RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive57

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 8 December 2018. Please do not make edits to this page.

Bryan See and Phobosgate[edit]

Bryan See has been accused of harassment by CJ-Moki with regards to Phobosgate. CJ-Moki previously blocked Bryan See indefinitely due to the alleged harassment but was unblocked for the purpose of defending himself. I submit the following evidence to the mob to determine Bryan's guilt or innocence:

If found guilty, the punishment would be indefinite banning. Mob, discuss. RoninMacbeth (talk) 00:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

@CJ-Moki, I'm pinging you since @RoninMacbeth said you were the one who accused @Bryan See of harassment.
Most of his overt harassment was about Wikipedia editors and has been deleted by me and @Spud. The worst of these in my opinion was User:Bryan See/Russavia. Since this has been deleted, does it still count as evidence (and does the harassment have to be related to RationalWiki users)?
As far as harassing other editors, he did give borderline threats to @Evil Zionist here and @Bigljbigl here. CowHouse (talk) 01:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I do not support blocking him for infinity but he has been angry with two minors on Rationalwiki. —ClickerClock (talk) 01:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I'll defend him on that point. How was he meant to know that they are minors? CowHouse (talk) 01:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Good point. But applying the benefit of the doubt to people you meet online is a good idea as you do not know how young the people you are arguing
is. Internet usage is high among minors.ClickerClock (talk) 01:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I see your point. The way you phrased it suggested he knew they were minors. I would consider much more serious if he did it knowingly.
Correction: In Bigljbigl's case, he did do it knowingly (source):
  • ClickerClock: "Bigljbigl only acted that way towards you because he was very alarmed. He has calmed down. Please do not think low of him; Bigljbigl is a kid." (Oct 7).
  • Bryan See: "@Bigljbigl: You should have acted and treaded carefully. Next time, don't act weirdly. You can tell your fellow admins to follow suit." (Oct 12)
I take back my defence of him. CowHouse (talk) 02:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I think he has a proven track record of trying to harrass people in the name of his bizarre conspiracy theory and will continue to do so. So therefore the ban of infinity should remain permanent. S.H. DeLong (talk) 03:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I back the permaban. —ѕυρяємє ℓєα∂єя вιgѕ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ᴡᴏʀᴅs ᴏғ ᴡɪsᴅᴏᴍ/ᴀᴄʜɪᴇᴠᴇᴍᴇɴᴛs) 03:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Look at my defense below.— Unsigned, by: Bryan See / talk / contribs

Pick a side. —ClickerClock (talk) 03:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Ban for infinity[edit]

