RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive90

Desysoping of UT

UnlicensedThinker is a concern troll and the mob at large has had enough. The rules say he needs a trial at the coop though so here it is. Commie Lib (talk) 02:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Ban the fucker. — Oxyaena ^Harass 02:57, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Let me state it outright, I will ban him anyways. Enough is enough. — Oxyaena ^Harass 02:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I support removing his sysop rights, and I will happily look the other way if someone decides to unilaterally perma-ban him. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 03:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Now now let's at least keep the veneer of a fair trial. Commie Lib (talk) 03:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Fuck it, I banned him. I accept all responsibility for this heinous crime, and any consequences that may come from it. — Oxyaena ^Harass 03:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Per DuceMoosolini. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 04:01, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@Tabula Rasa: UT was your demotion. You gave him his mop. Do you say that you were mistaken to do so? If not, what can you say in his defense? Ariel31459 (talk) 04:23, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ariel31459 now I wouldn't have demoted him. But to unilaterally take away the tools and perm ban them seems like a bad precedent to start. Commie Lib (talk) 04:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

What do you think will happen in the future? I mean, there's the positive result that polite concern trolls aren't tolerated, but there's the flip side of being suspicious of everyone that disagrees here. I say we start dealing with polite concern trolls only after a particular time span of letting the potential concern trolls act their own way, and if they start getting tiresome and don't really edit the wiki mainspace and keep riling up the mob, that would be the means to be suspicious of a potential concern troll. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 04:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Theres the problem that concern troll is a vague label and making it an offense could be dangerous. Commie Lib (talk) 04:34, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Is UT able to comment in this discussion? Ariel31459 (talk) 05:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Don't think so Commie Lib (talk) 05:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Is there any purpose served in preventing him from representing himself, should he choose to do so? Ariel31459 (talk) 05:37, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘UT should be given the chance to represent himself here. Bongolian (talk) 07:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@Tabula Rasa Indeed,it is a vague and easily-misused label. I, however, proposed a means of identifying potential concern trolls. This includes problematic argument style that are components of intellectual dishonesty: misrepresenting arguments, failing to address most of the arguments, failing to comprehend basic words and semantics, tangential pedantry/semantic quibbling (in spite of also being unable to grasp language) rather than addressing the main point, and strawman (though I don't think UnlicensedThinker has done this) to list a few. This sort of thing shouldn't be present in just one debate, however, it should be present over a sustained period of time over multiple threads, especially if user has not properly identified problems with the argument being made but rather focuses on the mounting frustration of the opposing parties and doubles-down by saying that it's problem around user. Finally, user hasn't contributed to mainspace in proportion to Saloon Bar, or if they have contributed to mainspace, it's usually a single issue, but that alone isn't means to be suspicious. So, what do you think of how I identify concern trolls and intellectual dishonesty? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion there is no need Sysoprevoke someone who has hasn't abused the tools or is likely to abuse the tools. Since a ban for UT has been discussed and rejected by the community before, it seems to me that this is a plot to remove UT's unblocking abilities so someone can quietly block him at a later date. The debate about his Saloon Bar posts confuses me as well. Nobody is under any obligation to read and reply to him. --RWRW (talk) 21:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

UnlicensedThinker

I read your comments in the moderation section and you made clear that: either you will ban me (or limit my edits in a way equivalent to ban) despite I did not break any rule; or you will change the rules adding something like "no concern trolling" (aka, no mention to topics disliked by the very left leaning mob), and then you will ban me. Said so, do whatever you want. Thinker^(unlicensed) 10:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Far-left pitchfork mob represent! — Dysk (contribs) 11:05, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like you understand why you are being accused of concern troll and intellectual dishonesty. You have repeatedly engaged in pedantry, misunderstood basic language despite it constantly being spelled out to you, used super disingenuous arguments like false equivalencies despite those also being spelled out to you why you're wrong. That, and you never changed your behavior, expressed no regret or concern for frustrating people, blamed instead the "very left wing mob", and repeatedly made new threads in Saloon Bar generally involving that behavior on your part rather than give us any impression you want to improve the wiki, even after you were cooped several times. If anyone wants to elaborate on your behavior, that'll be appreciated. I doubt you'll "understand" anything, though, but it's more of behavior we'll try to find similarities with in potential future polite concern trolls. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 16:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Bongolian (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Chronic intellectual dishonesty runs counter to our mission statement. This is not an issue of political differences. I can't even tell what UT's political position is other stirring shit up. Demopping is a reasonable response to this behavior. Bongolian (talk) 16:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Ou, and to be fair, UnlicensedThinker has made more neutral threads that were mistakenly seen as concern trolling when they are not, and even I had made the mistake of distrusting UnlicensedThinker's take on a story involving faulty reporting on WaPo's part. This, however, is eclipsed by practically the rest. People should fess up and admit they were straight out wrong there. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 17:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Like I said before, that's "The Boy Who Cried Wolf". If you troll us all the time, we're going to assume you're trolling us even when you're not. Spud (talk) 05:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

