RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive46

Monet/Kevlarstar
Unbanning a user who was harassing LGM by email (and thus giving them the chance to spam email again) is only the latest in the list of bad decisions Monet AKA Kevlarstar has made using his sysop powers. He also has a pattern of demoting obvious bad-faith users. I feel he should be temporarily stripped of his sysop rights in order to show him that this isn't okay. Plutocow (talk) 20:13, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think unblocking ADOC was actually a good idea, so he could defend himself in the ATIM. However, I think desysopping Monet could be a good idea, as they have done a lot of other mistakes. --Andrew5 (talk) 20:18, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * They were already allowed their talkpage to defend themselves. They were banned to prevent them from harassing people via email. Plutocow (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Enabling email specific blocks is the solution then. --Andrew5 mobile (talk) 20:38, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, now I'll support it, due to other lack of RW policy like deleting comments on talk pages. --Andrew5 (talk) 22:11, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I just wish I could dock off email privileges. 22:32, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the mediawiki email block permission is tied to actually blocking people from editing the site. And yes, ADOC hasn't been banned because of a coop; we just don't want him to spam the inboxes of another editor (which is why I recommend lenience in the comments ADOC is allowed to make wrt any potential case while keeping his block with talkpage access available active if there will be one). It's really a garbage system (but so is the entire email system so like... Just disable it on your end.) As for Monet/Kevlarstar; I don't have any particular energy to either stick up for him or defend him. He's a headache, but more one of staggeringly bad judgement instead of being extremely disruptive. Would object to a block of any kind, I could be swayed on sysoprevoke. -- Techpriest (talk) 22:59, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I have been fairly public about my displeasure over the judgement of Monet/Kevlarstar/Iwillprobablybebanned. I'd absolutely oppose any plans to block him over his behaviour thus far though. Sysoprevoke...eh maybe. I might have to recuse myself there though, due to my deep personal dislike of him as an editor making it hard for me to consider this objectively. 23:09, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * (Time to flex my HurricaneEdgar voice) As per above. I am personally neutral to sysoprevoke oppose block. Andrew5 (talk) 23:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hold on, I only unblocked him, so he can defend himself in the ATIM, not to continue trolling. 05:25, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's what I think too. 05:28, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

(ec)You should have paid attention to the fact that they needed to be email banned and that they could already defend themselves on their talkpage before making that decision, as well as that 24 hours hadn't passed yet and consensus was towards not needing a vote. That was a case of poor judgement all-around. Plutocow (talk) 05:29, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * He is already here for almost two months. It was like 16 minutes too early for 24 hours, so we can still advance the vote. and I don't mind mail-banning him. 05:51, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Yay

 * 1) Triple checked his logs before taking my decision, but I think everyone would be safer if he didn't have sysop. He'll end up unbanning Mike and then ban Techpriest over disagreement (Okay I'm being sarcastic here, but that is the gist of it). 09:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Nay

 * 1) Slap monet on the wrist. C'mon now. -- Techpriest (talk) 15:31, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Agree with trout treatment. 15:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Still not as bad as TC honestly. 20:11, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * --Andrew5 mobile (talk) 20:51, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Before I was neutral, but I'll oppose if it's used to troll. However, Monet deserves more then a trout - more of a warning. --Andrew5 (talk) 12:34, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * A whale then. That is an actual punishment too, for it messes the sidebar on his talk page (at least it did so for me). 12:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Still too soft, and Monet can just archive it. What I am talking about is a full on warning. This lets Monet know that if they continue, a sysoprevoke will happen. Something along the lines of "A community discussion had said that you're admin actions are getting a bit unreasonable. Please stop abusing your admin tools. We will promote you if it happens again. Thanks. ~ " The reason is that now, if it happens again they will be sysoprevoked, and instead of a slap on the wrist, it's more of a formal document. --Andrew5 (talk) 12:54, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) I'd support a whale for messing around with sysop tools without thinking further steps ahead. A chance to change that pattern seems fair enough. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 15:34, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think a whale is too soft, a warning is needed instead, as they need to be told in a more formal and stern way. IMO a whale is too "casual". --Andrew5 (talk) 15:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't really think there's a point to making it look formal and stern. The point is to send the message that more care/thoughfulness is needed. It still counts as having brought up what would be a more serious problem if it continues. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 16:00, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Grow up transchicken

