permanency, rather just that it is under the sole authority of moderators to remove sysoprevoke. Bongolian (talk) 05:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Then I'm wrong. 15:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Given that Pi weeks has basically universal support and even the person it applies to seems to accept there was an issue, with maybe only a single person asking for perma, would it be right to end early so the punishment is finished early if Luigi agrees to it? If we want, we could leave the perma option open for the full 7 days if anyone really wants to push it.  19:18, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * As per your own comments in RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive57, there can't be a quick end unless the maximum is taken. I think we should wait the 7 days, unless Plutocow withdraws their support of the permanent sysoprevoke. --Andrew5 (talk) 22:24, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * As the only remaining voter for the "permanent" option (mainly to send a message, also it's more a support until the user improves their behavior than a vote for a truly permanent sanction) I'm fine with this being ended early. Plutocow (talk) 22:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, are we closing early then? Or not? --Andrew5 (talk) 00:33, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That's why I suggested leaving the Perma option still up for vote. The Pi-week would start early, and end exactly as early.  01:49, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * So are we doing that, or not? By October 3 it won't matter. --Andrew5 (talk) 23:47, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we should vote on starting the Pi-week sysoprevoke early before actually doing it. LongStylus (talk) 02:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Boar & BUFO
Over on the current AfD for Rome Viharo, made a "Keep" vote that casts the legitimacy of Boar and BUFO into question.

Come to think of it, literally the very first thing BUFO did on RationalWiki was create the AfD that led to the deletion of Laird Shaw's article. I actually remember that I blocked BUFO's account for a few minutes and deleted the Laird Shaw AfD because I found the whole thing a bit suspicious, but I undeleted the Laird Shaw AfD less than an hour afterwards because I felt that I was abusing my authority as a sysop and making an unwarranted assumption about BUFO acting in bad faith, and I wanted to let the community do its thing and decide what to do about the article. I also recall being the sole voice of dissent on the AfD, voting not to keep the Laird Shaw article outright (since I saw the sense in BUFO's argument about the article covering a years-old incident and being an act of spite against a schizophrenic), but to merge it with the Rome Viharo article on account of their relationship. But given Bongolian's remark on the Rome Viharo AfD, now I'm not entirely sure that I made the right call. I'm not at all certain about this, since Boar has an established edit history that involves several good-faith edits, but I think that BUFO might be a sockpuppet account that they created to facilitate the grinding of their personal axe about Rome Viharo and Laird Shaw, even at the risk of compromising RationalWiki's mission. Honestly, I have no idea what should be done about this, but I figured that it might be prudent to bring my concerns up for a debate. --Luigifan18 (talk) 20:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You're a drama attention troll. Bongolian voted to delete the Laird Shaw article and you're now bizarrely creating stupid pages in Shaw's name. Brisson (talk) 19:09, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I outright said that I'm not even acting on my own suspicions. I was content to leave this alone after the Laird Shaw AfD passed until Bongolian made the observation that Boar's identity is unclear, BUFO might be a sockpuppet, and the whole thing looks like some sort of foul play. --Luigifan18 (talk) 19:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I might change my vote on sysop revoke above back to 'Yes' if this silly little twonk doesn't shut up! Scream!! (talk) 21:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I have been talking with Bongolian on his talk page and he doesn't feel that any further action is necessary, so I'll defer to his judgment. I only started this based on his suspicions to begin with. --Luigifan18 (talk) 21:44, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

CorruptUser
I did not want to do this, but after trying to engage the issue with them in good faith, I have a very serious concern regarding CorruptUser's bigoted opinions on transgender and nonbinary people.
 * He claims that he will refuse to use neopronouns, along with making several disparaging and ignorant comments about them, dismissing them as "dumb shit.
 * He additionally claims that some transgender rights activists are taking children to drag shows, and trying to "redefine rape-by-deception", and that this is harmful.
