RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive124

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Helena Bonham Carter and off-site stalking.[edit]

Helena Bonham Carter has in their crusade against Oxy posted off-site discussions completely unrelated to RationalWiki situations to "prove" that Oxyaena is a liar. This is unacceptable and a BLATANT violation of RW:CS#Privacy. I strongly recommend a permanent block for HBC, they are a threat to other editors on this site and their behavior has escalated from merely overly agressive personal attacks to actually breaking our site rules. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 21:21, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

As the victim of HBC's harassment and stalking, I second this. Oxyaena Harass 21:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) And to be EXTREMELY FUCKING CLEAR: I don't give a flying fuck about any pointless drivel about how Oxy "had it coming" or "shouldn't have been a liar". You are not diverting this into another inane argument about Oxy's conduct on this site because it is entirely irrelevant to the case. To pre-empt some of the usual suspects trying to weakly defend HBC. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 21:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Oxy had made mention of being on WP from before, IIRC. The google groups thing? That's... a bit more personal and I don't recall Oxy ever mentioning that stuff. CorSock (talk) 21:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Yeah this is specifically aimed at the Groups thing. Wikipedia isn't... that relevant, she admitted to having been an editor on the site in the past. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 21:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to establish the parameters of doxing before we continue. The CS states private information about individuals not in the public domain should not be published or leaked, and rightly so. However, most of the information contained in the alleged doxing was volunteered by the subject on a publicly-accessible website. Does this qualify as doxxing? The CS says personal information is allowed should it come from "their personal website or a website they are associated with," which all such sources qualify under. To be clear, I strongly disapprove of what HBC has done, but I want to make sure we have standing to sanction him for this. Are there any prior cases or precedents of this that delineate what falls under "personal information" or "public domain?" IveBeenFrank (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Yeah I am sort of with you on this one Frank - at least leaning toward that. I mean, it isn't personal information gained through nefarious means... so yeah. I reckon the parameters should be set given this has the potential to be quite a serious cooping. Ace://about blank 21:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
As a general rule, if you've had to look up their username outside of a wiki discussion to find the information, you've probably fucked up. The tldr mentions it as much: "tl;dr: don't google people's names and post stuff you find". The section you are talking about is an abbreviated version of our BLP policy, which pertains to article subjects, not users. Oxy isn't an article subject, she's one of our editors. I'll get back to you on the "personal information" stuff, but I recall that Smith was banned in part for copypasting articles in mainspace that included the divulgion of personal information of JD, even if said info was freely given out. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 21:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Looking up Oxy's wiki account is gross, but it's not doxing. Also, for fuck's sake, can we not have two weeks without a coop? Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 21:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
This has got nothing to do with wiki accounts, the issue is the google group. Christopher (talk) 21:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
@IveBeenFrank I have no idea if this is too far suppressed, but generally RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive110 should be a good outline, with this being a good example of what constitues doxxing (I have no idea how far it's suppressed, if it's so far you can't see it, lmk). Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 21:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
And yeah this isn't about Oxy's wikipedia account, I already said that earlier. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 21:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
[EC]If it says it’s been suppressed as opposed to deleted, regular sysops can’t see it. I can’t see whilst logged in as my sock. Christopher (talk) 21:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Alright, then it was suppressed too far. I'll just summarize it then, but basically the first paragraph is mostly irrelevant, it just accuses a user of being a sock of another user. The second paragraph is posting links to two off-wiki articles about said other user to "prove" that they are a sock. It's roughly similar to the case here. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 21:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
This isn't doxxing per se, however... This is the sort of activity that can lead to doxxing proper. Digging around in someone's internet history, backtracking them across sites... That's a good way to find private information, or even just indicate where it might be. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Frank assumed it was doxxing. The claim I'm making here is stalking. More or less what GC outlined, but not doing it with all of someone's private information, simply enough to prove a point and to possibly leave the gateway open for finding more information in the future. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 21:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
The wikilink had the word "privacy" in it, so that was bound to happen. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
fyi (Regarding everyone), it is not "doxxing", it is stalking. Following around someone across other sites and posting their profiles on RW for the purpose of humiliating or intimidating them is stalking. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 21:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Doxxing might not be an issue here, but harrassing another user and bring information just to humiliate them is. GeeJayK (talk) 22:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Okay, not sure if it is doxxing (in line with others here) but this is not conduct we should encourage, that's for sure. Would not support a permaban or even a block longer than Pi-weeks (and that is stretching) for now, but sysoprevoke seems okay, that we may block him for a few hours whenever he does blatant flame baiting like...most of his edits. If we let him go off without ANY sanction, he is probably just going to take that as encouragement to do more stuff like this more often, and judging by how even more skeptical users still seem not to approve of what he is doing, that may not be in our interest.-Flandres (talk) 22:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
I wouldn't support a permaban here. Anything else in mind? Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 22:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
I personally think HBC has escalated from "minor nuisance" to "active threat to fellow editors". I will be backing a permanent block (as stated in my opener). Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 22:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
I was thinking an interaction ban or Ol' Reliable (aka the vandal bin). Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 22:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
(EC) As I suggested, we could sysoprevoke. It would make it easier to stop him when he just posts to stir drama. A Pi-day block, maybe, just to show him that the community is sick of his shit. I don't know if we have EVER sanctioned him in the coop-if he does it again after he has...well, we can say we warned him. We can give him a chance for now, but not a unconditional one. What about that "civility block" thing we are doing to Oxy right now? Oh, and vandal bin would help too.-Flandres (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't support a permaban nor the vandal bin (it is not a vandal case and the bin is too often used to just get rid of people). Ace://about blank 22:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
HBC isn't a sysop, IIRCCorSock (talk) 22:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
[EC]HBC’s actions were unacceptable, but she’s not “a threat”. Blowing things out of proportion doesn’t help. Christopher (talk) 22:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Yep, they’ve repeatedly refused demotion. Sysoprevoke is pointless.Christopher (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
No, if I read the log right, Hastur demoted them a few days ago.-Flandres (talk) 22:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Then HBC promoted themselves. Although that was a dipshit move on Hastur's part. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 22:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
(EC) Oh, then they promoted themselves. Sorry, that was my bad!-Flandres (talk) 22:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
(ec)I think an interaction ban won't be enough in this case. HBC isn't like Ace who is mostly fine when not dealing with Oxy, HBC has tried to start shit with multiple people. I think that if HBC is banned from interacting with Oxy, they'll just move on to someone like MarioSuperstar or me. Plutocow (talk) 22:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Oh, I forgot about the "Team Asspat" stuff. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 22:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps a short block then? If I read the room right Perma is DOA, if that (not without cause), but we could just send a message. A short block that is mandated via vote (which means a hefty amount of users have to express discontent) at least give him the chance of realizing "Wow, I've offended a healthy majority of users who deal with me and maybe that is somewhat MY problem, not just theirs."-Flandres (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I support a permaban for HBC. It is doxxing by the privacy policy (RationalWiki:Community Standards#Privacy), and if you don't accept that it is certainly harassment. HBC has been trying to raise a stink about Oxy's behavior for a a while, but such behavior is not actionable (lying about oneself on talk pages). HBC's behavior however is actionable. Bongolian (talk) 01:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Really tho[edit]