  1. Aye, bring on the ban. It is also quite clear to me that he suffers from a persecution complex and that anybody who disagrees with him is an agent of Putins. S.H. DeLong (talk) 03:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. He seems harmless, but has an unhealthy obsession with a particular conspiracy theory that has gotten him kickbanned from several other places. If it were possible, I'd say confine him to the Essay space. He needs help and this is definitely not the place for him to seek it from. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 03:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. ⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk)(Vote withdrawn) 03:57, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. CJ-Moki (talk) 04:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. He is unhealthily obsessed with Phobosgate. It's an issue, and he needs to be stopped. But we should still let him edit his talk page in case he reforms. —ѕυρяємє ℓєα∂єя вιgѕ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ᴡᴏʀᴅs ᴏғ ᴡɪsᴅᴏᴍ/ᴀᴄʜɪᴇᴠᴇᴍᴇɴᴛs) 04:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
    I'm searching for answers, merely. Russia Today and Sputnik News (purveyors of fake news) are the cause. -- Bryan See (talk) 04:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  6. From the moment he arrived here, started writing about this non-existent thing called Phobosgate and creating draft pages about Wikipedia editors, I knew he was going to be trouble. If you look at his Phobosgate page, most of which is copypasted from the article about Bryan See on Encyclopaedia Dramatica, you'll see that it's mostly just about how Bryan See was justifiably banned from Wikipedia and (horrible troll site though it is) justifiably banned from Encyclopaedia Dramatica too. I feel sorry for Bryan See because it is quite obvious that he is severely mentally ill. He believes that his ban from Wikipedia was orchestrated by Vladimir Putin and set off a chain reaction that resulted in the election of Donald Trump. He harbours a severe grudge against a certain Wikipedia editor who was just trying to be a good Wikipedian and genuinely believes that editor to be some kind of evil genius. He genuinely believes that Vladimir Putin is personally trying to kill him. This is someone who clearly needs professional help and needs it now. And frankly, I don't think he's harmless. If we allow this unhinged individual to remain here, he's going to keep harassing people he sees as part of this vast conspiracy against him and he could potentially do a lot of harm to the credibility of this project. Spud (talk) 06:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
    This is just another manipulation from the alt-right. It's a conspiracy pushed by the Kremlin. I'm sorry for this, though. -- Bryan See (talk) 07:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  7. This blatant lack of competence I'm seeing is simply not suitable for this Wiki. RationalWiki should not be treated as a medium to promote an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory especially not at the expense of fellow editors. The issues and lack of competency from Bryan See outweighs the positives. I do believe the user has mental problems and while I do feel some pity, RationalWiki is not the appropriate place to let a user like that reign free and harm the community. Furhermore, the user has denied any problem and points to this conspiracy instead, failing to take responsibility for the issues. User has apologized and promised to be better, but I seriously doubt it will happen due to the conspiracy mongering and I also do not wish more potential harassment with other users. Thus, the users who were harassed, their concerns, take higher priority. This user should be ban ed if not placed heavy restrictions. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 08:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
    @LeftyGreenMario: I am willing to take responsibility for the issues, most of which stem from Russian influence, and I want to issue the apology to the users who were harassed. Also, I agree with FuzzyCatPotato on this issue. Let me understand what RationalWiki is for. It's to debunk any anti-science movement and exploration of authoritarianism and fundamentalism, all of which are from the Trump and Putin regimes. I can help you, but I have to think of my responsibility, and all what I've lost. Baba Vanga, Ramzan Kadyrov... -- Bryan See (talk) 09:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
    @LeftyGreenMario: I am to be his Probation Officer and if he does even one thing wrong Mario, it is the infinite ban for him. So Mario, lets give him one last chance to shape up. S.H. DeLong (talk) 21:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
    Okey dokey. I suppose probation is reasonable. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 23:54, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  8. Ban. Castaigne2 (talk) 22:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Don't ban for infinity[edit]

  1. See below. -- Bryan See (talk) 04:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Either Bryan See is really being persecuted by Vladimir Putin, or else he is suffering from a delusional illness. If the former case is true, banning him would be furthering Putin's agenda. If the later is the case, then it would be discrimination against a person who suffers from mental illness. Either way, it is wrong. Don't do it. If there is a complaint he has harassed specific individuals, then lesser means should be resorted to first, e.g. a request not to further interact with those individuals, and some shorter bans if he does not comply. (((Zack Martin))) 08:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
    You don't necessarily have to frame it as "we discriminate against those with mental illness". That's disingenuous to imply that. Mental illnes is not a problem in of itself, but is a problem when it interferes and harms people. People with mental illnesses that are detrimental to a project are generally withdrawn not because of the disability itself but the harm it has caused. Furthermore, Bryan See has denied mental problems, which I find problematic and an unwillingness to reflect, thus will be an impediment to the user improving in the future. In my opinion, we shouldn't bend backward and accomodate such a problematic user just because he has a mental problem especially not because banning will fuel his personal conspiracy of Putin and NOT without considering those harmed by him. We don't treat malicious/incompetent conspiracy mongers with kindness, I don't see why this person is much different. Finally, there is a competency guideline at Wikipedia. It might be worth reviewing. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 09:07, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
    I agree with @ZackMartin on the issue that permabanning me is wrong. It would be furthering the agenda of Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump, the alt-right and the pro-Putin far-left, and would be ableist, hateful discrimination against a person who suffers from mental illness. I was influenced by Russia, the alt-right and the far-left (whom Putin is popular with), and I'm willing to wean myself off their influence, as agreed with FuzzyCatPotato. -- Bryan See (talk) 09:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Only because infinite bans are generally silly are rarely produce results substantially different from 1 year bans. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. i feel like we are being asked to make a decision without the relevant information. what harrassment thats not been deleted seems pretty minor to me. if not for harrasment, what is the basis of this decision? mental health issues? not liking his articles? perhaps they warrant further discussion, but it seems we are being asked about harrassment specifically. it would be wrong to base it on anything else without adequate discussion or direction. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:57, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. ClickerClock (talk) 05:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Defense[edit]