It seems UT won't admit that he is concern trolling, half the time. If he can't admit it, or even doesn't realize it, that produces problems. He is not acclimating to the culture here, and does not appear to wish to do so. He has not recognized the need to change his behavior. Ariel31459 (talk) 18:01, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

"This is not an issue of political differences"

@Bongolian Ehm... The user who started all this coop thing blocked me by literally saying I am a "Nazi scumbag," and every time I got accused of being a "concern troll" these accusations come together with claims that I am ring-wing, far-right, fascist, Nazi, white-supremacist, ... So it's clearly political. Thinker^(unlicensed) 19:00, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘One person's opinion is obviously not consensus. Defending yourself with intellectual dishonesty is not going to get you very far. Bongolian (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

"One person's opinion is obviously not consensus."

@Bongolian You missed this bit, bro -> "and every time I got accused of being..." It's not only Oxyaena that came at me with political accusations, at least five other users did. I hardly remember being accused of "concern trolling", "intellectual dishonesty", or whatever you call it, without being also accused of being ring-wing, far-right, fascist, Nazi, white-supremacist, ...

"Defending yourself"

I'm not defending myself, I'm just pointing at blatant lies. As I said: "Do whatever you want." Thinker^(unlicensed) 20:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

What are the blatant lies? Your posts often suggest right-wing perspective, and that is not against the rules, you just have to accept the scorn that is associated with the far-right. People often use "fascist" as a synonym for far-right, which is at least inaccurate if only because fascism is always authoritarian while many on the right are libertarian. "Nazi" is almost always just an insult except for those who claim to be Nazis. Sometimes our users are just not playing well with others. And you are an other. I suppose you are a white reactionary, though I could be wrong. Many of your posts suggest you are trying to needle users who have very left of center ideas. Often, they just seem kind of dumb, like the one regarding Trump support banned on a web-page dedicated to Knitting and Crocheting. It seemed satirical but very inappropriate. I ask again, why? Ariel31459 (talk) 21:34, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

What about the accusations of sexism and racism? Do you have a defence against those? Commie Lib (talk) 22:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@Tabula Rasa All empty accusations. I had challenged many times, many users, to provide a racist, sexists, or what else the empty accusation is, claim that I made. They never provided one. Look at my talk page. I recently asked to a user who repeatedly accused me of being a white supremacist to provide a definition of white supremacism (since he disagrees with the one of Oxford dictionary) and to provide a sentence I said that is white supremacist according to his definition. He never did. It's amazing you believe I should defend myself against accusations made by people unwilling to provide evidences: "You are a thief! Now what's your defense?" Thinker^(unlicensed) 07:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

While many ideological criticisms of you are quite accurate, the real issue is the concern trolling, which we don't want on the website. We've had quite a few people in the past who did so, but none were as prolific or wholly obnoxious as you. Spriggina (xerrada) (contribucions) @ 23:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

In particular, UT has been repeatedly warned not to attempt to prevent remedies for his concern trolling by not undoing troll collapses on his posts (User talk:UnlicensedThinker#Please do not uncollapse troll comments). So yes, @RWRW, UT has been breaking rules by 1) trolling 2) edit warring and 3) working against RW's principles via intellectual dishonesty. Bongolian (talk) 23:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Ban