Watching Oxyaena is probably akin to HBC as is watching Conservapedia. Or any internet personality we have an article on. We penalize HBC for this, we may as well penalize anybody who's edited an article on crank bloggers tracking them across multiple websites-Hastur! (talk) 02:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I like the bit where I bring the receipts re. an unstable serial fabulist running round the place, and the axis of feeble responds with a maximum Streisand faceplant competition. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 02:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Here we have HBC making his case for banning by harassing Oxy again. Bongolian (talk) 02:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
I am an editor, not an article subject, and even so, does that justify stalking? What next, is @Helena Bonham Carter gonna dox me? I sincerely hope they're better than that. Oxyaena Harass 03:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
It’s a bit of a bob each way for me. HBC did just get information Oxy freely gave up but HBC seems to a fair amount of pleasure from it (this commenting on the issue, not at Oxy so shouldn’t violate my iBan). Ace://about blank 03:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree with that basic sentiment, hence why I am advocating for a very light sanction. Some people here, in my honest opinion (feel free to reject it) are exaggerating.
On the other hand, if we are really serious about clamping down on drama so we don't have so many coops this is probably not the sort of thing we should encourage. That does not have to mean "permaban." or something like that.-Flandres (talk) 03:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Oxyaena I've it abundantly clear that sharing your wedding bait post from talk.origins =/= stalking. I even warned you about the Streisand effect, and yet you and your dogged band of enablers seem determined to ensure maximum attention for your weird lies. You should probably be talking to them, not me. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 03:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Sigh... I see someone is determined to dump gasoline on the fire... And to think, the power going into posting and archiving this nonsense is drawn from power plants which are slowly killing all life on earth. Pathetic, absolutely pathetic. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
I have no love for Oxy. Ya'll know this. But in spite of what you might think, I don't hate her, rather, I get annoyed by her. But being "annoying" is not the same as "deserving constant harassment". I am perfectly capable of defending people I don't like, and I ask that others be willing to do the same. As long as she isn't attacking anyone or edit warring or vandalizing articles, everyone should leave her be. CorruptUser 04:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Yo Hastur are you capable of evaluating a situation involving Oxy and not just automatically coming to the conclusion she's at fault? This isn't the first time you tried this. It seems you are part of this feud that HBC is being discussed for. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 14:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't see anything in this section where I am pointing to Oxyaena being an instigator here. Instead, I am saying that what HBC is doing is not in violation of our community standards, at least not in a meaningful way-Hastur! (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
So @Hastur, rhetorical question. If you had once in past punched someone in the face and gone to jail for it. You did your time and got out and started your life again as a nonviolent person. If the person you punched in the face and all his friends sought you out and beat the shit out of you time and time again. Should you go to jail every time that happens for having being involved in an assault? Just asking. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 09:31, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Y'all are missing the main issue here[edit]

Honestly the big issue here isn't the possible stalking, but the harassment. HBC is an admitted alt account, and all of their contributions are basically harassment of other users, presumably because they are too cowardly to do so on their main account. While having an alt isn't against the rules, having an alt that is used for the sole purpose of harassment should not be allowed. All their edits are essentially trying to instigate Oxy or someone else in some way, and none are productive. Harassment, and especially using alts to harass someone, is not behavior that we should accept and should lead to severe consequences to those who engage in it like HBC. Plutocow (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Also worth noting that this is not the first incident involving HBC Plutocow (talk) 23:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Sirius: look ma! i kan mod![edit]

Oxy links to her personal blogs on her userpage. One of those blogs directs you to her participation on talk.origins (the "Google group" in question). It's really not stalking if someone is literally inviting people to look at their stuff elsewhere. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 22:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