That particular conspiracy theory that has gotten him kickbanned from several other places is being manufactured by the Russian Kremlin some six years ago. The alt-right (and Russian trolls) are behind this, but Russian President Vladimir Putin himself cultivated it, in order to precipitate the rise of Donald Trump into the US Presidency. I'm not sure whether Putin will respond to this ban as well, but he'll surely will. Therefore I am apologizing for this. -- Bryan See (talk) 04:17, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Listen. I know you are very scared but please do not attack our editors. I am concerned about the wellbeing of our editors. I am concerned about your health. I request that you focus on your studies. It is very important that this Russia mess does not distract from your studying. I did say that getting a degree would contribute greatly to your goals. What are you done in the past to help cope with your fears about Putin? It must be very stressful. —ClickerClock (talk) 04:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes. I'm sorry for attacking our editors as you are concerned about their wellbeing. The Russian influence corrupted me for six years, but my health still strong. I did so many good contributions like Ramzan Kadyrov recently. Why did anyone here outweigh them as negative? There are powerful forces at work.
"What are you done in the past to help cope with your fears about Putin?"
Vindicated, at least. The U.S. intelligence community's reports, as well as bombshells that Facebook, Google and Youtube have all been used by Russian operatives, have shown there's Russian influence on the Internet. You know that I extremely hate BatteryIncluded for this, but I do not wish to attack and harass anyone of you on this Wiki.
I don't want to be indefinitely banned, but anyone should recognize my contributions as positive. I'll learn of my mistakes. I will. -- Bryan See (talk) 04:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
"[A]nyone should recognize my contributions as positive."
Threatening a person you know to be a minor over a conspiracy theory is not in any way positive. CJ-Moki (talk) 04:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry for threatening a person I know to be a minor over a conspiracy theory. -- Bryan See (talk) 05:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Probation[edit]

Bryan See is, most likely, guilty of harassment as defined in the blocking policy, "Adding purely offensive material, solely for the purpose of causing emotional harm, into a page." However, it is clear that he is extremely stressed and has made positive contributions. Therefore, I propose that he be found guilty but allowed to remain at the site, provided he meets the following probationary conditions:

  1. Bryan See offers an apology to Bigs and any other users he has harassed on their respective talkpages.
  2. Bryan See is only allowed to edit his draftspace, his essayspace, his talkpage, the talkpage of someone who has pinged him, coop cases related to him, and the Saloon Bar. Any articles he creates will have to begin as drafts/essays before entering mainspace.
  3. Bryan See is not allowed to mention Phobosgate, the Fobos-Grunt mission, the Wikipedians BatteryIncluded, Boing! said Zebedee, or any other Wikipedians involved in the Phobosgate on Wikipedia, or anyone who was involved in Phobosgate on any other website.
  4. Bryan See is indefinitely put into sysoprevoke, indefinitely de-autopatrolled, put into the vandal bin for the next week, and will not be allowed to run for moderator until this decision is struck down.
  5. Bryan See is not be allowed to create sockpuppets.
  6. Bryan See is to post these probationary conditions on his userpage.
  7. Bryan See understands that violation of any of these will result in a summary permaban.

