RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive134

Judge Dredd/D/Ze
changed User:Judge Dredd's block from "user request" to "Doxing other editors: offsite doxxing" on August 11, 2022. . His user page was edited on September 4, 2022 by to state that he is banned. . I took the liberty to block his accounts D and Ze (on-wiki he claims this is his sister, but I recall him saying off wiki that "Emblyn" is actually his other personality, in other words a sockpuppet, don't ask for a link because I'm not investing time looking for it). Despite JD being "banned" I'm not seeing any ban discussion. Of course, having encountered him and his alter-ego a few years ago, I'm sure there is a perfectly valid reason for the "ban," I'm just curious why no discussion to make it official? King Bowser K. Rool (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The coop case for Judge Dredd/Dysklyver was suppressed because it contained a link to well, doxing, and since that's a zero-tolerance offence apparently there was no need to drag the coop on. As for Ze, from what I can tell that's a sticky situation so I'm not sure how to proceed there. Plutocow (talk) 23:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It would have been better to ask about what happened with Judge Dredd before raising the issue in the coop. The coop is usually the last resort for conflict resolution. Bongolian (talk) 00:11, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Wisconcom
No comment on Ledlecreeper27's actions, but how can one user unilaterally "ban" someone from RationalWiki? Doesn't there have to be a vote for that? 2A0B:F4C0:16C:2:0:0:0:1 (talk) 03:59, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I got rather enraged by this user's actions externally. They have personally created anti-RationalWiki propaganda such as this one and that. I understand why my actions may be seen as crass, but I do not think there exists any reason why he should not be banned. Ledlecreeper was not particularly active anyways. You should view this user's talk page or ATM case. This user performed clearly bannable actions. Wisconcom (talk) 04:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You haven't read the RW blocking policy then. Disruptive trolls are banned, but this editor hasn't edited in over a week, and more was just a dumb tankie, not a troll. BobJohnson (talk) 04:34, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This particular user is exceptional. Ledlecreeper is connected with hostile projects and has actively promoted propaganda against this site. Nothing bad can result from this ban. Wisconcom (talk) 04:40, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What people do elsewhere is usually not considered bannable. It's what people do here that usually counts. Your personal feelings about users are not relevant. Your personal knowledge about people should not be relevant.  The lack of a reason for not banning someone is certainly isn't a reason to ban them.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:35, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This probably belongs at ATIM. Andrew5 🎄 (talk) 11:30, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll assume that what Wisconcom did wasn't part of his personal vendetta against Lemmygrad and Prolewiki, but Bob is right, we don't block people without the mob support for offside drama, we block them for being disruptive here. Since I assumed it wasn't a case of bad faith, I'll let this one slip by, but please, don't do this again, otherwise we might have this discussion on ATIM. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 12:56, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't say I share that assumption of good faith. Spud (talk) 15:49, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * So, since you've been a mod for much longer than me, do you believe we should move this to ATIM? GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 15:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. Spud (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