 * 1) I entirely endorse this option Shabi  DOO  09:45, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 09:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) You two have no sense of humor. 10:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Seriously, this old RW defense? Kntai (talk) 10:29, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * TC does sound like They've been here for a long time. They're not so dissimilar to Helena and Ace whom they appear to support. Ace and Helena have been around for a pretty long time according to their wiki contributions. TC's mannerism and way of trash-talking RationalWiki reminds me of Nutty Roux too. Who knows, they've been accused of being someone's sockpuppet and while there is no evidence to that effect they certainly are an old timer. (Should add that TC could have been editing via an IP address, that's a possibility, I am not accusing him of being a sock. Got it TC, I'm not defaming you all right?) Senioritas (talk) 12:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) --Andrew5 (talk) 12:32, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Slap monet on the wrist. C'mon now. -- Techpriest (talk) 15:31, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 15:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Bongolian (talk) 16:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Gonna be trouble down the line. 18:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Goat

 * I'm gonna keep confusing "TC" with "thread creator" or "topic creator", which is gaming forum talk for "person who started conversation". 18:53, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * What about Top Cat? UncleKrampus (talk) 23:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fvhLrBrPQI
 * XD I rather have Top Cat lol. 04:10, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Cue obligatory reference to how its name was changed to Boss Cat in Britain because Top Cat was already the name of a brand of cat food that the BBC didn't want to give free advertising. But they only changed the series' title, resulting in a series called Boss Cat starring a character called Top Cat with a theme tune that blares out, "TOP CAT!" That cat food must have been simply flying off the shelves. Spud (talk) 09:07, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That's marvelously funny to me since I appreciate trivia like this. Kntai (talk) 09:20, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * was always puzzled when my dad kept saying boss cat. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

It appears the result of the vote after more then a week is to simply whale Monet. Can a sysop/mod please close/archive this and do the whaling? Andrew5 mobile (talk) 10:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It’s been 3 more days without action. Can a sysop please whale Monet and then close and archive this discussion? Andrew5 mobile (talk) 10:51, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous. This has been open for 3 weeks already.  Can someone just end it already? At this point I don’t even care how. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Request
Can someone protect my talk page? It's gotten quite a few vandals and it'll probably continue unless given a brief protection. --Andrew5 (talk) 00:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Bongolian (talk) 00:16, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Leucippus
I am not impressed with the threat that Leucippus wrote in here: Calling people names is one thing, but threatening politicians with death is over the line and can be illegal. I tried to get them to delete only the offending part, but they do not want to comply: I suggest sanctions if this is not addressed. LongStylus (talk) 19:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think you're right, LongStylus. should think again about the implications of that and delete the last clause of the last sentence. Bongolian (talk) 19:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There’s a reason I titled it with “vent”. All I suggested was that, in principle, in an ideal world, we’d be better-off removing narcissists and psychopaths from the gene pool. I posted this as a “vent” precisely because: (a) I thought that from the word “vent” it was clear that my comment doesn’t express serious intention (b) I’d never do it (b) narcissism, psychopathy etc can hardly be simplistically detected in someone’s genetics or behaviour (hell, I’m not even sure as to their scientific credibility), and (c) In principle, in an ideal world, the amount of suffering that Johnson, Trump, and Bolsanaro have caused could have easily been circumvented by them never having existed. I