First paragraph about stalking on Wikipedia: Stalking is unwanted and/or repeated surveillance by an individual or group toward another person.[1] Stalking behaviors are interrelated to harassment and intimidation and may include following the victim in person or monitoring them. The term stalking is used with some differing definitions in psychiatry and psychology, as well as in some legal jurisdictions as a term for a criminal offense.[2][3] MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 22:29, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
HBC does have a point. Ace://about blank 22:32, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't regard this as stalking - if I posted a link to my social media accounts or blog or something on my userpage then I would have the expectation that someone from this site could go digging and bring stuff up here. Perhaps a slap on the wrist is needed for HBC for continuing the feuds, but I'll not be voting for any permanent blocks. --RWRW (talk) 01:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Have you read RationalWiki:Community Standards#Privacy, @RWRW? We have a very broad policy on doxxing, which may not be what you have in mind. Bongolian (talk) 01:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
" Personal information regarding a living person should be limited to information which they themselves have released into the public domain,.." Isn't all this stuff from the PD?
Most appropriate here would be an interaction ban, and only on the basis of the complainant's mental health status. Paris will be lovely soon. Think about going. UncleKrampus (talk) 01:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
I have. The bit about "don't google people's names" doesn't apply since HBC found the info through Oxy's userpage. The bit about not posting information "that is not volunteered by that user" also doesn't apply since said information was volunteered. I completely agree that HBC shouldn't have done it and should receive a short-term block for their insistence on feuding with Oxy (what I was refereeing to when I said "slap on the wrist") but I don't think any of this is ban-worthy. --RWRW (talk) 01:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Blocking HBC but not Oxy makes no sense. Oxyaena is consistently at the center of drama, they ought to receive penalties as well, if we were inclined to penalize for something so frivolous-Hastur! (talk) 02:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
So I, the victim, should be penalized for being the victim? That makes a lot of sense. Oxyaena Harass 03:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
I concur with Oxy. While she has done blockworthy things in the past. She has behaved well since returning, and has not done anything blockworthy since returning (at least as far as I am aware). Bongolian (talk) 03:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Oxy's block was a mere month ago, btw. How long do you give her?-Hastur! (talk) 03:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
I judge people based on past and current behavior, not on prognostication. Bongolian (talk) 03:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Irrelevant. We gave her a pi-week ban because we believed that this would be a sufficient punishment for her infractions, but afterwards we would allow her the chance to prove she can be productive and non-toxic. We are to give her that chance, and part of doing so involves preventing her from being harassed unprovoked. CorruptUser 03:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Correct. Bongolian (talk) 03:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, this talk of blocking Oxy is absurd. She’s done nothing really wrong lately. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 07:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
If Oxy linked to it and HBC went looking at the links I'm not sure what the problem is. For that matter people are constantly saying "X said Y" on discord and nobody is claiming that that is an invasion of privacy.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:07, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
@Bob M and Bob - is wise and true. An old guard with experience akin to mine own. Bob. Is. Christ. Reborn. Listen. Ace://about blank 10:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────HBC, no. I tried going down that same path (and it tells me that the other people here didn't do that because of the obvious stranding). Oxy has two blogs linked, one is dead, the other is a barebones text site. Your "she just links to talk.origins" argument falls apart because the only thing the second site contains are a few excerpts from discussions on talk.origins. Exactly one of those discussions then links to the actual Google Group (indirectly, it is not a clickable link, just a remnant in an email excerpt), but it does so in 2019 and it doesn't scroll down to the most recent discussion topic, it just ends on that topic (so it ends in 2019). The shit you posted is from 2021 with a good bit of distance between the day it got linked on RW and the day the events happened. That means you didn't just "stumble on this through a link to the group on her blog", it means you actively went looking for other communities she participated in to see if you could nail her on a lie. That is stalking.
@Bob M I would suggest reading up above. @Hastur you are victim blaming. Stop that please. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 12:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Imo, we must stress that the allegations levied against HBC are the stalking or harrasment of Oxyaena, not doxing. Thus, we must consider the following separately, and proceed accordingly - based on the truth or falsity of each allegation:
  1. Is HBC guilty of stalking?
  2. Is HBC guilty of harrasment?
  3. Is HBC guilty of stalking and harrasment?
I believe that a cogent argument for (3) can be made (what proceeds below is not such an "argument" i.e., it aims to provide a description of the problem)
Oxy has been a very problematic user, this is evident from the number of historical controversies directly involving her on RW; however, it seems to me, that these "controversies" were often exacerbated, not just by Oxy, but also by specific users (such as HBC), who clumsily dragged other users into the ensuing controversy - disrupting the site. A key problem with HBC is that his interactions with Oxy seem aimless, there doesn't seem to be any goal, any aim towards achieving an interaction that is affectively - constructive or critical. He seems primarily intent on accusing Oxy of being any of the following: a fabulist, a liar, a charlatan, a crank, insane etc; but interestingly, there is only the vaguest of hints - of an explanation - as to how and why - she is so dangerous for the website. HBC seems more focussed on labelling and vaguely gesticulating about inflammatory topics, rather than engaging in any fruitful problem solving. LeucippusTalk 15:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Good post!
I'm not sure if we agree on the remedy or not, but Leucippus certainly seems to grasp the problem quite well.-Flandres (talk) 20:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Sirius It's becoming increasingly hard to believe you're arguing in good faith here, but I'll give you the benefit of Hanlon's razor, and assume stupidity. She literally invites people to look at contributions of hers on talk.origins, and the wedding bait post is from talk.origins. There are no other Google groups involved here.

Consider the following chain of links:

  1. Userpage
  2. Personal blog
  3. FB photos of your backpacking adventures

If J. Q. McFuckhead has indulged in the above, then he's waived any and all expectation of privacy re. his wider FB footprint, and any content relevant to his behaviour on RW is fair game for comment. And if that same J. Q. McFuckhead is engaged in, say, contentious editing on the Israel / Palestine clusterfuck, and his FB activity reveals him to be a raging anti-Semite, then that's relevant information that should be brought to the community's attention.

@Leucippus No community should be expected to tolerate an attention-seeking fabulist, especially not one so frequently reliant on argument by anecdote. It violates the basic principle of good faith debate if someone gets a pass to fabricate stuff at their convenience. You should note that the harshest sanctions I've ever supported against Oxy have been removal of tech & sysop rights, and a 3 month block. As far as I'm concerned, she's welcome to participate here if she can grow the fuck up, and I'm baffled by so many people's insistence on undermining other's efforts to exert some social pressure on her to do so. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 22:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Leucippus has stated, and Flandres ostensibly agrees that " He (HBC) seems primarily intent on accusing Oxy of being any of the following: a fabulist, a liar, a charlatan, a crank, insane etc; but interestingly, there is only the vaguest of hints - of an explanation - as to how and why - she is so dangerous for the website."
Putting aside that this is being said about a particular person, are we to understand from this that, a person who is a known fabulist, liar, charlatan, crank, and lunatic is welcome to edit this wiki? Are there acceptable forms of crank ideas? Ariel31459 (talk) 15:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
It's more that it is not relevant to the site. It is a pathetic cry for attention we should ignore instead of, you know, giving her what she wants.-Flandres (talk) 15:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Cranks should be welcome to edit here, and always have been. They’re often banned for some other reason or give up on the site when they realise their ideas will never make it into mainspace, but being a lunatic or a liar isn’t a reason to ban someone in and of itself. I want to make it clear I’m just replying to Ariel here, I’m also not calling Oxy any of those things. Christopher (talk) 16:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
@Helena Bonham Carter - I don't believe that the majority of users are giving Oxy—what you call— a "pass to fabricate". To put it — mildly‽: the majority of users don't take anything she says at face value. To put it — harshly‽: the majority of users don't believe anything she says. So long as she doesn't inject any of her insanity into mainspace... her lying — her fabrications — her crankery...all belong in the category of "don't cares". After all, Oxy is hardly the first person to bullshit on the internet. Fortunately, the majority of her "fabulism", as you have so kindly illustrated, occurs within her personal life, and in matters that are both external and inconsequential to the wiki. Your methodology: exert "social pressure" to change subject-Oxy, hasn't worked very well — has it? You literally think that applying the same method of "social pressure", over and over again, will lead to a different result — are you insane? If, like most users, you avoided engaging in saloon bar quarrels, and more generally, giving the time of day to a charlatan, then maybe you would've avoided your current predicament.
@Ariel31459 — The majority of the items HBC has revealed are inconsequential to the site, that is, if Oxy ever tried to utilise her crankery in edits, they would be reverted. Furthermore, crankery in some areas is obvious, but in other areas where there is an absence of clear demarcation criteria, one cannot easily weed it out — and subsequentially dismiss the guilty individual as a crank.LeucippusTalk 21:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Another morning another coop[edit]

Reading through another coop before I've had my first coffee. What fun.

Anyway, HBC is unquestionably going way beyond call of duty in trolling and harassing number of editors and Oxy in particular. Her constructive edits could probably be counted with the fingers of a double arm amputee. And the stalking is disturbing to say the least. That said, I'm not sure how much a ban is going to achieve since she is a self admitted sock (though I'm not sure if anyone besides her knows whose). I guess we could hope that she behaves in a more civil manner under her main account.