So, here we are. Hope I'm not doing something wrong. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 16:16, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * How the hell is what someone does on another site any reason to block 'em here? Stupid is what it is! Scream!! (talk) 16:44, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This is pretty obviously Wisconcom trying to involve RW in some weird offsite rivalry. (He also shows a worrying lack of knowledge about our standard blocking procedure despite being here for months.) This is the sort of thing which results in sysoprevoke.-Flandres (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * As a community, we should not be involved in any way in off-site drama. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 17:12, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I am not engaging in any sort of "off-site drama". If a user consistently shows they have no interest in the project, and are only hostile in it, only bad actions can come from them. Ledlecreeper only had the worst of intentions. Wisconcom (talk) 17:16, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The two external links that Wisconcom gave above are laughable as reasons for taking any action at all. We don't ban CP users for what they say on CP, and they have been obsessed with criticizing us at times. The edits that Ledlecreeper27 has engaged in today have been more actionable as whitewashing, giving polling results without adding context as to the quality of the polls or what if anything the polls might mean. I'm going to place Ledlecreeper27 in the vandal bin based on that alone, since this was also an earlier behavior as well. Bongolian (talk) 17:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Once again, I must say, why should this user be allowed here when they have shown they have no meaningful intentions? If Ledlecreeper was banned right here and now, none of you would have to waste your time on him. Wisconcom (talk) 17:35, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * [EC]Wisconcom is refusing to even acknowledge their using of rationalwiki to continue off-site drama (see also draft:lemmygrad, which inexplicably moved to mainspace), so they're unlikely to improve. I don't think they should be a sysop. Christopher (talk) 17:37, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I can't recall anything from those sites that would be "drama". I only created an account on ProleWiki which I effectively never used, and similarly with Lemmygrad. I have never particularly participated in any of these sites. Wisconcom (talk) 17:40, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Based on everything involved solely in this incident and in Wisconcom's responses I think that he should not be a sysop.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:55, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced by their answers either. Had they acknowledged the problem, I'd be against sysoprevoke. Unfortunately, this didn't happen. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 17:58, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * So be it, I admit, some of my actions here were in motivated by certain off-site events. I understand this is an inappropriate usage of this site and will reframe from similar actions in the future Wisconcom (talk)
 * Wisconcom has over 2,000 edits on ProleWiki. It is not true that he "effectively never used" the site.Ledlecreeper27 (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's the evidence for that: Wisconcom is clearly being duplicitous about intentions, so I would support sysoprevoke. Bongolian (talk) 18:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no way in which I could reject this at this point, therefore, I will admit the undeniable, I was deeply involved in ProleWiki for most of 2022. I significantly worked with the administration on that site (at times even being considered for an administrator role myself), and greatly expanded it. I furthermore worked to make propaganda for the site, and for honesty, I must admit that it was truly myself who made this. In summation, I was banned from the site due to my views on China (the ProleWiki administration was very much in favor of the People's Republic of China, viewing it as being a Socialist state, whereas I understood it as a Capitalist-imperialist state), and the community on ProleWiki essentially totally denounced my work on that site. I was also linked with the website Lemmygrad, albeit in a much different sence. I attempted to spread Anti-revisionist Marxism to Lemmygrad, but was banned due to it (see this for more details). I cannot honestly deny my notable involvement with any of these communities. I will reframe from this behavior in the future, and I can understand why you would feel this way against me. Wisconcom (talk) 19:08, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment This was transferred from the Saloon Bar at 16:16 today and that marks the 24 hours needed for a penalty vote. Andrew5 🎄 (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I no longer believe that anything Wisconcom says can be taken at face value. This includes his assurances that his behavior will change.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:23, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Having been around to see some of Wisconcom's earlier cock-ups, I would like to say that I am still hopeful that they've turned around and refrained from anti-missional behavior. I was slightly nonplussed when they were entrusted with a mop (especially after my own sysoprevoke for being way too gung-ho with it), but I figured that was just a sign of them now being considered trustworthy. I just hope that trust isn't misplaced. --Luigifan18 (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This feuding bores my pants off but until leedlee makes bad edits here (with whitewashing) or said some disturbing heinous crap off-site (like advocated white supremacy) then this isn't worth my eyeballs. 23:34, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * So you created what you yourself called "anti-RationalWiki propaganda" and falsely accused Leedlecreeper27 of creating it. You fucking lying bastard! Spud (talk) 04:12, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * what's Next? Him getting banned due to a coop. --Edward the eight (talk) 18:19, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Shouldve been cooped from the get go. 18:21, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No, coop doesn't handle sysoprevoke, only bans. We only need to take it to coop if he needs to be banned. Andrew5 🎄 (talk) 20:59, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

, I am unaware of any policy that would confirm what you are saying (RationalWiki:Sysoprevoke). Bongolian (talk) 21:04, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Since Wisconcom banned themselves, wouldn't a vote for sysoprevoke also be a vote for a ban? Unless we or Wisconcom decides to unban them before the vote is over. Plutocow (talk) 22:05, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, they just unbanned themselves while I was writing this! Let's see if it sticks Plutocow (talk) 22:07, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If you are going to revoke my sysop rights, you might as well vote to ban me entirely. Without those particular userrights, I lack any reason to be here whatsoever. isc 22:15, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * So, you're not gonna run for Mod next year and bring much difference here, like you said? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 22:26, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe being sysoprevoked precludes someone from running for mod. Plutocow (talk) 22:29, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I do not recall saying that. I have no interest in this site. Please cease fabricating quotes and claiming it was myself who said them. Wisconcom 22:34, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The logs proved that you said it, so unless someone hacked into your account, you said that. Please stop lying to us. Plutocow (talk) 22:36, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * MAGA Communists stole my IP adress and hacked into my account with the ultimate ambition of getting me banned from the site. I did not say that. Wisconcom 22:38, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * (EC)Yeah, and I'm the queen of Canada. Super convenient that it's only now you bring this up huh? Plutocow (talk) 22:42, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Orly? Sure The Koch Brothers didn't do it? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 22:46, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What I said in that instance was largely satirical. Wisconcom 22:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * And now you try burning the evidence. Are you gonna claim this was "satire" too? Plutocow (talk) 22:42, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I was being sarcastic, clearly. Wisconcom 22:45, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Were you also sarcastic about that MAGA Communist stuff? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 22:47, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * When I said I was being sarcastic, I was particularly saying that in reference to the MAGA Communist claim. That claim is clearly untrue, why would I say it in a sincere manner? Wisconcom 22:50, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * When you make other clearly untrue claims in a seemingly sincere manner, then it becomes hard to tell. Plutocow (talk) 22:52, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "I was just kidding, guys!"
 * 23:43, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Is this the second or third time he's LANCB'd? I'm not sure. Luigifan18 (talk) 03:36, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Is this the second or third time he's LANCB'd? I'm not sure. Luigifan18 (talk) 03:36, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes

 * Yes: abuse of Sysop tools, acting in bad faith. Bongolian (talk) 05:07, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Should not be a sysop. In my opinion, anyone who thinks that Stalin wasn't such a bad guy shouldn't even be autopatrolled. Not that I want Ledlecreeper27 (someone who's able to shrug off the Tiananmen Square Massacre as no big deal) here either. But as we've said, that was off wiki. Spud (talk) 05:48, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) User has a history of misusing sysop tools and using the site to advance personal grudges. Also, I'm sorry but being elected as mod doesn't give you license to add a Stalinist POV to articles, so if that's your plan, I would try something else. Plutocow (talk) 07:49, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Obviously. This vote is not about a single bad block. It's about making that block for bad reasons, justifying the bad reasons, lying about the situation, admitting lying and lying some more, getting caught out and only then admitting the truth, and even during this very process still attempting to justify their actions. A single bad block could very easily be forgiven. Not the rest. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:13, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) Although I had moved his Lemmygrad page. I don't like him Panicking about the creeper guy. Edward the eight (talk) 08:26, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) Christopher (talk) 10:59, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) No question! Scream!! (talk) 12:32, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 7)  12:58, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 8) Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 13:15, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 9) Lying is a big red flag (no pun intended). Wisconcom did what he accused Ledlecreeper27 to do (sharing anti-RW propaganda). This whole thing is extremely unhinged. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 14:22, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * From what I saw in his admission, he did that anti-RW stuff a long time ago and has changed his tune since then. Luigifan18 (talk) 03:36, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒   talk  14:45, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) If anything, he has made it difficult not to choose this option.-Flandres (talk) 15:27, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) I was always rather uncomfortable by your behavior anyway, Wisconcom. You're making us look bad.--A p r i l  Chat? 17:24, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course, you certainly are a "Communist", with how you are actively supporting this Liberal plot to get me banned from this site in order to prevent any Socialist-shift here. I have always suspected your crypto-capitalist ideology when I saw you considered China "Socialist", and here I see this on full display. Thank you, "comrade"Wisconcom (talk) 17:31, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks W. Should we change this vote to a TOTAL BLOCK - kick him off the site! Scream!! (talk) 17:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's actually a CIA plot, wisconcom. And most of the users are in on it, so there. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 20:08, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Dude. Dude. I know I don't have room to talk, but getting called out by the entire community for doing something idiotic does not mean that they're conspiring against you! Geez, calm down! Luigifan18 (talk) 03:36, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Went into a protracted meltdown since, which pushed me over the edge to vote. 18:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Textbook sysop rights abuse. Ledlecreeper is a jackass too but that doesn't grant Wisconcom the right to misuse user rights. -- Techpriest (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Wisconcom left RationalWiki it appears. And this sysop behavior is troubling. He seems to be pushing an agenda. It seems the other one is too, but two wrongs don't make a right. --Andrew5 🎄 (talk) 19:20, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) "this Liberal plot to get me banned from this site in order to prevent any Socialist-shift here" Hmph, this kind of shit makes my mind up. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 19:25, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) -- Leucippus Salva veritate 00:36, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) -- Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 18:29, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 7) Children shouldn't have blocking rights.  14:34, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This vote ended days ago. I recall it said "Do not personally insult others.", correct? Wisconcom 17:46, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The vote isn't archived, and I neither know nor respect you enough to give a shit about what you decreed. 17:54, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Besides which, you are a child. 17:56, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * False, thank you for your imput. Wisconcom 18:07, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Voting according to RationalWiki:Community_Standards needs to go for at least a week and no longer than two weeks. This isn't a week. 18:14, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Just for that little jab, I'm going to vote to ban you as well. I hadn't planned on it, as LARPy children like you are generally just annoying at most, but I'm feeling mildly vindictive. Be happy that I don't have a mop anymore, or I would have blocked your ass for the remainder of the vote instead. I look forward to your utterly counter-effective reply. 18:39, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) The G (talk) 02:52, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) I wanted to have faith in you, man, but what the heck are you doing? Your remarks towards were not cool. Luigifan18 (talk) 03:40, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