What do you think? RoninMacbeth (talk) 05:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Extreme stress is no excuse for harassing minors. See seems to have little interest in editing RationalWiki outside of writing about the topics mentioned in Condition #3 (which he would be prohibited from doing if these conditions to be put into effect). Considering his edit history, See would almost certainly violate these conditions. CJ-Moki (talk) 05:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
But I would agree to Conditions #1, #2, #5 #6, #7. I"m aware of Russian influence, but I'm sorry for my willingness to violate any of these conditions. -- Bryan See (talk) 05:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
No. Agree to all or agree to none. Most likely, you will be found guilty. The only variable now is if you are on probation or are permabanned. If you do not accept all seven conditions, then you will be permabanned. Listen, I know you can do good work. Baba Vanga shows that. But you also harassed minors and RWians, which is unacceptable. Justice will be dispensed, the only question now is will there also be mercy? Please choose wisely, Bryan. You can do good work here. RoninMacbeth (talk) 05:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry for being found guilty. I think I will agree to all conditions, because Baba Vanga and Ramzan Kadyrov show that. I answer there will be mercy. -- Bryan See (talk) 05:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Good. I'm sorry this had to happen, Bryan. Mob! Does the probation seem reasonable to you?— Unsigned, by: RoninMacbeth / talk / contribs
@RoninMacbeth: "Listen, I know you can do good work. Baba Vanga shows that."
I hate to be that guy, but you really shouldn't give credit to Bryan See for the Baba Vanga article. Look at the edit history for the page. Basically everything Bryan See added was wrong or misleading. CowHouse (talk) 05:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
But he started the article, which I don't think any of us was about to do. He added something missional, and if he's given instruction he might improve the quality of his articles. RoninMacbeth (talk) 05:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
@CowHouse: "Basically everything Bryan See added was wrong or misleading."
I'm trying to right these. Whether I'm influenced by Russia or not, I'm learning. -- Bryan See (talk) 06:05, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I used to be worse than Bryan. If I can learn, then so can he. RoninMacbeth (talk) 06:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
We may have been influenced by Russia all along, I agree with you. I'm learning. -- Bryan See (talk) 06:19, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
It's true that he added the article. I just don't want you to be giving Bryan See the impression that his contributions to Baba Vanga were accurate, because he believes the fake prophecies attributed to her. CowHouse (talk) 06:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
@CowHouse: "I just don't want you to be giving Bryan See the impression that his contributions to Baba Vanga were accurate, because he believes the fake prophecies attributed to her."
These fake prophecies were made up by Russian web (including its social media) and right-wing networks (including conspiracy theories and tabloids), as her prophecies attributed to her were written in Bulgarian and never credibly translated into English. I guess this is another instance of Russian influence on the web. Now I know they are fake, that's why she is being called the "Nostra-dumbass of the Balkans" in the article.
What about Ramzan Kadyrov? Last I heard that it was being a good draft. -- Bryan See (talk) 06:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I will agree to the probation, but all of his contributions must be monitored as well. S.H. DeLong (talk) 20:07, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
That's why he will be de-autopoatrolled. Any sysops watching the RC feed will see whatever he writes. RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Then I want to be the one who watches over him.S.H. DeLong (talk) 20:34, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes/No ban[edit]

@ZackMartin If you agree with the probation? If so, you sign here. @Bigs, you can't be for probation and pro infinity ban. —ClickerClock (talk) 10:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

  1. ClickerClock (talk) 05:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. RoninMacbeth (talk) 05:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. ѕυρяємє ℓєα∂єя вιgѕ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ᴡᴏʀᴅs ᴏғ ᴡɪsᴅᴏᴍ/ᴀᴄʜɪᴇᴠᴇᴍᴇɴᴛs) 10:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. RSamys (talk) 12:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Bryan should also required to notify Ronin MacBeth or Fuzzy Cat Potato before he writes any new articles to make sure that they fit the mission statement. He also has to say that he alone was responsible for the Harassment of Bigs and Zack and that the russians had nothing to do with it. Other than that i vote yes.S.H. DeLong (talk) 20:07, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  6. @ClickerClock -- Bryan See (talk) 15:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  7. This is a reasonable solution as set forth by RoninMacbeth. It does not preclude Bryan See from obtaining further privileges in the future based on sustained good behavior, nor does it preclude a future permaban based on violation of the probation. Bongolian (talk) 20:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  8. Reasonable proposal, RoninMacbeth.-⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk) 21:43, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  9. Not in principle opposed, although I do wonder if maybe some of the conditions are excessively strict and should be loosened somewhat. (((Zack Martin))) 22:14, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
    If Bryan behaves, then the conditions can be revisited. RoninMacbeth (talk) 22:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  10. Per, I'll give Bryan a chance to improve, using benefit of doubt, but one screw up and that's it. That being said, the wording of "infinite" and "perma" isn't necessarily "last forever" and bans can always be undone at a later point, so keep that in mind. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 23:57, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