Also, the interaction bans related to Oxy are getting a bit tiresome. Who wants to bet that our next coop will call for Oxy-Hastur iBan? Not sure how many people will be left for her to interact with here. But yeah, the stalking bit is bad enough to get me to vote for a ban. Even if you can get to the off site in question through her profile, posting that offsite shite here in order to harass her is unacceptable. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 05:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Good post! Roasty-toasty. I don't think I fully buy the argument a la "doxxing" since Oxy herself gave up that information of her own free will, but I am still appalled by just how far HBC went to dig up dirt on someone who already has some pretty condemnable features that are actually exhibited on this very site- and, while I don't believe a word of the "ex-Muslim who parrots every single media cliché regarding ex-Muslims" crap, going for the personal attack- especially in such a pooty, creepy-ass manner that HBC did it in- is exceptionally poor form and is something that I'd definitely suggest at least a slap on the wrist for. Yes, Oxy might like to enhance the truth a lot obviously- but even if it was important (which it isn't unless she's really annoying), WE WILL BLOODY WELL NOTICE IN THAT CASE WITHOUT HAVING SOME POOT WITH NOTHING BETTER TO DO DIG UP DIRT ON HER IN CREEPY AND TANGENTIAL WAYS. --Goatspeed. How's my editingCircularREmail2.gifasoningSteal my ideas 08:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
It's fucking awesome am I right. I spent my Thursday (NZ Time of course) before Easter sitting with my door locked and a bottle of wine....may have been 2... reading through this intermittently and cursing out wayward staff members in response to the god damned idiocy here....hmmm that's not entirely accurate, I never curse out the staff but I was thinking about it. Normally it's more "Martin?! What the fuck is this shit? Rewrite it before I hunt you down with fire". Anyway the point isn't my day but that every day we have a coop case. They were far rarer when fucking adults ran this fucking place and didn't get all fucking worked up over goddamned fucking nonsense. Ace://about blank 07:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree completely. These constant coops are getting ridiculous. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 08:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree as well. Some people really need to learn to behave, then there will be less coops. Oxy isn't perfect, and she's been sanctioned for that in the past, but too many editors here seem utterly incapable of understanding the difference between being critical of someone and going on a personal crusade where no boundary seems too much to cross. I really hope we don't have to IBAN other people, but that's really on how far some people are taking these things. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 12:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Christ Sirius, fucking listen to yourself. You became mod and turn to a rule crazy politician. Wanna know the truth? Right now you ain’t a mod - you’re a :fucking user. You mod when mod - that’s it. You have as much right to comment as HBC. Climb the fuck down you’re imagined place of privilege. Ace://about blank 12:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Ace, dunno if you noticed, but I was like that before I was a mod as well. HBC has equal right to comment, when did I state otherwise? There's no sanctions against them. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 12:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
You’re tbe rule crazy new cop of the beat. Ace://about blank 12:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Ace who refused to do anything moderation related (recent refusal to vote in all things in moderation or provide anything constructive except to complain) and is nailed with a successful interaction ban tries to talk down on a other moderator with a lot of nonsensical reasoning, and escalates this situation with personal attacks? Why were you elected mod if you continually refuse to be one and nearly constantly stir the pot like a troll despite your self proclamation of being a "grownup". Constructive criticism and humility, are these some sort of things that drain your life force? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 14:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Constant complaints about coop frequency = Good old days. There were plenty of editors of yore who did quality mainspace editing and who are no longer here because they hated the constant protracted fights. User:AgingHippie is a good case in point, who left in 2016 saying, "Not taking part in the community until it can go 30 consecutive days without a Coop case." Constant protracted fighting is a function of RW structure (mobocracy + weak moderator powers). If one can't live with the protracted frequent fighting then one shoud stay out of the fray and stick to mainspace.

I suggest removing Discord from the sidebar and cut the Discord-ians loose as a totally separate entity. They were not an issue initially but have because a frequent uncitable source of problems. Citing Discord in discussions regarding specific users should then be banned thenceforth as per the doxxing rules. Bongolian (talk) 17:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Maybe we don't need to remove it, just replace it with a link to the Sirius server, which is a Support server, not a general server. GeeJayK (talk) 17:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Banning all mention of discord is a terrible idea. Christopher (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
The sidebar currently links to RW:discord, which mentions both servers. The support server is very quiet and doesn’t have many members, the other is bigger and more active but has little to do with RationalWiki. Christopher (talk) 17:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Discord problems mostly arose as the result of poor rules on those discords that resulted in at least one space ending up being used as a moderation "backroom" to instigate conspiracy to commit certain actions. Ever since Ze/EK and GR quit RW, there have been no functional problems between Discords and this wiki and I intent to ensure that it won't be a problem in the future. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 18:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Discord drama aside, I have an issue with this "no linking to off-wiki discussions" stuff. A few months ago we stripped Dysk/Judge Dredd of his tech rights, largely due to an off-wiki confession that he made stating that he's used his tech rights to access people's IPs. Several users, myself included linked to this admission when presenting our case for promoting him. Would we have violated the doxxing/stalking rules by doing this? Because it was obviously something the community had a right to know. --RWRW (talk) 22:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
For that mater Oxy's most recent final departure was announced on Discord. Users here then (at her request there) removed sysop and put a "left" template on her user-page. (I pointed out at the time that these were both technical rule breaches, but nobody cared that much.)
But if I now were to login/create an account on Discord, check the history to see what she actually said, and then mention it here - would this be stalking?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
A solution to all the drama is delete the Saloon Bar and many other talk pages. If this wiki stuck to articles with content (like debunking pseudoscience like creationism it is known for) people wouldn't be able use it as a place to bash each other. Mysia (talk) 20:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
If you don't like the drama, don't look at it. Bongolian (talk) 20:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I was wondering[edit]

I have a theory on why it isn't working. I'll post about it on the mod noticeboard. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 21:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Playing my usual role as the guy who brings this up...[edit]

...Shall we have a vote now that it has been almost exactly 24 hours since this case started? Based on the comments I am seeing here, I think it should have the following options-

The normal spectrum of blocks. (Pi-day, Pi-week, Pi-month, Perma)
The vandal bin.
An interaction ban between HBC and Oxy.-Flandres (talk) 21:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
How about a "topic ban" for posting useless information from other users? Some people said they are afraid HBC will just find another person to harass if we iban Oxy and them. GeeJayK (talk) 23:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
You could propose that. Don't know how it would play, but you could propose that.
Remember though, the mods get to decide when the vote is and what is in it. If you want to make that case, I am not the one to make the case to.-Flandres (talk) 23:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Hopefully HBC will come to their senses once the coop is over. Not gonna do this for now.. GeeJayK (talk) 23:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Alright, let‘s vote: Block/ban for HBC[edit]

Per the community standards, blocks require a 2/3 majority.