find it absurd that you think I was seriously threatening to kill Johnson in real-life. I mean let’s say I substituted Kim Jong-Ung for Johnson would you really complain about someone expressing that the world would be better off without him? Leucippus Sapere aude 20:49, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Please understand that you shouldn't advocate for eugenics... -- Techpriest (talk) 20:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Leucippus isn’t advocating for eugenics. You’re all taking an over the top expression of frustration far too seriously. Christopher (talk) 21:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Given that the vent was aimed particularly at a single politician, I thought it was wise to remove the last clause. It doesn't change the gist of the vent. If the politician was assassinated tomorrow, people would look at that post rather differently. Advocating for violence against politicians should be out of bounds on RW. Bongolian (talk) 21:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I get the frustration, but maybe do violent ideation vents like that somewhere else. 22:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, seriously or not, threatening politicians like that can get into illegal territory quickly. I remember someone in my area who after the 2008 election that had a sign that said "HANG OBAMA" with a skeleton doll with an Obama mask hanging from a noose, and the Secret Service had to become involved. It's probably best to be on the safe side with things like this. Plutocow (talk) 23:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Huh? Andrew5 mobile (talk) 23:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Death threats are illegal in many places. Here's Florida's law for instance regarding any electronic threat to kill or maim. Politicians often get even further protection (this is the law protecting US presidents for instance). Now, practically, it is very doubtful that this "vent" would have been considered a credible death threat that anyone would care about. But you might notice that the US example laws I've used, as written, do not have anything in the code for any sort of "credibility" factor (laws differ, of course, it appears that the UK version does). So it's probably best to "play it safe" and avoid any such stuff, even in venting. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 02:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Because the revision was deleted I don't know what was said, but wishing death upon someone is not the same as sending a death threat. I hope you people realize that. 11:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not gone entirely. If you look it up. I also hope you realize that it isn't that simple. The Secret Service placed a Cracked.com writer on a no-fly list for a comedy article. Kntai (talk) 11:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * And don't take just their snarky word for it, but Techdirt's too. Kntai (talk) 11:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Please forgive my colossal stupidity. I’m an impulsive fuckwit sometimes (more often than I’d like to be). My comment was unacceptable. Leucippus Sapere aude 15:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for apologizing, Leucippus. For TransChicken in particular: 1) The rant did indeed go beyond wishing the politician were dead. 2) The advocating for death of a politician is actually oppositional to the purpose of RW (analysis and criticism of authoritarianism). A definition of fascism includes "…abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal constraints goals of internal cleansing…", which therefore includes political assassinations. Bongolian (talk) 16:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * also 'will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?' wishing someones death and actively pushing for it is a very fine line. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you Leucippus. I accept your apology. I want to be clear that I did not believe that your threat was credible. I know that it was only done in jest. I am not reporting it to Interpol or something. However, I feel that allowing death threats, especially towards politicians, would make this site go south very quickly and unwelcoming to newcomers and existing users, so that is why I took this very seriously regardless. LongStylus (talk) 20:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, my words above were prescient in the case of Tory MP David Amess. He was assassinated only 4 days after Leucippus' posting. Amess had a close friend who was a Labor MP, he was actually interested in what his constituents had to say, and he was assassinated while listening to his constituents. Regarding the assassination, a Tory MP spoke on the BBC of the necessity of meeting with constituents to give them representative democracy. He also said that because of the highly inflammatory rhetoric and behavior in politics, some very qualified people don't run for office, thus depriving constituencies of options for better representation. Bongolian (talk) 07:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Speak of a coincidence! Senioritas (talk) 19:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Now the BBC reports the killer has connections with terrorism of that common flavor so incommensurate with progressivism.UncleKrampus (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think what's noble about Amess was that he chose to meet with constituents even after he reportedly experienced harrassment from the public as well as his knowledge of the assassination of MP Jo Cox a few years earlier. He could have chose not to do constituent meetings for his safety, but did it anyways. It's unfortunate that this happened after Leucippus' post, but at the same time it's not entirely surprising as politicians are frequently harrassed and assassinated. LongStylus (talk) 01:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Most MPs hold constituency surgeries. not having a dig at amess, but he wasnt doing anything unusual, and safety at these things has always been an issue. amess is the 3rd mp murdered (an mp was killed back in 1981). even before cox was killed, there have safety issues. i remember not so long a ago an MPs assistant being killed protecting them from a guy with a sword and there have been others. and thats just fatal incidences AMassiveGay (talk) 01:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, the BBC interviewed two female MPs today, both had been threatened repeatedly online, one had been threatened in person during constituent meetings on two occasions, resulting in convictions in both cases. Bongolian (talk) 01:49, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 'contact your local mp' isnt just a thing people say, you can contact them and they will get back to you, you can go and meet them, and they actually might do something for you. people often forgot mps are not just fucknuts in government or just pushing the party line but represent their constituents. my flatmate was getting constantly harrassed by some of his neighbours, it only got sorted when his mp got involved and got the police to actually do something about it. AMassiveGay (talk) 02:00, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Plutocow
- Yo, knock it off with the super agressive blocking. This isn't the first time people have had to clean up your agressive blocks. -- Techpriest (talk) 14:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * For clarity, I just had to unblock someone who you decided was a Mike alt, who distinctively wasn't a Mike alt. You also blocked someone for 3 weeks for removing talkpage comments (which they didn't even do to begin with) and edit warring over the content of their own comments, which is way excessive. Theoretically that last one is an actual CS violation. -- Techpriest (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmmm also decided that one guy earlier in ATIM was a Ken alt and I still heavily doubt that. Didn't do the block for that one though. 15:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Kansasliberal wasn't only blocked for the edit warring (which it's worth noting that the talk page wasn't the only place he was doing this), he was also blocked for being uncivil and generally ignoring multiple warnings. The CS says "Blocking should never occur if somebody is attempting to discuss an issue in a reasonable manner including civil, good-faith, constructive, detailed dialogue" so unless this and this are "in a reasonable manner including civil, good-faith, constructive, detailed dialogue", then I don't believe the CS was violated. Was three weeks excessive? Maybe a little, but that's more a problem with the recommended block lengths, as there is a fairly significant gap between three days and three weeks, but that's a different issue. As for the possible Mike alt, mainly the fact that the username was similar to other Mike socks, showed the pattern of creating a short userpage, and edited the talk page for eugenics, it did set off a few red flags, though it may be a false positive and I do allow other people to review my decisions in cases like this. LGM, if you're referring to FerretDave, they were blocked not for being a Ken sock but for being an obvious sock of "Shyt on ya momma", which was banned by Cosmikdebris. If you have an issue with that case, take it up with him. Plutocow (talk) 16:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Plutocow's problem is they block without going to ATIM/Chicken coop and I oppose that. KansasLiberal should be brought here to defend themselves or whatnot. I also support a trout for Plutocow for being too agressive. Time change coming up November 7, Andrew5 (talk) 16:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You don't have to go to ATIM for each sanction, especially non-permabans of non-established users. Sending ADoC to CS was a mistake. Plutocow (talk) 16:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * LGM, you can blame me assuming that ADOC was a Ken sock, since I closed the vote early. As I noted, the assumption was moot since the vote was overwhelmingly in favor of banning. Bongolian (talk) 16:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think ADOC was Ken, and the vote was only ongoing for 4.75 days, not 7. Also, we have to realize that the harassment wasn't confirmed, TC has good points, and ADOC wasted a good faith chance to explain but they had. KansasLiberal didn't do that much wrong, so pi week ban without vote is a horrible mistakes. And I still support a trout, possibly even a whale. --Time change coming up November 7, Andrew5 (talk) 16:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * (ec)Eh, we're unsure if ADoC is a Ken sock, though their last post