No

 * 1) The harm which resulted from this is minimal. The user who was blocked, Ledlecreeper27, was clearly ill-intentioned regardless. I do not think this single, miniscule mistake of mine brooks the revocation of this user right. I will not act in this manner again. Wisconcom (talk) 05:22, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think Many people are going to vote on you being prevented from being  sysoprevoked and I am right, so far 13 people have voted on you getting Sysoprevoked But only one voted against it and that was you.  Edward the eight (talk) 10:04, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You really don't need to keep updating your opinion with a running total of votes. It's obvious to anyone who looks at the page.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:43, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * --Andrew5 🎄 (talk) 19:18, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Ineligible

 * 1) Giving tankies sysop is never a good idea  Bob-smith (talk) 20:37, 26 December 2022 (UTC) Ineligible to vote, account not old enough.  02:55, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Also a sock of a banned user. Plutocow (talk) 23:31, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Block Wisconcom
I don't care how long as long as it's at least a couple of weeks. I want this meltdown clown off this website for any amount of time. 23:45, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * So be it, you clearly despise people with differing views. I merely clicked the incorrect option and mistakenly banned somebody (who was clearly a bad-faith user). With my sysop tools revoked, I have no reason to be here. You ought to ban me to ensure I never return to this Liberal cesspool. Wisconcom 23:55, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Whoops! Looks like you accidentally removed a big part of your comment. We restored it. 00:00, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not mean "ought to ban me", please don't ban me. Wisconcom 00:03, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Better than being a stinking Tankie cesspool.. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Can we move this to the Chicken Coop? Edward the eight (talk) 00:43, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I want to. 00:46, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

﹡sigh﹡ Can we just archive this mess? It's getting rather boring. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 00:48, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That too. 00:50, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Yay

 * 1) The way they've been handling this ATIM demonstrates a level of deception and immaturity that indicates that this user clearly needs a break. Plutocow (talk) 00:09, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Per. Wanted a LANCB anyway. Basically shredded all sense of benefit of doubt in a matter of a few hours, a day maybe. No way I'm trusting a person who imports drama and writes crappy tankie content on funspace. 00:18, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) I suspect this user's upset will cease to be after a few weeks. They have abused their sysop privileges and with them being removed I don't think they will be much of a problem after the fact. Regardless I don't see them sticking around. They read like a parody communist written by a liberal who watched a few sitcoms that featured a caricature of Lenin.  I don't think a ban more than a few weeks is necessary. A time-out for being disruptive and kind of immature is the sort of slap on the wrist I think is discouraging enough. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 18:32, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Yay

 * 1) This is fine, too. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Good too. Permaban, not sure, I kinda want to see how far that rope will go for Wisconcom. 00:18, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Plutocow (talk) 00:33, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Yay