 * He believes surgical transition is "fakery".
 * He believes puberty blockers lead to irreversible effects, despite the fact that there are conflicting sources on this issue.
 * He has also attempted to defend Libs Of Tiktok in the Saloon, using wishy-washy "neutral" arguments.

Generally, this is ignorant at best and downright bigoted at worst. I'm not sure what the best course of action here is, but this is bad behavior on the part of CorruptUser. It's not befitting for this wiki. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 21:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Be fair, I said all plastic surgery was fakery
 * 2) You came to my talk page to ask me
 * 3) You really think this is enough to warrant an ATIM? 22:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Enough to warrant an ATIM in that I feel it's inappropriate and bigoted and should probably be brought to the attention of moderators, yeah. If it doesn't warrant an ATIM, it'll just be thrown out, I'd be alright with it if mods say it's unwarranted. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 22:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * CU has a history of expressing socially conservative views. If people are not comfortable with a user because of their views, then there's not really much we can do besides topic bans or a permaban. Short-term blocks and revoking rights would not make a user change their views, would not resolve the discomfort of other users who are offended, and would not stop the user from continuing to express their problematic views. A topic ban on transgender-related subjects or a permaban would be the most realistic solutions. LongStylus (talk) 22:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * In that case I'd personally support a topicban regarding transgender issues for them. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 22:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Meh, CorruptUser has a history of coming close to the line without actually crossing it. If there was a case of him refusing to use someone's pronouns, then there might be something there, but this hasn't really happened thus far and he has been respectful with regards to my pronouns, at least. He has promoted views which do need to be challenged, but he at least doesn't come off as a provocateur a la Ushit. If his rhetoric was more targeted at specific users, or if he was intentionally trying to start conflicts with other users, that would be one thing, but for now I don't support any action being taken against CU besides maybe a trouting. Plutocow (talk) 22:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable to me. Leave it at a trouting, then? ---Ozzyboo (talk) 22:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I often wonder if some of you guys want to topic ban me on economics even if I'm the most qualified active user to write on the subject for expressing neoliberal views. GeeJayK (talk) 22:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * At least in my case, I don't think topic bans should be handed out often. With Ushit, it was less his promotion of pseudohistory and more the fact that he was completely unable to constructively engage with other users that led me to support his topic ban, and same with Epic Games. In other terms, you have to be a real asshole for me to support a topic ban on you. Plutocow (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * …Dumb question, I know, but what's a topic ban? Luigifan18 (talk) 23:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * See RationalWiki:Active sanctions. Plutocow (talk) 23:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Not a dumb question at all. Basically, it's a restraining order of sorts used for when an editor is known to cause too much trouble with regards to certain topics, typically if they can't get along with other users on the those pages, or constantly bring up the topic where it isn't warranted.  23:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Can I see diffs. I know Cory has a history of questionable remarks, eyebrow-raising stuff, but I like to see the links. 02:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

It was I who suggested to Ozzyboo that if talking to you directly did not yield a satisfactory resolution that Ozzyboo could go to ATIM. I did that without knowing the specifics of what had transpired. ATIM is for dispute resolution, it is not necessarily for voting on or meting out punishment. Bongolian (talk) 02:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That'd be my talk page. 03:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I harbor no malice towards CU. The only reason I raised this in ATIM is because the conversation on the talk page wasn't getting anywhere, and I needed the opinions of others to resolve the dispute. Coop would be undeniably overboard, but I literally had no other option for resolving this equitably. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 05:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * CU's talk page and his comments under the topic I recently created. Should be number 27. The Libs of TikTok topic in Saloon is what prompted this initially, so that's worth a look too. --Ozzyboo (talk) 06:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Let me see if I understand. You went to my user page to ask me what my stance was, and when you found out that I don't agree with you, you thought the best course of action was to declare me bigoted and try to get the mob to prevent me from disagreeing with you?  