seems to point in that direction. Regardless, we shouldn't have held that vote in the first place, since Ken sock or not it was an open-and-shut case like TAOB and Viril.Feline.Wyzzrd. Plutocow (talk) 16:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Those accounts probably should've had votes as well, but I won't argue with that now. --Time change coming up November 7, Andrew5 (talk) 17:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * We're a mobocracy, not a bureaucracy. Plutocow (talk) 17:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes but when you make a decision that impacts real humans, positive affirmation is good because it shows the communi8ty agrees to kick them out and we shouldn't kick them out on just one persons word, since someone's life is affected. Time change coming up November 7, Andrew5 (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * VFW was banned after a short discussion which ADoC should've been and TAOB was banned immediately to stop harassment as ADoC was until Monet had the brilliant idea of unbanning them (which you supported for the record). If I had done anything similar to the three I should have been banned without a vote. Plutocow (talk) 17:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I've taken a peek at RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive128. They uploaded disurbing images to RW (allegedly). Meanwhile ADOC was more established. And, TAOB was doxxing which is a crime. Also, Hastur loves to unban users so...--Time change coming up November 7, Andrew5 (talk) 22:13, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ADoC wasn't really more established considering they were banned for the majority of their account's existence, and harassment is one of those cases where it's important to stop immediately. A more established user would be someone who is/was a sysop, or who had been around for a relatively long time like Unclescrooge - ADoC was neither. We shouldn't let ourselves be too constrained by bureaucracy in cases like these. Plutocow (talk) 22:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * We know how Hastur is. He’d unblock unless it was vetted. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hastur never showed up in that situation, nor in the others. You mentioning him is just a red herring. Plutocow (talk) 22:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * [EC]You also banned an innocent new user you thought was a “Mikey” sock, with talkpage access revoked so no ability to appeal. Your mistake was obvious to anyone who took the time to actually read the user’s edits, something you clearly didn’t do. Stop being so paranoid. Christopher (talk) 16:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I've addressed that above. Yes, that was a mistake, but I did have reason to believe it was so. I'll be a bit more careful next time and I allow people to review my blocks if they think I did anything wrong. Plutocow (talk) 16:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * People can review your blocks whether or not you want them too. Time change coming up November 7, Andrew5 (talk) 17:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Didn't Oxy also have this problem of mass-blocking? Tinfoil hat time, Oxy was banned on Feb 6th for pi weeks, and Pluto created Feb 7th...  17:18, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * We've been through this shit before. Tinfoil hat time, HBC made a baseless accusation and is a self-admitted sock, and CorruptUser made the same accusation... Plutocow (talk) 17:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * [ec] Oh no, not these baseless sock accusations again. Time change coming up November 7, Andrew5 (talk) 17:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Plutocow also blocked an IP for 3.14 weeks without TPA for 'repeat offender' but didn't specify who that was, when nothing more then 3.6 days was required! Proving our point. Time change coming up November 7, Andrew5 (talk) 17:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Look at the edit histories of the pages that I protected. If you don't pay attention to context, of course what I do will look ridiculous. Plutocow (talk) 17:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That makes it even worse, I'm afraid. Because that means that it is a rotating IP likely to cause collateral damage when someone else gets it in like two days. Time change coming up November 7, Andrew5 (talk) 17:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I checked and it's a static IP, as are the others they used to vandalize here. Plutocow (talk) 17:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * In that case, the BoN was a repeat offender of another series of BoNs who have been page blanking with Garfield text images on Nazi pages. Page protection is more effective in these types of cases. The person is just going to use another BoN next time. Bongolian (talk) 17:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well can the pages be protected then? --Andrew5 mobile (talk) 17:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Plutocow did protect them. Bongolian (talk) 17:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Plutocow is mostly in the wrong here, but they are a generally productive user. I think a trouting (with the implicit promise of stronger actions to come if this behavior continues) is in order but I don't see need for much action beyond that. Oh, and the attempts to raise Oxymania back from its richly deserved grave can just fuck right off.