π days[edit]

This vote has been closed. Please do not add, remove or change votes.
The result of this vote was: Fails (1-9). (10% support) Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 20:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


  1. In the event that nothing longer passes. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 09:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


  1. Too short to be meaningful --Goatspeed. How's my editingCircularREmail2.gifasoningSteal my ideas 09:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  2. She's had similar slaps on the wrist before. More is needed now. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 10:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  3. Think we can take a break from them. A longish one. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 13:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  4. -Hastur! (talk) 14:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  5. Pointless. Bongolian (talk) 22:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  6. Nutty Roux (talk) 11:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  7. Commie Lib (talk) 03:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  8. Scream!! (talk) 03:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  9. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)



π weeks[edit]

This vote has been closed. Please do not add, remove or change votes.
The result of this vote was: Fails (15-8). (65.2% support) Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 20:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


  1. HBC instigated a lot of this latest drama. --RWRW (talk) 08:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  2. SHAME ON BLOODY YOU, HBC! This is, by far, the worst thing you have ever done. I don't like Oxy any more than you do (as she has long been a thorn in the mob's side), but at least I don't look at personal blogs she's never mentioned here and creepily reference them to dig up personal dirt on her like one of those holier-than-thou "detectives" on Reddit. --Goatspeed. How's my editingCircularREmail2.gifasoningSteal my ideas 09:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  3. In the event that nothing longer passes. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 09:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  4. Well deserved. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 09:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  5. IveBeenFrank (talk) 10:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  6. I'll still ponder on the longer blocks, but this seems a sensible minimum. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 10:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  7. Want to get Oxy banned? This isn't how you do it. You just end up irritating the rest of the community. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 13:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  8. Unfortunately ShabiDOO 13:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  9. Maybe this will be a enlightening experience.-Flandres (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  10. Regretfully, I support this. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 15:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  11. Oxy was also banned for π weeks. Sounds enough. GeeJayK (talk) 16:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  12. The sock who became a troll. Sock blocking doesn't solve the behavioral problem that HBC's owner has. Bongolian (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  13. Fair. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  14. I'll cast my lot here. LeucippusTalk 22:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  15. Seems the most reasonable choice.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 16:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


  1. -Hastur! (talk) 14:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  2. Nutty Roux (talk) 11:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  3. Commie Lib (talk) 03:15, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  4. Scream!! (talk) 03:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  5. Ariel31459 (talk) 19:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  6. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  7. Whilst I still believe it's poor form to vote in your coop, I'll make an exception for this particular nonsense, especially in the face of @Sirius' astonishing intellectual dishonesty & abject cowardice when confronted with it. As for the rest of you, I said what needed to be said, and you all know it. A wiki where people are able to openly acknowledge that Oxy has a habit of making shit up is a somewhat better and saner place for everyone. Ingrates. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 15:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
    1) We didn't need your 'help' to determine this about Oxy. Oxy's faults were already established before you started harassing her. 2) Harassing her does not endear you to people. Bongolian (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
    @Bongolian It most certainly required my intervention for people to feel free to talk openly on-wiki about the lying. That's a definite improvement, whether you care to admit it or not. And if restricting the space for an unstable crank to operate in = "harassment", then count me in. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 00:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
    The most unstable crank here at the moment HBC is you. So if you are all in for harassing such people...consider harassing yourself. ShabiDOO 02:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  8. Kevs Ping! 16:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)



π months[edit]

This vote has been closed. Please do not add, remove or change votes.
The result of this vote was: Fails (4-9). (31% support) Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 20:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


  1. In the event that nothing longer passes. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 09:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  2. I really want a break seeing this one's posts. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 13:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  3. The sock who became a troll. Sock blocking doesn't solve the behavioral problem that HBC's owner has. Bongolian (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
    Who‘s the owner? Kevs Ping! 18:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
    HBC confessed that it was a sock account but did not reveal the main account. Bongolian (talk) 19:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
    There aren’t any active accounts from 2007 other than HBC. I wouldn’t make a big deal out of the sock thing, HBC is clearly their primary account at the moment. It’s not much of a “confession”, RW has never had a problem with socks. Christopher (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
    We've Sophie, even if she doesn't user her first account anymore. But of course, I don't think she's HBC. GeeJayK (talk) 19:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  4. IveBeenFrank (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


  1. Excessive since no evidence has been provided that this general pootishness, while obviously unethical and creepy af, was actual doxxing as per its agreed-upon definition; doxxing would be "lul i know that she lives at [address], her IP address is _____, her name is Jane Doe, and here are some pictures of her house", not information that Oxy herself made public off-site. --Goatspeed. How's my editingCircularREmail2.gifasoningSteal my ideas 09:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  2. Infraction was gross, but not pi months level gross. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 09:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  3. Kevs Ping! 10:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  4. -Hastur! (talk) 14:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  5. LeucippusTalk 22:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  6. Nutty Roux (talk) 11:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  7. Commie Lib (talk) 03:15, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  8. Scream!! (talk) 03:26, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  9. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)




This vote has been closed. Please do not add, remove or change votes.
The result of this vote was: Fails. (3-14) (17% support) Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 20:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


  1. HBC has proven to be a threat to other editors in this community. That means they are a threat to this community. That as far as I'm concerned means they don't belong in this community. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 09:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  2. Removing the sock from action is not going to affect the person who owns another account as sysop. Forcing us to coop his sock would seem to be part of his troll campaign. Bongolian (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
    I don't buy this sock thing. We have very few users from 2007 nowdays. If HBC is a sock, then their real account is probably newer. GeeJayK (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
    Where did HBC even say they were a sock? Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 20:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
    Here Plutocow (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
    She had admitted it before that too at least here. I have a hunch about what her original account is, but I'm not going to speculate about it publicly without evidence. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 20:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
    This isn’t an “admission” of anything as RW has never forbidden sock accounts. Although I wasn’t there in 2007, it seems to me it was always obvious HBC was a sock. This isn’t relevant to the coop at all. Christopher (talk) 20:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  3. Practically goes without saying, this is easily justified. Judge Dredd (talk) 15:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