Do I have that right?  06:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Yee. CorruptUser has made very problematic statements that cross the line of "I don't agree with this". On neopronouns: If there are users here who use neopronouns, please respect them. If you don't want to respect them, then don't participate in RationalWiki. CorruptUser's stance on transgender sports and whatnot is the same trite talking points. It's more problematic that he defends these statements as a matter of disagreement rather than ignorant prejudice (this goes against our community standards) and rather than acknowledging that these statements made people uncomfortable. E.g. his "we should be focused on getting people to accept themselves as they are [...] We aren't [...] everything we want to be" generates a lot of ick to me when he was saying this in reference to trans issues, it's almost as if he was saying trans people's identities aren't valid and they accept their assigned at birth status. It would be wise for this user to not bring up trans issues again. This user clearly doesn't know what he's talking about (he also has no idea about what drag shows are intended to be and I don't like how he has this idea they're harmful; they're not), and if he does, people ought to call him out and push for accusing him of community standards violations should it continue. I'm a cis person, though, so I'll have to defer to trans people's opinions; if there are any trans people that are made personally uncomfortable for his remarks please also refer to moderators. 06:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That line "getting people to accept them as who they are" is fucking disgusting to me as a trans person honestly, it's the same thing they'll tell you in conversion therapy, and that's after they go full mask off on you. It's also stunning and hard to even formulate a reply to, on account of the sheer amount of condensed 'wrongness' in that quote. No, trans people should not be given fucking conversion therapy to accept a gender they are not, it is not who they are, they transition to be who they are, saying otherwise makes you fucking ignorant. I also don't feel like I need to use identity politics on this one at all. For those of you who think transpeople are deluded, haha, sorry, you're deluded. You're the one on the opposite side of history, and frankly, go fuck yourself. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 21:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

GeeJayK: "I often wonder if some of you guys want to topic ban me on economics even if I'm the most qualified active user to write on the subject for expressing neoliberal views." I haven't sensed any negative sentiment toward you for it, if I hadn't missed any from, say contentious Saloon Bar threads. I do have very strong disagreements with your work on the rent control article but I have zero reason to even consider a topic ban on you. I'm a little sad you might've suggested I'll do this. Don't sweat it. 06:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Our startpage says: "We welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue.". If someone goes to another user's talkpage and finds they disagree with them after some polite dialogue it certainly isn't grounds for an ATIM.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:41, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed, this should be in his talk page, not ATiM. 15:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm trans, I use pronouns that could arguably be considered neopronouns. (They/It). That's why I'm making such a big fuss of this. I'm seeing a pattern here, though, I probably should not have taken this to ATIM, that was a bad decision on my end. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 15:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * And yeah, CU, I went to your talkpage so you could clarify your opinions. I am a trans person, and the things you said struck me as odd initially, but I assume ignorance until proven otherwise. You proved otherwise by making inflammatory statements on transgender and non-binary people, and doubling down on your previous statements in ways I didn't think were excusable. I understand that I should not have taken this to ATIM after input from others, but that doesn't change the fact that this isn't a "disagreement" thing. If I was really out to just smear you as a bigot and get you cancelled by the mob or whatever, I would not have attempted to engage with you on your talkpage in good faith. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 15:32, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I personally think bringing this up to ATIM is not a bad idea. I completely empathize with Ozzyboo's concerns and I'm interested in hearing what other users think of this issue. An ATIM thread being made about you doesn't necessarily mean that you're going to get cancelled; it can be a good way to get opinions from others and explore possible solutions. LongStylus (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If you disagree with someone you can engage with them and try to persuade them of validity of your opinion. This might take a considerable period of time while you both establish fundamentals, or try to do so.