-Flandres (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * --Andrew5 mobile (talk) 18:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry I brought it up. 18:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The brakes for overzealousness should be brought up by the moderators as was done here. I don't see any big problem. People should ease up on long blocks. Personally I like to leave them to the mods by making short blocks. Ariel31459 (talk) 18:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Honestly it’s too easy to be a sysop here on RationalWiki. There should be a more thorough screening to prevent certain users from being sysops. We need fewer sysops, not more. I’d say to probably have 1,000 edits, to have at least 8 months of consistent RW editing, and made many approved requests to sysops (and few denied ones), to be able to be a sysop. Autopatrolled can still be handed just fine as it does minimal damage, but sysop shouldn’t be handed out like candy. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 18:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The main thing with sysops here is that they are balanced by having a large number of them, so if one makes a mistake it can be easily rectified by others. If we had only a few sysops, it would make it much easier for certain people to spam the wiki. I do agree that a user should at least demonstrate that they are at least somewhat productive/not disruptive before they are given sysop though. Plutocow (talk) 18:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Then maybe have a 500 edit and 4 month requirement. Or 800 edits and 6 months. What I’m saying is there should be tight, but not too tight, requirements. However, maybe a different system, analogous to RFA on Wikipedia or VFS on Uncyclopedia, could be used instead. I really don’t care but there needs to be requirements.Andrew5 mobile (talk) 18:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Although with the current system there isn't too much trouble, you and UShit (and to a much smaller extent Monet) are the only real sysop issues that I can remember since signing up an account. I think just a general guideline to not give it to any actively disruptive or nonproductive user would be enough to solve the issues. Plutocow (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * UShit was clear trouble before, but I....wasn't. Nor was I immediately when I got them. I got them on May 25 and had it revoked on June 4. It didn't become a big problem until June...3? Maybe a bit before. Had I had to be screened more, and waited for 800 edits and six months, it wouldn't have happened. Time change coming up November 7, Andrew5 (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I believe the easy-to-obtain sysop idea came out of a reaction to the iron-curtain mentality of CP, as well as a desire to recruit more female contributors. I think that having a multitude of voices gives us a healthy working environment. Bongolian (talk) 19:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * True, but keep in mind you don't have to be a sysop to vote. Indeed I casted many votes w/o being a sysop, and because my eligible date (June 28) was after I was promoted, well. I think basing it off a bare minimum eligible criteria for sysop is a start, and while 3 months is fair, 75 is not. Wikipedia has extended confirmed users which could also work with 500 edits, but IMO 1 edit is too little, because from when I registered my WP account on October 31, 2020 and I got XC on November 30, I didn't cause disruption until December 4-5. I get the gender inequality but that happens when editing a wiki. By the way, such a discussion on sysop demotion should take place at the CS talk page. --Time change coming up November 7, Andrew5 (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * RW already uses a DNSDB datalist to permablock static IP addresses belonging to proxies, somehow that datalist is mising IPv6 IP addresses which are then abused as hell. I would support permnabanning any IPv6 address that belongs to a VPN or Tor. 11:11, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes but sometimes proxies are reassigned, any blocks more then pi years are disruptive. Time change coming up November 7, Andrew5 (talk) 11:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Prevent non-autoconfirmed users from creating pages with titles that are >80 characters long
Because Ken's spam is honestly getting ridiculous at this point, we should seriously do this. Plutocow (talk) 22:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ' Oppose' too many false positives will occur. --Time change coming up November 7, Andrew5 (talk) 22:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Such as? 80 characters is a pretty lenient limit and the limitation would wear off after two or three days of starting an account. We shouldn't let Kan continue to spam the wiki with his crap. Plutocow (talk) 22:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * On the whole I don't think there's enough of a point. On the one hand, I don't think there would be many false positives, it could also help a little with spam bots. On the other hand, I think vandals liking to create taunts would simply enter shorter ones if the length is limited.