  1. Per my comments above that what happened should not be seen/described as stalking. --RWRW (talk) 08:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  2. Only if it can be proven that HBC did anything more than dig up dirt a la off-site nonsense, would I say that she should be permanently not welcome here- though on the off-chance that she does get perma'd, I wouldn't shed a tear. --Goatspeed. How's my editingCircularREmail2.gifasoningSteal my ideas 09:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  3. Excessive. This was no doxxing. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 09:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  4. Kevs Ping! 10:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  5. I can't evaluate this one as a threat. It's just a feud that irritates the hell out of me. It's harmful to the community, yes, but same goes for the others that participate in these petty constant attenpts at one-upping at Oxyaena. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 13:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  6. -Hastur! (talk) 14:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  7. cosmikdebris talk stalk 15:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  8. HBC is one of the last users from the year RW was created. It would be too sad to see them gone. GeeJayK (talk) 16:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
    I don't think that that is a good argument, in fact it makes it worse since HBC should really know better by now. Plutocow (talk) 21:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
    It's not an argument, just a statement. I'm not voting nay for this, I don't support permabans, unless you're Michael Coombs, Ken, and the rest of their crew. GeeJayK (talk) 23:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  9. Completely absurd! Permaban is an absolute last resort! LeucippusTalk 22:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  10. Nutty Roux (talk) 11:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  11. Commie Lib (talk) 03:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  12. Scream!! (talk) 03:27, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  13. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  14. For the ratio, you fucking clown. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 15:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)


  • This wouldn't be a true permaban, as HBC claims to have another account. I personally don't think it's a bad idea to shut down an alternate account that is only used to generate drama. Plutocow (talk) 18:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


HBC interaction ban[edit]

Two Way interaction ban with Oxyaena[edit]

This vote has been closed. Please do not add, remove or change votes.
The result of this vote was: Fails. (10-12) Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 20:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


  1. Abssolutely. Any point that HBC was trying to make in warning us to be wary of a problematic user has been lost and it's just degenerated into harassment of that user. Spud (talk) 09:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  2. In the event that no block passes, IBAN should be the absolute minimum here. Not that I quite expect HBC to uphold the terms of it, but we at least tried. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 09:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  3. Good post! Looks like my mind's been changed for me... --Goatspeed. How's my editingCircularREmail2.gifasoningSteal my ideas 09:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  4. IveBeenFrank (talk) 10:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  5. As tiresome as these are getting, it's the bare minimum required to stop HBC being a cunt. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 10:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  6. No brainer ShabiDOO 13:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  7. Welcome to the club...CorruptUser 15:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  8. Okay, too give absolute credit to Cory and Frank, they were TRYING to engage with her ideas...they just got sidetracked into flame wars. Ace may have become a source of drama but he was perfectly correct in the beginning and I sided with him, because Oxy WAS a terrible tech, she just has pretty much no relevance/influence in the community anymore outside of old guard fantasies. HBC? As Leucippus excellently pointed out, his behavior is more consistent with trolling. I will go even further-it's somebody with a massive inferiority complex boosting their fragile ego by humiliating somebody else.-Flandres (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  9. Bongolian (talk) 17:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  10. From a deontological point of view, I think every iban is a terrible move. We're just hiding the problem. But is also the best for the Wiki in this case. GeeJayK (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


#Pointless lmao; if I were to ask for Oxy to have a two-way IBAN with moi because of her sad trollposts on my talkpage I have to put a conscious effort into pretending to care about, I'd be not only laughed out of the coop a second time, but perhaps also impeached... at this rate she'll have no one left to talk to... --Goatspeed. How's my editingCircularREmail2.gifasoningSteal my ideas 09:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  1. Another interaction ban with Oxyaena? Weeeeiiiiird. Who would have thought?-Hastur! (talk) 14:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  2. Have ultimately decided against. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 15:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  3. No. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 15:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  4. Kevs Ping! 16:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  5. Ariel31459 (talk) 16:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  6. The so called "interaction bans" are perhaps one of the most stupid ideas this site has ever produced. Not only that, but they are completely at odds with the ethos of the site, let alone the pursuit of science and rationality. HBC was right when she branded this type of behaviour as "enabling", for we are being held to ransom by a bankrupt user. LeucippusTalk 22:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
    I don't believe IveBeenFrank and CorruptUser really deserved it either, their interaction bans happened over a stupid quarrel. HBC, however, seems to have an unhealthy obsession over Oxy and harasses her quite often. If it was up to me, no interaction ban, just a permaban. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 22:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
    I wasn't a stupid quarrel, Oxy was uncivil with them for months. I don't understand why you defend her so much. GeeJayK (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
    [EC]Compared to what happens to her right now, it certainly was a stupid quarrel. Having in-fighting because multiple people don't agree with each other is nothing to worry about when compared to cyberharassment and cyberstalking. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
    So part of the ethos of this website @Leucipus is to condone people creepily following users here around the internet and then trolling them and pointlessly harassing them here numerous times. I imagine your statement also implies that a rather problematic yet sometimes productive user is more bankrupt than an extremely problematic user who does virtually nothing else here except troll, harass and spit out vitriolic snark at numerous users. That's a marvellous ethos. I didn't realise we were encyclopedia dramatica. ShabiDOO 17:45, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
    @ShabiDOO Look. I believe that HBC's behaviour is obsessive and creepy, and his account seems to be a sock — one which spends an unhealthy amount of time focussed on one user. As a consequence, I don't condone his behaviour at all. Indeed, their behaviour has all the characteristic obnoxiousness, and nihilism, of a troll; HBC is quite rightly branded as "unproductive". My point about "ethos" was about RW being about rational-discourse between users and that Ibans, so to speak, "throw the baby out with the bathwater" (I'm aware that your strawman first-sentence had its purposes tho). I regret using the hyperbole "utterly bankrupt user" all for the sake of a poetic image, that is, I don't believe Oxy to be a "bankrupt user". My views on this matter are, at the moment, fluctuating, and remain somewhat ill-formed — so take them with a bucket of salt...I hope this coop last long enough for me to reach something conclusive LeucippusTalk 23:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  7. Unclescrooge (talk) 23:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
    Non-sysop, persistent vandal. Bongolian (talk) 23:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
    If you want to ban non-sysops from voting in the coop, start a discussion at RW talk:community standards. The interaction ban is probably passing either way, no reason to break the rules. Christopher (talk) 06:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  8. Nutty Roux (talk) 11:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  9. Scream!! (talk) 11:58, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  10. Interaction bans are stupid. At this point we may as well just delete everything outside of the mainspace. Commie Lib (talk) 03:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  11. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  12. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 16:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)