 * CorruptUser responded to every issue - though there was obvious disagreement. Instead of continuing to work through it (which certainly could be a long process) Ozzyboo unilaterally terminated the conversation and came here.  I take issue with this because anyone who does not toe the line could be subjected to the same process.  As I noted before, we state: (We) "encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue." We mean it or we don't.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I fail to see why this is still being argued as a disagreement rather than an issue of ignorance and bigotry. My issue is not that I disagree with him. I do not disagree with others about issues pertaining to race, gender, sex, sexuality, etc. This isn't a matter of disagreement. If someone "disagreed" with another user on race and the issue was raised in ATIM would you be making the same argument you're making now? ---Ozzyboo (talk) 16:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I might. It would depend on the argument they were making. I would see no problem with having a debate about whether races are biological or if they are a social construct.  We should be prepared to debate these things openly and expose the errors in other people's reasoning or, for that matter, our own.
 * I certainly wouldn't argue for the banning of a user because, after talking about race, I found they disagreed with me. Though there would certainly be a line to be drawn where real hate speech is involved.
 * There is also a difference between what people say on talk pages and what gets into our actual wiki articles.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * When did I argue for banning him? The most I said was that I'd support a topicban if the option came up. And the issues being debated aren't similar to the comparison you just made. CU's comments and behaviors are indistinguishable from open transphobes when it comes to neopronouns, minors transitioning, transgender women in sports and HRT. If CU's opinions were rooted in anything less than ignorant prejudice I wouldn't even be making a fuss about it. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

And I'll add something else here since I have the time. A few of you seem to be unpleased with the fact that I ended the discussion on his talk page and went to ATIM after. I will be honest, I am not interested in debating the validity of my identity with someone that clearly has a prexisting bias against it. CU was more than happy to keep doubling down on his offensive statements on his talk page, but for some odd reason, the only argument he has in ATIM is that I should have kept it to his talk page, or that I want to unleash the mob against him, or that an ATIM was unwarranted. It's very strange how I'm simply expected to debate my existence as if it's a question with two valid dissenting viewpoints. Why am I expected to engage with someone else who does not see my identity as something worth respecting, instead of bringing an issue to the attention of other people? If I felt that I could have kept the discussion going with anything fruitful forming from it, I would have done so. Your points that I should have kept the discussion limited to his talk page so I could "respectfully disagree" with him and change his mind on something that he already made up his mind about come off as an attempt to deflect blame onto me for not being civil enough, rather than engaging with the issue at hand. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 17:41, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Since you want to drag the debate in here...
 * Nobody's identity is more or less "valid"; absolutely no one knows what is going on inside your mind except for you.
 * Can a person be a man in a woman's body? Insofar as brains are sexually dimorphic, there is some evidence from brain scans that transwomen have some regions of the brain being more feminine on average, and so yes, I'd agree that you can have woman-brain inside a man-body.  But the body is still what it is, and we don't have the technology to do a "true" transition.  We will someday, and not very far off in the future either; the obvious next-step from lab-grown muscle tissue is lab-grown organs, and aside from Elon Musk packing a footlong cock, this would effectively make the distinction between trans and cis meaningless.  We will see transwomen giving birth and transmen getting people pregnant.  At this point, I'd say a transwoman would in fact, have the body of a woman.  Today, we don't have that tech, at best we can create surgical approximations of man or woman.
 * I also asked a while back about a hypothetical, where you were in some accident and had a whole-body transplant... which happened to not be your gender. Basically, it's a hypothetical where there is no question whatsoever that there's a man-brain in a woman-body, or some other combination, thereby bypassing that question.  The question from there is really, what do you do from there?  I'm not sure there's a true "right" answer in this scenario.
 * I do believe people have the ultimate authority over their own bodies, and that includes surgical alterations. But as I said on my talk page, I view genital surgery in the same vein as breast implants; I view Kim Kardashian in the same light as her step-mom.