No[edit]

  1. CJ-Moki (talk) 05:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Spud (talk) 06:43, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Bryan See should be required to notify a mod or RoninMacbeth/S.H. DeLong if they write a new article[edit]

This proposal was originally made by S.H. DeLong.-⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk) 21:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

S.H. DeLong could also be notified.-⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk) 22:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes[edit]

  1. -⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. S.H. DeLong (talk) 21:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. S.H. DeLong is his parole officer/adult supervisor. I think he should be the non-mod Bryan reports to, but I'll do it if necessary. RoninMacbeth (talk) 21:57, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. ѕυρяємє ℓєα∂єя вιgѕ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ᴡᴏʀᴅs ᴏғ ᴡɪsᴅᴏᴍ/ᴀᴄʜɪᴇᴠᴇᴍᴇɴᴛs) 23:57, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. CJ-Moki (talk) 04:40, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  6. Bongolian (talk) 05:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  7. ClickerClock (talk) 05:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  8. -- Bryan See (talk) 07:53, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

No[edit]

A Russian meddling[edit]

It is clear that Phobosgate is a ruse/conspiracy theory made up and pushed by the Kremlin, as part of Russian meddling through wikis, and I'm being used a weapon of mass propaganda by Putin. For the past six years, I always come under attack by the Russian government. As a result, under this influence, I started writing about this non-existent thing called Phobosgate and creating draft pages about Wikipedia editors, I knew he was going to be trouble. Most of the Phobosgate page is copypasted from the article about myself on Encyclopaedia Dramatica, it's propaganda justifying how I got banned from Wikipedia and (horrible troll site though it is) from Encyclopaedia Dramatica too, by alternative facts. The alt-right took advantage of me, and you did not aware that Russian meddling extend here. My conclusion is that Russian influence and meddling that got me justifiably banned from the Wiki; Russia Today and Sputnik News (purveyors of fake news) are the culprits.

I call upon everyone to use every resource available to conduct a thorough investigation to determine exactly how this happened. I call Spud's comments about me in question. My mental behaviour is not bad, and computers do not cause it to become worse. Look at Baba Vanga and Ramzan Kadyrov, both of which are good. I also contributed articles like Kleptocracy. And so on. I'm sorry for causing harm to the project. -- Bryan See (talk) 07:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