*Waiting to see how Oxy votes. Since she is the wronged party, I will vote for this if she does. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 09:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Oxy asked for another perma-LANCB again. Thought I'd let the coop know. A public log is available on my talkpage. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 13:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
    This Ox person has voluntarily asked to be banned multiple times and said they are leaving 100+ times only to return days later - I looked at their bizarre account history. They lie about leaving every time and keep returning.Mysia (talk) 14:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
    I concur with Mysia. Given how rarely LANCBs actually last, I highly doubt she'll stay gone for long- but I still think we should oblige if she requests it. --Goatspeed. How's my editingCircularREmail2.gifasoningSteal my ideas 19:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
    We should all listen to Oxy and not unblock her no matter how much she begs. Or at least wait a day or two before unblocking to give her a chance to decide whether an argument about breadtube really is worth coming back for, which is what I wanted to do last time before @Plutocow unblocked her and @DuceMoosolini renamed her. Christopher (talk) 19:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
(EC) Personally, I disagree. I think if she asks she should be unbanned. Maybe we could do like that Lost episode, when Locke gave Charlie three chances to give up on his drugs. The first time she asks, deny. If she asks again, deny it again. If she asks once more, unban her. GeeJayK (talk) 19:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
There is only one way I can see to give Oxy what she is asking for in such a way that it cannot be undone. Someone must raise a coop against her (groan) and then a majority of users must vote for a permapan. Otherwise she will be back the next time she changes her mind. Everything else is just another version of endless "leaving and never coming back."Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── More and more, the evidence piles up, looming over RW: productive users are censored, a fucking MODERATOR is censored, free-flowing discourse is stifled, users with permanent hardons for coops (when Playboy isn't enough!) — become a routine banality, tiptoeing on the eggshells that surround certain users becomes a regrettable past-time; and all of this inchoate blossom, seems to bloom around a certain user. I agree with Bongolian when he sagely noted — that conflict is a part of RW's history — we ought to relish those digressions and objections... the carefree mistrust — but not in this form; coops are not the type of "conflict" we should seek out, there is something even repugnant about them — to the ideal of "conflict". For they are more focussed on censoring, prohibiting, and expulsion — than the fertile dialectic that is so intrinsic to RW. Tolerance is being stretched to breaking point with Oxyaena, something more radical (irony much) may have to be done about her. LeucippusTalk 23:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

How the hell is HBC "productive"? Ace I can see, but HBC does absolutely nothing besides "trolling" aka harassment. Plutocow (talk) 23:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Spare me the hyperbole of censorship and eggshells. A common theme with the actions were a basic and constant lack of respect and cooperation with others as well as the inability to deescalate conflict. That mod was an asshole, HBC is an asshole, Oxy got stifled too. This isn't about Oxy. This is about how others deal with each other. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 23:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Hey Leucippus, I have yet to see Helena Bonham Carter contribute to mainspace a single time in the last few months if not ever. She is the least productive user on this site and that is certainly not up for debate. Also, "muh freeze peach!". MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 23:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't think we should judge Oxy and her misdeeds here. This is about what HBC did. A crime against a criminal is still a crime, even if commited by a saint. GeeJayK (talk) 23:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
How oh how — did you manage to construe me as saying HBC "is productive", no punitive measures have been taken against her yet. I was referring to all the victims of the interaction ban: Corry, Frank, and Ace — each of whom was, and is, a productive member of the community. Moreover, HBC has demonstrated some industry, albeit that of a second hand condom manufacturer— but nonetheless, your pronouncement is at odds with reality — HBC has demonstrated integrity in promoting herself, unlike Oxyaena — who like a good anarchist — craves the power of sysop and modhood — oh wait! Do I condone her behaviour with regards to Oxyaena — no I don't, but like it or not, HBC just so happens to be on the side of the angels. LeucippusTalk 00:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


To recap, then...[edit]

I'm currently facing sanctions for reporting stuff that:

  1. No-one denies Oxy said;
  2. No-one has been able demonstrate any plausible expectation of privacy in relation to; [1] [2]
  3. No-one (apparently) disputes in terms of their characterisation as further evidence of "weird lies".


  1. The weird liar in question has LANCB'd for the umpteenth time;
  2. @Sirius, the clown who instigated this coop, has to resort to hyperbolic guff like "a threat to other editors ... [and] ... this community" in an attempt to provide a rhetorical fig leaf for their batshit reasoning re. "stalking";
  3. Anyone other than myself now seems able to acknowledge Oxy's lies openly without fear of being denounced;
  4. Evidence of stiffening spines is emerging over at the Anarchism article.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm pretty fucking sure that 3) and 4) are a measurable improvement on the previous state of affairs.