 * A better general technical idea, I think, is to work to streamline deletion of vandalism/spam and blocking of the user creating it, if possible. Make it possible to get all actions done with fewer clicks. Anti-vandalism interface gadgets? --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 23:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Why does anyone need over 80 characters for a title to encapsulate the subject? Even articles for people who would have the longest firstname and lastname on Earth only need like 30 characters at most. 11:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It’s with titles? Nvm, change to slightly weak support. I still think there are a few drawbacks but not enough for us to not implement the change. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 11:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know how easy this is for techs to insert on the wiki code, but if it isn't too much work, it sounds like a reasonable enough limit. 80 characters for a title is plenty. 11:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think others things are more important, though. I think vandals may still create as many pages with (shorter) taunt titles after length is limited. A more practically useful idea may be to enable the "Nuke" MediaWiki extension which is bundled with the software, to make it quicker to delete several newly created pages by an IP or user. Given its "only for recent changes" nature, could safely be given to every sysop (with demopping a consequence of abuse). --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 11:46, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer to make it mod/tech only as sysop is already handed out like candy. Time change coming up November 7, Andrew5 (talk) 12:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Why, given its limitations? Abuse worse than normal page deletion would only be possible if one user makes a bunch of good new pages in a short time. That can happen, but it's rare, usually it only happens when stuff is being reorganized by old-timers. So the main possible abuse would be for a bad sysop to piss off an old-timer once in a rare while, but little else which is worse than usual can happen. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 12:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't like how much sysop is given out, and how easy it is to abuse. More powers should be given only to mods, not all sysops shouldn't have powerful tools if it's given out like this. Time change coming up November 7, Andrew5 (talk) 12:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Bad take imo. Having a bottom-heavy power structure is a big part of who we are as a community. There's a reason we're run by "the mob". 01:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Please take these conversations in the future to TECHSUPPORT. -- Techpriest (talk) 09:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Either way, a filter has been set up to deal with this, since it's an easy spam avenue. The exact count is considered tweakable and therefore the filter will not be made public. -- Techpriest (talk) 09:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Suppression
Can someone with mod powers suppress the recent entries on the user creation/block logs? Thanks Plutocow (talk) 21:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Renamed a bunch. That better?  22:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, the most problematic ones were the ones with deleted log entries. View them and you'll see why. Plutocow (talk) 22:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * umm... 22:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

New Youngkin socks!
Check the user creation log. These socks lasted 20 minutes and need blocking.--American time change coming up November 7, Andrew5 (talk) 00:50, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Mod nominations
Mod nominations started today. 06:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

User:SlickNight
Pretty obvious sock but not blocked for 12 hours. Please block, but might be worth discussing as they're is a chance of innocence. Very suspicious though, like User:Hiro which wound up getting blocked. --American time change coming up November 7, Andrew5 (talk) 13:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Opposed, there's no conclusive indicators of ban evasion, merely of being rude and annoying. 17:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Correct: socking is not a violation unless it is ban evasion or double-voting with a sock. Bongolian (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree, if they keep pinging LGM to troll her, give them a slap on the wrist. Other than that not worth sanctioning yet. 18:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean a whale or trout ? Andrew5 mobile (talk) 18:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * At the moment neither is necessary. He has 4 edits at his own userspace and 3 at SaloonBar. It's 14 hours since the last one. Clearly he hasn't been very persistent. I mean the only person I've seen doing it to the extent that it seemed like a problem to me was User:Bertrc. If you want to see how much is too much pinging, go check his contributions from 2020 and before. 18:36, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Annoying socks should be thrown in the hamper, to be devoured by the washing machine... 18:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

User has been blocked by GeeJayK. --American time change coming up November 7, Andrew5 (talk) 01:40, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Used Bannon's Law, one of Ken's catchphrases. I miss when it was called Argumentum ad baculum GeeJayK (talk) 01:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Dunbar