 * That said, I don't think everyone else should have to go along with absolutely everything. The bathroom thing is a bunch of nonsense; everyone would rather have transwomen in the women's room than transmen in there, so there really shouldn't be any controversy over which bathroom to use.  That's "unconstitutional" for the exact same reason CT v Griswold was decided; you couldn't even enforce such a ban without the most onerous violation of "unreasonable search" imaginable.  I have no problem using new names or referring to someone and using the pronouns of the gender they present as.  As I mentioned before, people have the right to be private, and whatever's in someone's pants isn't my business unless I'm trying to get in them.  The neo-pronouns thing I refuse, simply because you are asking for entirely new grammatical rules tailored made for yourself.  Ozzy, you said you go by "they"; that's fine, I have no problems with that.  I'm not learning a new custom set for you, for the simple reason that I believe that if something can't be done by everyone, there's a good chance it's immoral.  Just imagine going to class and there's 25 students with their own, unique set of pronouns.  Not just a bunch of he/hims, she/hers, with the occasional they/them and once in a blue moon a per/per; no two students have the same pronouns.  Oh, and the pronouns change throughout the week, so there's actually 50+ sets of pronouns.  And then you go to the next class and there's 25 different students with all of their unique pronouns.  No thank you.  18:41, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You also need to prove that a male brain exists for a man and a female brain exists for a woman rather than taking those for granted because it is the theory you're biased to believe is true, also, it'd be convenient for me to just refer to you as "prick", where do you get off with the entitlement of wanting your own name, snowflake? It's immoral to try to force people to be nice and refer to you, how you wish. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 21:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "Step-dad". Right, I'll just brush this off, not worth it. I'll leave whatever else I can say here, I don't have the energy to keep going today. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 18:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my mistake. Stepmom.  19:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I suspect this is about User_talk:CorruptUser given all the huffawing about Cory's talkpage. Have not read this yet. -- Techpriest (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Having read this more, yeah no. This isn't worth actioning on. Cory isn't breaking our site rules, he's just his usual ignorant ass on some things., not going to make this an entire argument, but I recommend you read the TERF glossary a few times and I'd also like to give you a pretty quick reminder that Libs of TikTok is a bad faith actor, whose actions (among other things) have lead to hospitals that treat LGBTQ people getting threats, habitually is a nutpicker and (as the WaPo articles notes) sometimes just calls LGBTQ people pedophiles with no actual evidence. -- Techpriest (talk) 21:18, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, this is a somewhat relevant reminder that Assume Good Faith is y'know, a site rule, and Cory to my understanding hasn't broken BLOCKs rules on offensive comments; being wrong about things isn't against the rules. As for the neopronouns stuff, right now that's just discussed in a vacuum. If we ever run into the problem where Cory is directly being an ass over something like this, we'll deal with it then. I have no interest in moderating over hypotheticals. -- Techpriest (talk) 21:25, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Alrighty. I'd be okay if no action was taken. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 21:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

, hey, don't. It's not going to get us anywhere by yelling at a brick wall. I understand the anger, just dial it back a little. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 21:47, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Meh - this seems to be a case of "I don't like someone elses opinion so they should be told off for holding said opinion". If CU actually went around abusing people then there is a case. In this instance there is none so, you know, this is fucking stupid. Acei9 21:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * My only advice here is that CorruptUser should proceed very cautiously regarding this matter, if at all, if he's unwilling to concede. I do not think this issue is a matter of "disagreement of opinion". Looking past how this behavior aligns with particular site rules, what stuck out to me was that, certainly, two trans people took major issue with his viewpoints and that's enough for me to suggest a tell-off to CorruptUser. It's also worth nothing his response to this is not much acknowledgement of making people uncomfortable and, regarding neo-pronouns, is just reinstating his stance on it. CorruptUser, I don't want to hear your justifications for neopronouns. I'll repeat what I said, if you do not wish to respect people's neopronouns, then don't be in our wiki. 23:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * then don't be in our wiki - you don't decide, asshole. We don't you just drop the pretense and say my wiki because that's how you sound. If someone says Please call me she or her then one should do so but don't be such a raging dick about it LGM. Acei9 00:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's telling you're more upset by my telling off CorruptUser compared to CorruptUser's own borderline offensive comments. Your opinions are worthless to me, and you contribute little aside from toxic discourse to these sorts of issues. 00:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Probably. But at least I'm entertaining. Acei9 00:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wow this escalated quickly...--Andrew5 (talk) 00:40, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Just my way of getting though the day. The Samaritans were engaged. Acei9 00:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I think rationalwiki needs to let go of this American-centric understanding of free speech and discussion that thinks that everyone who says something harmful is just merely "disagreeing" and that we can all have a neutral discussion that can lead to some underlying truth about it. That's a myth. There is no neutral ground here when we are talking about the rights and validity of marginalized people. The power differential isn't there for a neutral playing field, by including speech of this kind from folks like Cory we inevitably will end up excluding certain trans people from the conversation. The decision we have to make whose inclusion matters more?. There is no such a thing a neutral platform where all ideas can equally be expressed to any potentially participating actor. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 02:22, 30 September 2022 (UTC).