It is obvious you require mental health assistance.
You need to seek it and stop projecting your issues on Russian "influence and meddling". Castaigne2 (talk) 22:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Per. The Russians didn't do this, you did. Blaming your problems on Russians makes you look dishonest, especially when no one else believes you since you consistently fail to demonstrate any plausible evidence that the Russians are affecting you. It's counterproductive to yourself and to the community. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 23:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
@Bryan See Stop blaming The Russians and Putin for what you have done and take responsibility for your actions dammit!!! S.H. DeLong (talk) 00:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
If he is to stay, then blaming Russians, the Kremlin and/or Putin for his own actions should be added to his probationary conditions. See saying "My mental behaviour is not bad, and computers do not cause it to become worse" was a giant red flag to me. Nobody ever suggested computers made it worse, which makes me think computers are negatively impacting his mental health. He already accidentally admitted he does have mental health issues when he said this:
"I agree with ZackMartin on the issue that permabanning me is wrong. It would be furthering the agenda of Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump, the alt-right and the pro-Putin far-left, and would be ableist, hateful discrimination against a person who suffers from mental illness."
I disagree with ZackMartin's assessment that banning him "would be discrimination against a person who suffers from mental illness". If See's mental health is negatively affected by computers then who does it benefit to encourage him to stay? It's about as discriminatory as telling someone who has Coeliac disease to avoid gluten. CowHouse (talk) 01:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't want to imply anything, really, I don't, but as I said, we're not banning this person because he's likely impaired, we're banning him because of his actions. His mental problem is a part of it, but I bring up a parallel between sociopaths who wrong society (let's say they steal, not kill, so we don't go too extreme to the point people fault my analogy). They have a mental health problem that prevents them from feeling empathy or consider their actions. We should still severely restrict and monitor this person's actions and if the crime is serious, the person still cannot escape the law. Barring this person is the appropriate action to take without discriminating the person based on the mental health condition as it seems like it's the best solution. While this person being annoying and only potentially a problem later isn't the same scale as stealing, I think it's a similar thing. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 01:27, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
I have to agree with CowHouse, another condition should be is that Bryan must say he alone was responsible for the harassment of Bigs and Zack and that Putin and the Russians had nothing to do with his actions. S.H. DeLong (talk) 01:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Unless I'm mistaken, he never harassed Zack. CowHouse (talk) 02:27, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
@S.H. DeLong: I think these are my same actions that precipitated the blinding rise of Donald Trump, whose curiosity was piqued by my ban. I think I'm sorry for that, and any harassment (I didn't mean to). -- Bryan See (talk) 07:54, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
@Castaigne2 @LeftyGreenMario @S.H. DeLong Just to let everyone in this discussion know, Bryan See took a screenshot of this section ("A Russian meddling") and posted the following on Twitter:
The Far-Left is defending Russia and Putin; I know why they facilitated the election of 45 back in '16 @thedailybeast #TheResistance #Resist CowHouse (talk) 08:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
To let you know that, whether by accident or design, have facilitated the rise of Donald Trump, the most extremist and reactionary president this country has ever elected. Anyway, I'm sorry for my actions. -- Bryan See (talk) 13:48, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Am I the only one who gets in a "fowl" mood over these coop cases? 67.76.216.5 (talk) 23:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that pun was atrocious. Um... "ave" higher? I'm sorryKazitor, pending 00:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
No you're not the only one, but we just lie back and think of England when these things need to be done. RoninMacbeth (talk) 00:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to delete probation-related pages from Bryan See[edit]

Under point #3 of Bryan See's probation, he is not allowed to discuss anything related to Fobos-Grunt and Wikipedia editors. To make it easier for him and to avoid making edits which would result in a ban, and so he can focus on more constructive contributions, I suggest these pages should be deleted: *[[User:Bryan See/Fobos-Grunt]] *[[User:Bryan See/Phobosgate]] *[[User:Bryan See/Universiti Putra Malaysia]] (not missional and mentions Phobosgate) *Wikipedia editors: **[[User:Bryan See/T. D. Adler]] **[[User:Bryan See/Encyclopedist]] CowHouse (talk) 03:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and did it, SNOW and all that. Christopher (talk) 08:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes[edit]

  1. ⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk) 04:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. CJ-Moki (talk) 04:40, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. S.H. DeLong (talk) 05:30, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. RoninMacbeth (talk) 05:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. ClickerClock (talk) 05:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  6. Spud (talk) 07:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  7. I think it's neccessary. -- Bryan See (talk) 07:53, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  8. ѕυρяємє ℓєα∂єя вιgѕ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ᴡᴏʀᴅs ᴏғ ᴡɪsᴅᴏᴍ/ᴀᴄʜɪᴇᴠᴇᴍᴇɴᴛs) 12:25, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

No[edit]

Verdict[edit]

From what I can tell, the vote has been in favor of the following actions:

  1. Placement of Bryan See under the aforementioned probationary conditions.
  2. Mandatory notification of the aforementioned individuals by Bryan See prior to the creation of any article.
  3. Deletion of probation-related articles.

Any objections? If not, let's wrap this up. RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I have a clarification rather than an objection. Is there a three-strike rule for breaching his probationary conditions, or will he be banned after a single breach without discussion? Additionally, there should probably be a time limit for some of them (particularly #2). This will give him an incentive to improve his behaviour. Only #3 and #5 should be permanent in my opinion. CowHouse (talk) 15:30, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
In terms of how many offenses warrant a permaban, that is for @S.H. DeLong to decide. Basically, Bryan See is a permabanned editor writing. He is guilty of harassment, but has been shown clemency until such time as he has atoned or has violated the terms of his probation. Should anyone think he is trustworthy, they can raise the issue down the line. Perhaps a moderator vote with DeLong also having a say would be used to overturn portions of his probation. RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:48, 14 October 2017 (UTC)