 * 1) Bad faith editor from the get-go. Better to be save than sorry. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 00:14, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Comment unnecessary Scream!! (talk) 00:18, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) --A p r i l Chat? 00:20, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) Bad faith editor, cannot admit what was said unless confronted with it. A waste of time. Tanks for the memories. Bongolian (talk) 00:28, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) Will be fondly remembered, indeed. 00:29, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) For the same reasons as I voted to ban Neiltyson1fan; we don't need these drama-mongerers around. До свидания, Wisconcom. Plutocow (talk) 00:33, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 7) Eh. They seem to want it anyway. --Andrew5 🎄 (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 8) Basically Leftist UShistoryanalyser and a Troll (Lemmygrad) feeder.Deserves a π×infinity^2 years block --Edward the eight (talk) 01:03, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 04:44, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Their desire to constantly rewrite/reinvent their own history leaves my head spinning. I can hardly keep up with the inventions, reversals, and new inventions.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:30, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Bob put it perfectly. You can't trust Wisconcom as far as you can throw him. And let's not make the mistake we did with GR by stopping the discussion just because the user pulls an LANCB. Spud (talk) 14:22, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒   talk  04:37, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) Yeah, like WTF. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 04:51, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) Annoying child that doesn't know when to keep their trap shut. 18:39, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You are saying that children have the cognitive capacity to read and interpret nietzschean philosophy, read the collections of Marxist works, economic or otherwise, and so on? That insult was not in the least trenchant, merely annoying. You ought to augment your discussional meathods here, at the very least to the extent where you can meaningfully refute somebody who is critical of the present ideological disposition of this site beyond calling them "children". I believe I was not acting in a cordial manner a few days ago, but of course, if you cared to read anything, you would be cognizant of that. Thank you for your imput. I await my banning. Wisconcom 21:21, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Nope. Children do not have those capacities. Don't lecture me on tactics kiddo, I read Clausewitz. 00:16, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I was not attempting to lecture you, I apologize if you that was how you interpreted this, "tactics" was not the correct term. There was no metion of military tactics. Bringing up Clausewitz in this context is analogous to citing Mark Twain in a discussion of Aristotelian dialectics; it's just out of place... however, I myself induge in Clausewitz and others as well. Wisconcom 04:44, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The more you try to convince us.the more we aren't convinced. Edward the eight (talk) 00:38, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Was sick/celebrating christmas the past few days otherwise would've voted earlier, but yes. WCC thinks he can run fucking circles around the sites editors and thinks that the logs don't exist. Whilst also being a rather blatant tankie who we had to clean up at least one propagandist page off. So yeah, an easy banning. -- Techpriest (talk) 23:25, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) to ironically quote wcc: "nothing bad can result from this ban." -- The G (talk) 03:08, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Nay

 * 1) Okay, read (sorta) all of this and shall say think a perma is a bit excessive here. Shall also admit being a teeny bit suspicious that a few might being swayed towards said excess on the grounds of not liking some of the (non-bookable) opinions of the user. KarmaPolice (talk) 03:27, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Ineligible

 * 1) unable to identify what rule he broke other than "the 30 or so people who edit RW and elect themselves over and over don't like him or his politics".  You don't permaban people based on mild gripes Bob-smith (talk) 20:37, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * User lacks the required time or edits to vote and is also a sock of a banned user. Plutocow (talk) 20:56, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Goat

 * 1) I no longer wish to be associated with this site. I apologize for my behavior in this context, in certain contexts, I have a tendency to speak vacuously and emotionally. I understand why you would consider me for an indefinite ban. Wisconcom 00:14, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * In other words, this was all a big fuckin' joke, and I am a dumb pseudocommie grawp who's overwhelmed by the RW mob. Yeah, that makes sense. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 04:49, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You could phrase it that way, excluding the part about me being a "dumb pseudocommie grawp". I created an account largely with the intent to "correct" your article on Communism, due to it being nearly as repugant as Conservapedia's article on that topic. After months of interaction and developments, both on-site and off-site, I found myself in this situation. I banned Ledlecreeper27 without consultation due to the fact that had I summoned another case in "All Things in Moderation", the RationalWiki "bureaucracy" would have rejected it, despite the fact he was clearly ill-intentioned. This was a clearly fatal (regarding my presence on this site) mistake. This community clearly is not amenable to people such as myself. I have more pressing matters to attend to, which are clearly external to this site. Wisconcom 05:38, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * For someone who's proclaimed to be adamant on leaving (a second time may I add), you sure are taking your sweet time. 08:34, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * At this point I think he is a troll. Edward the eight (talk) 08:45, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's always fifty-fifty with these types. They can be fools, trolls, federal agents, all three, or something else entirely. I also love how I and KindaSorta aren't considered leftwing. You know, given that, dispite my whole getup and shtick, I'm still one of the most leftwing users on the site. And have the dubious (dis)honor of having actually read Das Kapital vol 1. I've also gotten into military theory since leaving, so being lectured on tactics by this person is actually kinda... funny. 03:07, 27 December 2022 (UTC)


 * A Sun Tzu quote, so that the child may learn. "To begin by bluster, but afterwards to take fright at the enemy’s numbers, shows a supreme lack of intelligence." Line 37, chapter 9. 00:19, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Is this the second or third time he's LANCB'd? Luigifan18 (talk) 03:41, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not a child, please stop insisting upon that, it is insulting and unhelpful. Regarding your quote, I very much take more effort to read the works of Marighella and others concerning military theory. However, it is the case that the work you cited still proves its utility in certain instances. I believe involving myself with this site was a short-sighted mistake. Wisconcom 03:55, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, you won't be here for too much longer. 04:03, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You aren't a child, because children don't believe in tankie garbage. You're just a sad human trapped in a body of an arbitrary age. 08:42, 27 December 2022 (UTC)