 * You don't see the irony in a site dedicated to Atheism and related ideas being against any speech that someone might find "harmful"? Atheist ideas, idea that you've dedicated half your life to a huge con, do cause emotional stress to the devout mind.  And with the spread of non-religion, at some point the religious will be the marginalized ones; should we then be prevented from speaking out lest we cause them even more emotional stress?  02:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not talking about nor am I concerned about something as vague and non-specific as "emotional stress". That's not the "harm" I am talking about. "at some point the religious will be the marginalized ones" you say on the basis of no evidence. No that is some bullshit that is sourced in the Christian persecution complex that should be treated as seriously as the concerns for "white genocide". No serious intellectual should care about that. The analogy is faulty as well because being religious is not an immutable characteristic like being transgender/non-binary/queer, etc.  is. There is no irony here, you are grasping at straws.  - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 04:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The real argument I am making here is if you open a platform to white supremacists you make it so people of colour feel unwelcome to speak, if you open a platform to homophobes the same is true for gay people. Marginalized people will not feel comfortable in an online space if people who don't tolerate/accept their existence are present. If there really is such thing as a "marketplace" of ideas, then there is the risk that functioning like a market certain ideas will out-compete and monopolize the market shoving out any potential opposition without proper regulation/prevention. If we desire a diverse ecology of rational ideas instead we need to remove certain ecological threats. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 04:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC).
 * I would like to again note that Cory's behavior up to this point for what's basically the only actionable element (unwillingness to oblige with following neopronouns) is so far a hypothetical. If there's ever a consequential example of Cory not following neopronouns when referring to either an editor in discussions or a subject in mainspace, then we can moderate it or if Cory approached the discussion with obvious bad faith arguments, then there is a legitimate complaint. So far it mostly seems to be "Cory's opinions don't fit an acceptable mold of allowed opinions" (and mind you, I don't agree with Cory's stance here one bit, I just don't feel like arguing it). We don't require editors in discussions to fit the exact stances of what we put into mainspace (in fact that would be impossible - mainspace is written by dozens of editors, all with their own stances), we just require them to follow the community standards, which value civility and good faith engagement, neither of which CU is in breach of. Unless you have evidence of CU engaging in something like sealioning or JAQing off, inserting poorly substantiated drivel surrounding neopronouns into mainspace (or in some off-chance, deliberately misgendering article subjects, although I don't think we have any pages about people using neopronouns), then there is nothing to talk about. -- Techpriest (talk) 13:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * In retrospect, the one sealioning was me. I still retain my position that CU is undoubtedly ignorant and prejudiced about this subject, but everything considered, with third parties inserting their perspective, this isn't something actionable, I should not have taken it to ATIM. I'd rather just end this conversation early. It's not going anywhere, it'd prevent more drama. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 15:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Good, thank you for your understanding, Ozzyboo. As a reminder to people (since there was the tangential issue of topic ban on neoliberalism), RationalWiki does not have an ideological purity test. We have had and continue to have a wide range of ideologies and opinions. We are guided by the RationalWiki:Community Standards, which includes discourse based on Civility. Bongolian (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was a mistake from my part, and I'm sorry for derailing the thread. I just didn't like how some people suggested a topic ban on Cory. For the record, I do disagree with his views on the issue, but I don't think he acted in bad-faith. GeeJayK (talk) 17:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No worries, y'all. I'd ask to close this now if we agree, but if this was someone else I might ask to wait a bit to see if anyone else objects.  If so, close in a day or two?  19:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Bongolian (talk) 19:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah close and let steam off. 20:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that these things need to be talked about... which has already happened. UncleKrampus (talk) 21:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Wisconcom