1. Ban the motherfucker. — Oxyaena ^Harass 03:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
2. I offered him the chance to start afresh. He rejected it. He's not going to get better. I can only see his time here coming to an end by his going too far and getting banned. We might as well get it over with now. Spud (talk) 05:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
   • @SpudShouldn't the punishment come after the crime? ^{— Unsigned, by: Tabula Rasa / talk / contribs}
   • @Tabula Rasa Well, clearly some believe the crime has already been committed. And I think we're only delaying the inevitable. Spud (talk) 12:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
3. UT has exhausted my patience. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 08:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
4. No. Ideology may play only in part, but to claim it is ideology based is missing the intellectual dishonesty. Those claiming to "just ignore" (e.g. opposition votes) has evidently also never really followed past drama involving this user. Ignore does not work. Leaving intellectually dishonest people to go without response in Saloon Bar can be a form of validation. UnlicensedThinker is not a useful user nor is it a productive user to the wiki's cause; I will argue that this user is a toxic influence by provoking everyone to respond aggressively even if user is posting in better faith. We gave this user far too many chances, since this feels like the third coop this user has went into. Clearly, there is something wrong, something not addressed in our rules, but something that probably should have. Sysoprevoke won't prevent Saloon Bar posting. It might be a symbolic sanction, but I doubt it will change anything in the long-term. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
5. I appreciate y'all coming to your senses.RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
6. I think the bullshit and intellectual dishonesty of this particular user has gone on long enough. Ban 'em. ⏣sapient_cogbag⏣ ^talk 20:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
7. Had enough with time-wasting trolls. Bongolian (talk) 01:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC) (#Sysop revoke. From the Sysop guide, "However, they may need to make occasional judicious use of their blocking powerz to temporarily slow down abusive or offensive users and, perhaps, trolls." A reasonable interpretation of this statement is that when a sysop acts as a troll, they need to be revoked. Bongolian (talk) 08:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC) given that sysop revoke is not likely to win the vote, I would support banning in the interest of removing trolling in the face of UT's intransigence and lack of caring as to what happens. Bongolian (talk) 01:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC))
8. Was willing to give this person another chance, but they just can't seem to keep away from shitting up the saloon bar despite the discussion here. I support a 3 month ban at minimum. Cosmikdebris (talk) 18:19, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Change the rules and then ban

1. Why don't you change the rules of this community in order to forbid my behavior? Don't you think that, whatever my "destiny" will be, I won't be the last of the UnlicensedThinkers to join RationalWiki? At least be honest and write in your community standards that UnlicensedThinkering is forbidden. Thinker^(unlicensed) 18:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Man, you're still being obnoxious even as we decide how exactly to punish you for your sins. I at least admire the persistence. Spriggina (xerrada) (contribucions) @ 19:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Imagine talking shit to the executioner as they pull the lever lolRipCityLiberal (talk) 21:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@RipCityLiberal Imagine drawing parallels between ban from a Wiki and capital punishment. Anyway, also @LeftyGreenMario ("Clearly, there is something wrong, something not addressed in our rules"), @142․124․55․236 ("Whatever the results happen to be, it might be a good idea to take said results and establish some official-ish precedent"), @Noir LeSable ("Concur"), and @Tabula Rasa ("declare certain actions to be punishable before hand") agree that there is some problem with the rules. Thinker^(unlicensed) 14:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Alternatively we could agree the rules are perfectly fine, stop freaking out, and make sure you never post on the saloon bar again because it so annoying. — Dysk (contribs) 14:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

This is definitely among the most frustrating things about non-English speakers, taking alliteration too seriously. And I know that is very anglocentric of me, but it is frustrating.RipCityLiberal (talk) 15:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

"This is definitely among the most frustrating things about non-English speakers, taking alliteration too seriously."

alliteration? Thinker^(unlicensed) 15:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Don't ban (suggest alternative action)

1. I'd be fine with declaring the saloon bar off-limits if that's what's been riling people up so much. 142․124․55․236 (talk) 04:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
2. Remove sysop (sysoprevoke probably not necessary), ban from the Saloon Bar. No further action is warranted. Spriggina (xerrada) (contribucions) @ 18:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
3. A temporary block of some duration as suggested by RoninMacbeth. Ariel31459 (talk) 04:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
4. I'm in agreement with D (with the addition that I don't think there's anything stopping simply collapsing the comments into a collapse/expand box either). To be clear, I think we would be remiss if absolutely nothing stemmed from this, and I do think having a "Bar Brawl" or other page where overly controversial, offensive, or argumentative threads get moved (as suggested in the Goat section below) is a good suggestion, but that's not a specific action against UT. EDIT: In light of the Thinkery suggestion below, I'm shifting my vote.ℕoir LeSable (talk) 20:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