It appears and  are having a dispute over if this is a Kensock and should be banned. I think it should be discussed here, either for a wider community input or to resolve the issue before it takes over RationalWiki. I’m leaning on LGM’s side, given the behavior and also that Ken’s focuses could change like what we saw with ADOC. --Andrew5 mobile (talk) 16:20, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hastur is just getting in the way like usual. We've docked off those reregs before. 16:45, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I know Hastur is being a mild pest like normal, but block wars are very disruptive. Also, they impact real people. --Andrew5 mobile (talk) 17:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think a comprimise could be - leave him blocked with TPA on, in case he is innocent he can appeal. --Andrew5 (talk) 17:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Whoever this person is, they're obviously just here to disrupt and divide and have no interest in this site's mission and their ability to continue to do so should be curtailed if not prevented. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 17:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep. Disruption was indeed going on as the account was repeatedly making baseless personal attacks despite being told to stop. 17:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Based on Dunbar's contributions, I think that the person has exceeded Ken's rather tight mental strictures. Ken caring about the alkaline diet or citing a peer-reviewed scientific journal — really? It's probably some other Conservapedian, unless Ken is known for referring to himself in the third person. Permaban is probably premature. Bongolian (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds similar to this user, who also cited journals and tried to promote pseudoscience. 18:49, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * (EC) I agree with Bongo, especially a permaban without even an ability to appeal. Plus, Plutocow, who reinstated the block, also falsely blocked an account as a Mikey sock. Just because two people act the same doesn't mean they are. Andrew5 (talk) 19:00, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ken often refers to himself in third person, just glancing at his essays he calls himself "one of the people running the User:Conservative account" or something similar. Also, the irony of someone in sysoprevoke telling sysops how to act. Plutocow (talk) 19:17, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, I pulled that from a tech. You can find that discussion here. Andrew5 (talk) 19:27, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I see that about the third person usage in that essay. It would more plausibly Ken if it was "alkaline diet destroys atheism, sorry libs". There are no mentions at all of alkaline diet in CP, including talk pages and essayspace, which makes it seem like someone else. Bongolian (talk) 19:45, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * --Andrew5 (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, Ken posted an essay that's copy-pasted from the last edit Dunbar made and suggested Dunbar was one of the users of the Conservative account. This might have been posting about a different subject but the timing, and the way the words and prose are used and put together (look at the sentence structure, look at how the posts are organized, look at how sources are placed, etc) indicates Ken. No other regular CP editor organizes their posts this way. 19:52, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

You have both made good arguments, however, Hastur is correct in that they didn't touch mainspace. Real users are being affected, too. I would say he can stay banned, as long as he has TPA on. In case he wants to appeal. Christopher even said Ken never bothers to abuse TPA (although that is outdated and from May), whilst he might be innocent and need to appeal. Andrew5 (talk) 19:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Andrew this didn't require an ATIM. It could easily have been dealt with by the moderators if necessary. Shabi  DOO  20:39, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, but then we should wait for more mods to get involved. --Andrew5 (talk) 20:40, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Let it try to resolve itself and unless it gets particularly ugly, then the mods will intervene. I'm just saying, starting up an ATIM over a fairly unsurprising example of Hastur disagreeing with a user over how to deal with a trouble maker, and mostly it seems Andrew, just so you can pepper the discussion with what you would do were you somehow the decision maker...is not necessarily a great reason to start yet another ATIM. Shabi  DOO  20:46, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm having doubts about my initial assessment. I think the more convincing evidence, as LeftyGreenMario pointed out, is that this text by Dunbar on RW was copied to CP by Ken (Conservative) after only 5 minutes (note that postings were in different time zones: EDT and UTC). There seems to be no other precedent for the text on the web. Bongolian (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * EDT? I thought it was EST. Remember what happened at 2am today…Andrew5 mobile (talk) 20:54, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Bongolian, you posted the same link twice. Check the edits from this essay that echo Dunbar's last edit. 20:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry I meant: for the second link. It does say EDT. Bongolian (talk) 21:05, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It was, indeed, ~3.75 hour before the time change. Anyway, I am starting to think this might be Ken now. --Andrew5 (talk) 22:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)