If - ultimately - your position boils down to: you're not wrong, but I'm sick of hearing about it and / or I don't much care for your tone & methods, then I respectfully suggest you take your fingerwagging and shove it. Someone had to lay it out in black & white, and this wiki will be a somewhat less gutless and dysfunctional place because of it. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 18:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Helena Bonham Carter
  1. You have a weird and unhealthy fixation over Oxyaena simply because she did lie once, and due to the "crying wolf"-effect, you believe that any other time Oxyaena says something, ANYTHING, it must be a lie. Your fixation over her religious beliefs alone was worth a chicken coop, but apparently, that was not enough to get you reprimanded in any manner.
  2. You didn't commit doxxing, you committed stalking which is a form of harassment. Almost no one said you invaded someone's privacy and it seems crazy to me that it is the one thing you are concerned about.
  3. Nobody claims that Oxyaena has never lied in her life, but you have no evidence for your claims that she is a mythomaniac. See point 1 where you made the assumption that she lied due to past antecedents when she could very well be saying the truth. You should cut off that victim mentality while you're at it.
  4. Even so, when someone tells you to cut off the nonsense, you continue being a cannibalistic troll. You have been warned countless times by multiple people before that chicken coop was started. You are allowed to call out someone else if you so desire, but here, all your behavior comes down to is harassment, which is not difficult to see when you repeatedly insult mock, stalk and antagonize Oxyaena. Maybe, read the definition of harassment, that would do you a favor.
  5. You instigated that chicken coop, not Sirius. Don't blame someone else for your own mistakes.
I rest my case. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 19:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
For someone who has been making edits on this wiki for 5-6 weeks you ostensibly have the knowledge of an editor who has been around for many years. We wouldn't know you by another name, would we?Ariel31459 (talk) 19:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
It is my first account, but I do have known about RationalWiki for years. I joined recently only because someone on my own wiki started documenting Michael Coombs, so I thought RationalWiki would be a resourceful place to learn about the troll, especially when he decides to post expletives on my talkpage. I contributed to RW ever since. So to answer your question, I do know how this site works, yes. I don't think any of you know my name, however. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
@MarioSuperstar77 As one of the strangest bits of internet flotsam to wash up here recently, you could save yourself considerable time & effort if you remember:
  1. No-one gives a fuck what you think.
  2. Your comically inept thirst for site politics actively repels people, and increases their confidence in the wisdom of 1).
Have a nice day. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 01:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
I do not have a thirst for site politics. In fact, the examples you provided did not show that either, I just wish pathological douchebags like you would be banned here. You would likely be permanently banned on Wikipedia within the first week you sign-up since you can't do anything productive besides trolling. Seriously, I wonder why you are here when you are the least productive editor and you keep getting into fights with productive editors. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 11:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I agree HBC’s post above here. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 01:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Of course you do! That's why you defended Ace so vehemently, despite him harassing another editor. There is something wrong with you if you need to defend both HBC and Ace. Look at yourself in the mirror tomorrow. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 11:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Anybody else find it ironic that this individual who complains about HBC has a weird and unhealthy fixation with Oxyaena hosts their own wiki centered around a weird and unhealthy fixation with trolls and admits to having joined the site for having a fixation with Mikemikev?-Hastur! (talk) 11:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
@MarioSuperstar77 - and I’m relevant to this conversation how? Fucking jackass.
”Shorter Mario77 - “That's why you defended Ace so vehemently, despite him harassing another editor. There is something wrong with you if you need to defend both HBC and Ace. Look at yourself in the mirror tomorrow.”. Fuck you’re l dim if you don’t see the hypocrisy in your statement. Coming from the guy who created an account an immediately started following me around, creating a template to use against me at a mod election. Goddamn fucking walrus whore. Ace303, 808, 909 12:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
I thought collecting incriminating links was allowed since Circular Reasoning did the same to GC last Chicken Coop, you absolute moron. Also, I didn't follow you around, call me out the day I post your other unrelated online profiles on RW like HBC did. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 12:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
It's called an interest and the wiki is a hobby, Hastur. The fact remains that HBC is obsessed with Oxyaena when she could mind her own business. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 12:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── You can’t just collapse every discussion that doesn’t go your way, Mario. Christopher (talk) 12:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Please refrain from collapsing discussions in the Coop that are on-topic to the current discussion. (This is not yet a comment on HBCs comment which involves me.) Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 13:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
As for HBCs comment; congrats, all of the things you said are true except for the claim with privacy. I demonstrated earlier in the coop that to find those comments, you went out of your way to find the discussion forum in question because it is not easily linked on various sites, which is where it crossed the CS for me into "googling information about other editors". I don't have any further comments on this, other than that for the most part the rest of the community seems to disagree with my stance that you don't belong in this community because of that action (which is fine, it's their opinion and I'm above going on a petty crusade, since at least some sanctions seem to be passing). Oxy being a liar or not bears little bearing to the Coop, something which you seem incapable of understanding. Rather it is the way you've chosen to approach "exposing" her as a liar to RW that is the reason you are being cooped. As I've... more or less been trying to explain to you for the entire duration of this coop, but it isn't landing because of existing hateboners for Oxy. Call me a clown if you must, but to take a paraphrasing out of the past: The court jester may be regarded as amusing, but he is the only one able to speak frankly to the king and say things other men would get beheaded for. I don't see myself as a clown, but I will take it as a compliment. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 14:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Good post!MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
(and yes I recognize that by the same logic one could make a case for HBC actually being a court jester). Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 14:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Sirius I refer you back to my earlier comment re. Hanlon's razor, with additional fair warning re. the First Rule of Holes. I'll even give you the clearest counterexample I can think of: Oxy also links to her DeviantArt profile on that blog. If we follow your reasoning to its logical conclusion, then it would be OK to look at the profile, but none of the "art" in the gallery, because she hadn't linked to it directly. That's nuts, and you fucking know it.

All you're left with is bullshit quibbling re. the amount of effort you find personally acceptable for someone in going from A to B. I reckon you're clown enough to try & triple down, so before you do, some fun facts:

  1. You seem to believe talk.origins is somehow obscure or difficult to find. I've been aware of it, its location and format for 12+ years, ever since I first stopped by there to check out the pre-Conservapedia creationist lunacy of Roger and Andy Schlafly. If you had any trouble navigating there or within it, then that's your problem and has absolutely no bearing on this case.
  2. The very first paragraph of Oxy's blog describes it as "...a personal storing place for a few things I've written, along with a directory to where else you can find me on the web. Find me an expectation of privacy in that, you floppy-shoed chucklefuck.

Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 00:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

For the last time, nobody thinks that you committed invasion of privacy, you committed stalking by following Oxyaena around just to see if she says anything that you think is bad enough to point fingers at. This chicken coop was made because you are nothing more than a troll. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 11:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
@MarioSuperstar77 OK. Walk me through the bit where someone gets to invite people to check out their contributions elsewhere, and then gets to claim "stalking" when that invitation is accepted. Good luck! Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 12:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Good post!Unclescrooge (talk) 13:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Here's the definition of stalking, "Stalking is unwanted and/or repeated surveillance by an individual or group toward another person.[1] Stalking behaviors are interrelated to harassment and intimidation and may include following the victim in person or monitoring them. The term stalking is used with some differing definitions in psychiatry and psychology, as well as in some legal jurisdictions as a term for a criminal offense.[2][3]". Oxyaena did not specifically tell you to check out her profiles, you did it of your own volition. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 13:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
It seems like Oxy didn’t particularly mind people looking at her online profiles, the directory quote makes that much clear. You can’t post something publicly, announce you’re ok with people looking at it, and then make exceptions for people you don’t like. What HBC did was weird and a bit obsessiv, but it wasn’t stalking. Christopher (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
The internet is a public place. If you want privacy, you don't publish material in a public place for all the world to be able to see. It wasn't like HBC hired a private detective to follow Oxy around.S'chn T'gai Spock (talk) 14:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
You’re a lot easier to spot than you think you are, Ken. Christopher (talk) 14:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Can we just not collapse every minor comment we get upset about. Are we so wet we need to collapse a single fucking comment? Christ man, pull it together. Ace303, 808, 909 21:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
I actually agree with you there, I criticized Christopher above because he collapses any comment he does not like, but whenever I do the same I am told to "just ignore them". This comment was inoffensive, it had no reason to be collapsed, but because Christopher didn't like it, he decided to collapse it anyway. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 22:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
I actually agreed with the comment, but thought it was obviously from Ken. Ace is right, collapsing was unnecessary. You’re inserting yourself into another petty dispute for no good reason and using it to bring up unrelated matters again. Christopher (talk) 22:37, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
No, you actually have an issue with me collapsing comments, but you have no issue doing it yourself. I will keep shoving the fact that there is a double standard here until it finally gets in your head. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 22:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I took issue with one specific collapse that a mod agreed was unneeded, there’s no hypocrisy here. Stop doing this. Christopher (talk) 22:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Minimum time is over[edit]

What's next? Kevs Ping! 08:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Assuming no one else votes (the interaction ban and pi week block are very close, with the latter failing only because HBC voted in their own coop), nothing passes. Christopher (talk) 08:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Closed all votes. Nothing passes. The pi week block fails on a hair, any vote could have changed the outcome. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 21:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)