Even though I believe that this user might be well-meant and not just a troll, he's kinda behaving like a far-left, politer version of USHistoryAnalyzer. The main problem here is the refusal to learn from his mistakes: if you want to post something on the main space, use actual sources, and do not try to whitewash figures just because you like them. While I wouldn't support a topic ban on far-left politics yet, I'd appreciate a formal warming from the moderation on him. GeeJayK (talk) 04:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Inserting crappy commie sources into articles, whitewashing commentary about tankies... ah, yeah. This is going to end well. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 04:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * So, what do you suggest? GeeJayK (talk) 04:25, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Revert edits with dubious citations or tankie-slant, then add an explanation on Wisconcom talk page. Wisconcom has no user rights yet, so not really worth a big deal on the mod page. Bongolian (talk) 04:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No offense to you GeeJayK, this user is very clearly bad faith, misinformed and borderline detached from reality, but this isn't ATIM warranted. This person isn't even a sysop. I think an ATIM would only be warranted if they keep on doing what they're doing for a longer period of time. I agree with the idea and sentiment, we should not let people like this speak on leftist issues on this wiki (tankies and Stalinists are not good sources on these sorts of things), but not ATIM worthy just yet. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 08:01, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I do not see the problem in this case. My goals are perfectly in-line with the Anti-fascist intentions of RationalWiki. So far, I have done nothing more than add sources which help readers better combat Fascism, and help promote a dialectial and materialist worldview (which, once more, is in-line with RationalWiki). I am concerned that Anti-fascist sources are being removed, wasn't this community attempting to combat Fascism? Wisconcom (talk) 13:33, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Wisconcom is also flagging every edit as 'Minor' - a pet peeve of mine. Scream!! (talk) 13:55, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The first source in the second link above was from The American Party of Labor, which is Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist-Hoxhaist, and explicitly biased. Bongolian (talk) 15:35, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This user is clearly trying to push a communist agenda, which is pretty damn far removed from rationality… --Luigifan18 (talk) 16:05, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Communism is based on a material view of both society and history. I suggest you read Dialectial and Historical Materialism, by J.S. Wisconcom (talk) 16:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This is starting to get off-topic. I propose we do as said ("Revert edits with dubious citations or tankie-slant, then add an explanation on Wisconcom talk page") and archive this. Disputes about the content of articles on RW belong on the talkpage of those articles, not on the mod noticeboard. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 16:19, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe Ozzyboo is right and this whole thing was a mistake. Wiscocom is not edit warring (which is probably the most annoying and disruptive thing a concern troll can do). GeeJayK (talk) 16:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Just as an FYI this user has LANCBed. Vee (talk) 00:36, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but they could always un-LANCB. 02:21, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Truly the gods and the fates are cruel. Vee (talk) 02:30, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Amen, sister. 03:22, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

How long should it be before this gets archived? (Cause I think this ATIM has pretty much reached its conclusion). Vee (talk) 04:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Someone could do it now. I just don't feel like doing it myself. 05:09, 14 October 2022 (UTC)