No punishment/action is warranted at this time

1. I oppose this ideological sanction. I repeat what I said earlier on this page (and in other discussions): There is no obligation for anyone to read and reply to anything UT posts at the Bar. And I also suggest those who voted to Sysoprevoke/considering voting to Sysoprevoke look at my above post about how somebody will just quietly ban UT without community consensus if they don't get it here. --RWRW (talk) 09:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
2. Nothing stopping literally anyone moving UTs posts to the bin his talk page or someplace if you are really fed up with them. Essentially this ban proposal comes down to "UT is annoying us, we must ban him" which in my considered opinion is not a bannable offense, however irritating. Furthermore, I oppose as a matter of principle the idea of removing sysop tools where there has been no abuse of said tools warranting removal. — Dysk (contribs) 11:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

   Look at the number of COOP cases involving UT, do we really want more of this shit? — Oxyaena ^Harass 20:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

   A search of the archives is only showing 3 cases for "UnlicensedThinker" (81, 83, and 85), one they started themselves, and the other two didn't have enough to be voted on. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

   Jesus fucking Christ, the user's a detriment to the community, he's disruptive and people are clearly getting pissed. Stop defending a known bullshitter, UT is a fucking bore, and I don't know if I want to continue to be on a site that allows such disingenuous, toxic people on it. — Oxyaena ^Harass 21:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

   Yes, people are irritated and want him banned. That is the entire point. It doesn't change the principle of why I think firm action to mitigate UT and others like him is preferable over increased stonewalling of dissenting views which I deem incompatible with the mission of this wiki. — Dysk (contribs) 13:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

   Not defending, just pointing out relevant info about COOP cases. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 15:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

3. His actions weren't ban able at the time and he hasn't abused his tools or trolled any mainpages. Commie Lib (talk) 16:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Goat

• Whatever the results happen to be, it might be a good idea to take said results and establish some official-ish precedent so it's a bit more clear what behaviour is regarded as deserving punitive measures and what those measures should be. 142․124․55․236 (talk) 04:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Concur. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 20:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• Yeah declare certain actions to be punishable before hand. Commie Lib (talk) 04:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• I already discussed this precedent and laid out how to identify a concern troll. It's about time we try to crack down on noxious longer-term concern trolls / sea lions. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• I like the idea of removing offensive posts and posting them somewhere else, e.g., creating a troll saloon. That is, a place where troll-posts can be answered by those who feel it is their duty to reply, and the rest can blissfully ignore. An option could be included where users grade entries in the Troll Saloon. This would be a democratic way to id trolls. I think that would be amusing.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• We also have something similar called "the pit" and "quarantine" on Discord too.... --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• I like @Ariel31459's suggestions, this balances moderating disruptive behavior with examining shitty opinions (something this website is about I might add) all while avoiding setting precedents that may (or may not) come back to bite us in the ass. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• I also like @Ariel31459's suggestion for a troll saloon. We have something similar on the Discord and it's bloody hilarious. ⏣sapient_cogbag⏣ ^talk 20:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Concur. Spriggina (xerrada) (contribucions) @ 21:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• If a space is created like this, it needs to be explicit that none of the discussion has any merit and thought experiments are intentionally trolly.RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• Let's revive the currently-dead debate space for it. 🤔 --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Debate space is not dead, it's just moribund. Nothing prevented UT from using it. UT chose the Saloon because that's where the action is troll-wise. Bongolian (talk) 01:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• I suppose the big question is if we, the community, can ban people not for breaking the rules, but for being a nuisance. If so, then he can be banned. If not, what specific rule violations has UT committed? If none, then a ban is not warranted. HOWEVER, I believe that the community should have the right to temporarily exile a person if they wish. At most, I believe we should block UT for a period of no more than 3 months, if only to let him either sit down and think about what he's done, or leave of his own volition. Unless, of course, you can convince me that he has violated one of our rules that allows us to permaban him. RoninMacbeth (talk) 22:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  • That's assuming good-will on UnlicensedThinker's part, the capacity for self-reflection and change. Given his history, this assumption of good-will contrasts with his actual behavior of doubling down and ignoring warnings from other users. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose giving chronic trolls or those who are chronically intellectually dishonest the benefit of the doubt. They are not acting in good faith by definition and should not be catered to. If they want a troll pit, they can go post on Encyclopædia Dramatica/4chan/8chan/Uncyclopedia. Bongolian (talk) 01:38, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Seems rather unfair to group Uncyclopedia in with those first three nasty sites, seeing as they're generally just immature rather than malicious. This is a good point, though. Spriggina (xerrada) (contribucions) @ 03:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Noted! Bongolian (talk) 04:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
      • @Bongolian it seems like most people are in favor of either temp blocking or not punishing UT. What will happen? Commie Lib (talk) 04:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

It's very simple. Whenever UT posts on the Saloon bar, his post gets moved to Debate:UnlicensedThinkery by whoever sees it first. Everybody can do whatever they like on this debate page, or completely ignore it. In the meantime UT isn't banned just restricted. In future troll posts from other users could be moved to the thinkery as desired. — Dysk (contribs) 15:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Aye

1. — Dysk (contribs) 15:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
2. Ariel31459 (talk) 17:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
3. Basically what I said above. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 18:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
4. Not a fan of removing his saloon bar posts, but if it prevents UT getting banned then I’ll endorse. —RWRW (talk) 20:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
5. This sets a precedent to deal with this sort of thing in the future, as well as solving the more immediate problem. I vote yay. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Nay

1. It's pointless because they have no interest in complex discussion and regurgitate white supremacist talking points.RipCityLiberal (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
2. Ban. — Oxyaena ^Harass 15:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
3. No: it's catering to a troll. UT has shown no interest in reform (e.g., repeatedly removing troll collapses, trolling his own coop case). Bongolian (talk) 15:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

   I wouldn't call it catering. Every civilization has to have a way to process garbage. The proposal practically eliminates the need for this kind of tedious COOP argument.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

4. Hell no! We shouldn't bend over backwards to cater to just one troll. Ban him. Spud (talk) 06:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

   Exactly. — Oxyaena ^Harass 08:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

5. No, ban him instead. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 11:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
6. Why to go to all that extra work? This action would be bending over backward and condoning the actions of a disruptive user. Cosmikdebris (talk) 18:20, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

   Not sure how banning someone from the saloon bar amounts to bending over backward or condoning anything. Seems like an odd false dichotomy. 142․124․55․236 (talk) 20:16, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Goat

• It could actually be a good idea to move certain posts from the saloon to a debate area. The questions are: Why only my posts should be moved to a debate area? Why this, this, or this one, can stay in the saloon bar while this has to be moved? Thinker^(unlicensed) 15:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

  Because i'm lazy and didn't read them but yeah the idea is that any concern troll like you that is not technically breaking the rules can be restricted from the saloon bar. I would anticipate if you started trying to get round this by making comments on other peoples saloon bar posts then your comments would simply be removed, since your effective ban from the saloon bar is implicit in this proposal. — Dysk (contribs) 15:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• This does not deal with the sysoprevoke issue, but I am otherwise in favor. Spriggina (xerrada) (contribucions) @ 18:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Decision (?)

I don't get it: The counter has restarted but it seems to me that no decision has been taken. Thinker^(unlicensed) 14:13, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

There has been no decision yet (obviously). I advised you to stay out of the Saloon while this case was active (User talk:UnlicensedThinker#Coop notice). You have not stayed out of the Saloon.[1][2] Bongolian (talk) 18:09, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised? — Oxyaena ^Harass 18:20, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Please follow the moderator's directions.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

People seem to be in favor of banning, give me one good reason why I shouldn't follow through. Just one. — Oxyaena ^Harass 19:32, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Come on guys... We all know how it's gonna end. Oxyaena needs it so much, give it to him or he's gonna get mad. Thinker^(unlicensed) 19:41, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

We currently have 8 votes in favor of a ban, 4 for punishment of less than total ban, and 3 for no punishment. Banning wins, barring any last minute changes. I support closing the case. Bongolian (talk) 19:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@UnlicensedThinker You just let the cat out of the bag, you asshole, it's she, not "he." Ban it is then. — Oxyaena ^Harass 20:16, 4 July 2019 (UTC)